< 16 June	18 June >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Bernroider

[edit]

Non-notable scientist with a plethora of fringe/pseudoscience views, and no independent sources. Abductive (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Abductive (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cites at GScholar are rather low, indicating he hasn't had a big influence on his field. GNews finds 1 story about a person by this name's work, but a rough translation seems to indicate it is not an independent source and probably is a different person anyway since there is no mention of bird studies in our article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a non-notable fringist to me. No particularly notable work, no real mention in the media... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. FRINGE sources don't add up to reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fringe sources are indeed not valid for WP:Prof notability, but may be so for notability more generally. In this case they probably aren't. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Could we please have a more respectful tone for this particular deletion discussion? Sure, maybe the guy isn't qualified for an article but there's no reason to insult and pass judgment on the man. Many scientists disagree on various aspects of science.--Gloriamarie (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I have been disrespectful; I agree that great care is needed when discussing living persons. Sadly this convention is not always observed, for example here. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:14, 22 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 result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kongolo Mwamba

[edit]

Broken-sounding, unreferenced, uncategorized, and has sat in its current state for a long time. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 22:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a mess. Doesn't even give us an idea of when this supposedly happened. At this point fails WP:RS and WP:V. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created the article from a Google Translation of the French Wikipedia article of the same name, and I also know that it is lacking for sources. Plus, it makes it worse when any search of Kongolo Mwamba or Nkongolo Mwamba on Google turns up very little, if no, information regarding his period of rule or lifetime, effectively placing him within the sole constraints of Congolese Luba mythology as some revered ancestor with no solid, credible information regarding his existence. I'm not saying that the article shouldn't be deleted, but I've tried to clean it up and place more information into the article. --Toussaint (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources can be found with a Google Books search. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Phil Bridger, books sources are available and in particular, this book can confirm him as the first Luba Kingdom leader. A trip to the library is needed but the material likely satisfies WP:V and the library would have the WP:RS. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources (the books pointed to above) is available establishing notability. Article need referencing and improving not deleting. Davewild (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stenger-Wasas Process

[edit]

This article was originally proposed for deletion with the comment, "Article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." I searched for indications of notability, but as far as I can tell, there is no mention of this chemical process (by this name at least) in the scientific literature (Chemical Abstracts, etc). One reference in the article is simply a link to the company that is promoting this new technology and is therefore not an independent source. The other reference is a blog post discussing Stenger-Wasas Process which notes the lack of available information. For these reasons, I don't think the article meets Wikipedia inclusion guidelines for either notability (WP:N) or verifiability (WP:V). -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essentially original research. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched when it was prodded and came up blank for reliable sources. Until this gets some coverage in reliable secondary sources, there's no way we can have an article on it. All I could find was some blogs mentioning it. Fences&Windows 00:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any reliable sources on this process under this name or any other. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

System of survival

[edit]

Unsure of notability.

Also contains post-October GFDL content that cannot be kept in its current form. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that this is about a musical act - iving artists of international renown in the field of Electronic music - that fails the relevant notability guideline. I do not profess to understand the GFDL argument, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL relicensing provisions only apply to content not originally published on a wiki that was added before November 2008. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that the band meets the notability criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Mundy

[edit]

Not notable. Mundy has a website (the "about" section of which links to his wikipedia bio) and youtube channel, but seems not to have published his "journalism" anywhere else. The only media mention is short profile of his daily commute that appeared in syndicated papers, unrelated to his purported notability. Clearly a self-penned vanity bio. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no indication of notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete agreed, no indication of notability to meet guidelines. 74.79.173.254 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Widmerpool70 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, and meets Wikipedia guidelines; two more solid references recently added since discussion began.

Varsity57(talk) 00:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He got mentioned in a couple of blogs. That does not establish notability.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that his show exists anywhere other than youtube or that he's notable for any other reason.71.240.66.196 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure I need to register a vote since I nominated the article, but here it is in any case.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. It might be worth looking into a merge (i.e., discussing on talk page) but as there's no real consensus here for that either, I don't want to include that in the official closure of this AfD. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of dried cherries

[edit]

Contested prod for what appears to be spam, pure and simple. There is no coverage in independent reliable sources of specifically drying Montmorency cherries as opposed to cherries and/or fruit in general. The two 'references' are the retailer and the university that works with them. The main editors seem to be SPA and have a COI. Nuttah (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question (this is not a keep or delete vote)- I swear this seems familiar, was something like this at afd in the last couple weeks?Umbralcorax (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I was thinking the same thing....I checked the page history and there's nothing in the deletion log. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Found it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History dried tart cherries KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History dried tart cherries by the same original author. However, it was a speedy close due to copyvio which as far as I can tell is not an issue here. Due to that, I don't believe it is a G4 or strictly relevant here. Nuttah (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay then, I thought I was just crazy. ;) Umbralcorax (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This re-creation is barely re-written from the information at the bottom of this page: http://www.utahsredbarn.com/ which was the website from which the original copyright-violating material was taken from for the prior article. It is probably close enough to still constitute a copyright violation but it would be better to let the AfD run so we can stop replaying this with this marketing person. Drawn Some (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~The nomination appears to be incomplete. In the meanwhile, I would support delete. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
- What's missing? Links from article and Articles for Deletion Log are ok for me. Nuttah (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nomination now complete, and discussion has convinced me to change my mind to move to Dried cherry per Badagnani. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The content is potentially encyclopaedic, but not appropriate as a stand-alone article, but might be appropriate as part of a wider article, perhaps on cherries or on dried fruit more generally. The fact that the only substantive section has the same title as the article speaks for itself. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone expunges the entire thing and rewrites it in the next 7 days. Perhaps an encyclopedic topic, but this content is irredeemable spam, pure and simple. It describes a single attempt at drying cherries in a single metropolitan area. The only people who have written anything non-trivial about that actual attempt at drying cherries are the people involved personally (the six pages in "Western Profiles of Innovative Agricultural Marketing" are about their marketing strategy, not about dried cherries). Merging it anywhere would violate WP:WEIGHT --- dried cherries have a history going back for centuries [1] --- one experiment in the 1970s has no significance even to this narrow topic, let alone larger topics like dried fruit or cherry. cab (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I started a new dried cherry article which owes absolutely nothing to this piece of spam. I reiterate my position: Delete, do not move, do not content-merge or history-merge to dried cherry. cab (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Dried cherry (comparable to dried cranberry, raisin, or prune). Badagnani (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see no problem with someone starting a Dried cherry article. However, this article is not a starting point for that. This article is (disguised) spam detailing the creation of a single, non notable, product based on dried cherries. Nuttah (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Do not merge. older ≠ wiser 12:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Oppose Merge - The material is self-serving spam, and does not pass verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Oppose Merge Per above discussion, a new dried cherry article has been started. I agree with cab's comment about the history of dried cherries vis-à-vis this article which does seem to be (barely) disguised spam as Nuttah mentions. Geoff ^T ^C 21:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge. Sorry but we don't delete content because it's advertorial when we can simply fix it per WP:AFD. This seems to be a notable chapter in dried cherry history in the United States. Dried cherries have been documented going back hundreds of years around the world yet this is essentially one paragraph focussed only on developments in the 1970s/1980s. Dried cherries are a notable product in the US so this is certainly a notable subject. However, dried cherry is a very short article and this is also very short. The solution here, absent an editor quickly adding in a massive history of dried cherries justifying this as a stand-alone article, is merging this into the parent article. Even if this is being propogated by some marketer we can use it if it's true and wikified. The history of all food products is tied to companies who specialize in them and making improvements to their industries, We should find ways to make that work for us and this is part of that process. -- Banjeboi 10:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'seems to be a notable chapter in dried cherry history' is the big problem. The trouble is there is no independent evidence that the contents of this article are in any way notable. Nuttah (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur with Nuttah. Normally, I would agree with Benjiboi, as we should fix an advertising tone but this is only the instance when when reliable sources exist to corroborate the information. It doesn't in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Respectfully disagree. There is no evidence pasted onto this article yet. That is a different issue from something being false or unverifiable. Here are quite a few bits that could be tied together to show that what we have is accurate and independently sourced. Pop in the name of the other companies and you'd likely find sourcing to support those as well. -- Banjeboi 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - All of those links, and the companies in the article, are related and not independent. What this article explains is how they went about identifying the optimal process for their business - as every company (that survives) does. Unless there is independent evidence they were the first to do this the process they have used is not unique, inventive or worthy of peer review - no more than my local cafe selecting what equipment they would use is. Nuttah (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're local cafe, however, likely isn't explaining how it changed the processing of coffee beans or milk, probably because they didn't. What we have here is a food processing advancement tied to technology and research. Sorry, I just don't see this as something that is untrue or unverifiable, just something we could use better sourcing and more context to understand if and how it is notable. This article isn't called "great advancements in dried cherry processing". Absent evidence that what we have is actually a hoax I have little reason to dispute what is here. Online sourcing suggests it's true and likely offline sourcing devoted to advancements of equipment in dried cherry processing - quite a read I imagine - likely would as well. -- Banjeboi 19:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        'What we have here is a food processing advancement tied to technology and research' - not even the article makes claims to any advancements. Every dried fruit fruit producer, from cottage industry to multinationals, has to undertake some trial and error tests to match the process to local conditions. This is also an ongoing quality assurance process beyond initial tests. In terms of the history of dried cherries what is included in this article is irrelevant. Nuttah (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I'm not a dried cherry expert. -- Banjeboi 20:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Along with what Nuttah explains, if the process developed by the company was of any significance, there should be some third-party coverage of it. older ≠ wiser 21:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And I believe there is. -- Banjeboi 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep/Merge to dried cherry per Benjiboi. Incidentally, doesn't seem offensively spam-ish to me.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TS Nepean

[edit]

One of the 94 local branches of this admittedly notable organization, no reason given to think that this one might itself be notable, & I can find nothing but trivial mention in Google under several variants, eg. [2] Prod was placed, giving the totally irrelevant reason "There is an ANC policy prohibiting websites outside the www.cadetnet.gov.au " and was removed by an anon. I'd consider it for speed as non-notable group, but given the prod, I thought it should come here first. DGG (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - WP:ORG clearly isn't met. There's a long standing convention that individual Scout and cadet units are generally not notable in isolation, and there seems to be no reason why this cadet unit is any different. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication that this unit is particularly distinguished to confer stand-alone notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of reliable, published sources indicating the notability of the cadet unit. -- saberwyn 08:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete as G7 by Allen3. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Song (novel)

[edit]

I have speedied this twice recently (the second version of the article said simply "Dank asshole"), and I started reaching for the delete button when I saw it reappeared a third time, but I don't think I'm in a position to make an objective call. You make the call. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Grand Central is a mainstream publisher (it used to be Time Warner Books). Seems notable enough on that basis. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make that a delete. The ISBN also belongs to "The Choice." I don't know what this article is, but it is bogus. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Not yet published books. ~~Where the editor got the "plot summary" from I have no idea.~~ The only source cited doesn't even mention The Last Song (it's a review of The Choice). There are some sources discussing the upcoming film with Miley Cyrus ([3][4]), but certainly not enough to make this some sort of a special case. Jafeluv (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind the second sentence. The plot summary is copied from The Choice (novel). Jafeluv (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3. The page is an exact copy of The Choice (novel), except for the character names. Also since Dank has already deleted this twice, as G2 and G3, I expect this was just created to make sure that everyone spends time on this at AfD especially given that there really is a book of this title by the same author. And I'm sorry to realize that in the two years I lived in New Delhi, I didn't get to see the coast. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Athena Security

[edit]

I declined the speedy deletion because articles on computer security software are very difficult calls, and we've had a history of a lot of shady ones at Wikipedia, and a lot that weren't shady at all, but just didn't do the job promised and served only as advertisements. My impression is that the external links and references don't support the contention that this software is significant, or even necessarily does what is claimed, but you make the call. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No claim to notability in the article. Article has attracted edits from only the author, a WP:SPA user:Ezennse.

External links are:

1. Subject's website
2. Blog not wp:rs
3. Blog not wp:rs indicating that the blogger was pitched to at RSA in 2008
4-6. Article(s) that appears to be based on press release or promotional interview all with the same byline
7-9. wp:or. Promotional material on subject's website
10. Blog not wp:rs (by subject's CTO)

Refs are:

1-3. Research purported to be exploited by the subject's product
4. Not wp:rs (self-published)
5-6. Ad copy

External sources seem to either not address subject specifically, or originated by subject (Hype not buzz). Paleking (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start, I'll just mention WP:SK ground 1 and WP:BEFORE again... I still don't have the faintest idea why it should be okay to AfD something when the nominator hasn't searched for sources, considered the issues and made a good faith decision the article needs to be deleted. Where an admin declines speedy deletion, shouldn't it be the tagger rather than the admin who brings the matter to AfD? I've watched the CSD talk page as requested and this still makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Having said that, I agree with Paleking that this is a clear case of a company that fails WP:CORP—it's a common name, and there are several companies that show up on a search, none of which appear individually notable.
Since Paleking's response kills the speedy keep argument, I'm going to go with snow delete on notability grounds.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did what I said I did, clicking on all of the references given, and they didn't seem to me to support notability, but security software isn't something I know much about; that's why AfD was a better call than a speedy. The Google archives hits were Techtarget, channelweb, Experian and similar, and I didn't think they helped, either. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Agree with the quality of the sources; more importantly, this article is obvious advertising — The company's patent pending analysis algorithms offer deep insight into firewall behavior... — and contains what appears to be patches of pseudoscientific patent nonsense within its sales patter — Athena Security's basic algorithms are based on hypercube geometry. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is promotional in nature. Notability of the company is not established through reliable sources. A search turns up more than one "Athena Security" that plays in the network security space. The only reliable source (not self-published or a press release) is this brief mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Ihcoyc. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Atama makes a good point against Tavix's arguments, and the only other comments in favor of keeping are simply parroting that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faux Rock

[edit]

This article had a proposed deletion tag which was about to expire. However, an editor asserted on the talk page that the subject was notable, and (incorrectly) objected to its deletion with a "hangon" tag. I'm giving that person and others a chance to defend this article. When searching for the term I can't find any agreement on what "faux rock" actually is; apparently everyone has a different way to make it. There doesn't seem to be any real "industry" despite what is claimed in the article. Delete per WP:NEO. -- Atama ^chat 17:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I added the proposed deletion on the basis the term wasn't notable and that's still my view. There are search links on the article talk page which show the term is used, however there doesn't appear to be significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term itself probably exists, but it is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Most of the article is a how-to guild on making faux rocks. WP:NOT#HOWTO. This could possible be transwikied to WikiSource or Wiktionary if they want it. -Atmoz (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but Clean-up this definitely exists and with a Google search, it is easy to see that there are sources out there. The article is not in good shape, but with proper references and clean-up, this could potentially be a well-informative article. Tavix | Talk 23:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's the problem. I personally think it's a neat and interesting concept, but prior to proposing this AfD I searched for the term on Google and checked out some web sites, some which even claim to be training centers to teach you how to do this. They're all different, and there doesn't seem to be any definitive way to make fake stone. None of them has any more claim to credibility than another, I can't see how we can hope to make an article with information that is truly verifiable. Do we list the 50 different formulas/techniques for doing it? Without any reliable sources how can we confidently make a real article? As it stands it's a how-to for one particular way to make faux rock, how would you clean that up? I honestly would like a good answer, and I'd like to see real references, if I saw that I wouldn't endorse deletion. -- Atama ^chat 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do we list the 50 different formulas/techniques for doing it? - no we don't because Wikipedia is not a how-to.

Weak Keep per Tavix. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Tavix.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above.208.120.246.217 (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sure the term is in use and there are Google hits, but that does not mean that the subject is a notable one. As Atama says, the Ghits that I have read do not amount to significant coverage supporting notability per the GNG. – ukexpat (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full banana

[edit]

A seemingly non-notable expression from the world of U.S. sports broadcasting (or at least from one person who appeared on ESPN. Appears to run afoul of WP:NEO. Pastor Theo (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism, as seemingly indicated in the article itself. I still maintain this needs to be a speedy delete category. Hairhorn (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hairhorn. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to List of Dune characters. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus (Dune)

[edit]

This fictional character from the later Dune series has failed to accrue any secondary sources. Deprodded with the edit summary "prominent character in notable series". I disagree; the later Dune series is not as important as the ones Frank Herbert wrote himself, and if that bothers people, then notability (and non-notability) is not inherited anyway. The character is not "prominent" because it has not been the topic of any secondary source (regardless of the role it plays in the books; the fact that this character has been ignored just means the books are not "prominent" either. Sorry if that doesn't synch up with somebody's feelings about the books. Abductive (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Abductive (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wholeheartedly with the above; DELETE with extreme prejudice! --SandChigger (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legends of Dune or Thinking machines (Dune)#Legends of Dune, both of which mention the character/plotline (as do the articles of all three Legends novels). This plot rehash is really unnecessary.— TAnthony^Talk 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Dune is frequently cited as the best selling sci fi books of all time, the series of books as a whole is well loved by critics and millions of readers. According to an independent source now added to the article, Erasmus is an important character in the context of the entire series. (its revealed Erasmus is Marty who appeared right at the end of Frank Herberts last book, and that Erasmus was one of the driving figures who triggered the Butlerian Jihad mentioned in the first Dune book as being one of the key events shaping the universes civilisation. ) FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so this article on Daniel and Marty is redundant, then? Abductive (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Any notability of this character and Omnius can (or may already be) asserted in Legends of Dune, Thinking machines, and Daniel and Marty (all more significant/notable topics/articles). This article is a somewhat exhaustive rehash of plot info covered elsewhere in a more streamlined form. And by the way, not much of the info in this article is necessary to "understand the character" in the context of its arguable importance in the "man versus machine" theme.— TAnthony^Talk 21:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be too many characters with their own pages from the later Dune series when compared to the earlier Dune series. The earlier Dune characters have all kinds of analysis; [5], [6] and [7], and of course, were played in movies and the TV show by the likes of Susan Sarandon (Wensicia Corrino). Abductive (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partly as not all agree Daniel and Marty are really the two sentient machines there's some justification for seperate articles. I dont see overlap of content as a problem as long as there isnt a severe POV fork, it can be useful to hear the same information in different voices. Still I see the points you guys are making, I guess it wont be a total injustice if the article gets lasgunned :-( FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable. A (small) entry in the relevant book article(s) is all that's required. DropShadow (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the List of Dune characters. The "critical assessment" section doesn't show notability since none of the discussions are focusing on this character, but it is well-cited so the information should be preserved in the main list. The background information is overly detailed and doesn't offer any citations for verification, so that shouldn't be merged as it constituted original research. Them From Space 22:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The main characters in the original series are notable enough for separate articles; the others are not. DGG (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the List of Dune characters per ThemFromSpace.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 by TexasAndroid (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama X-Treme

[edit]

This is an article about the supposed fifth season of Total Drama Island, a series which, to date, has had only two seasons produced. Obviously made-up fan writing. The proposed deletion tag was removed by the page author [8] (with an edit summary of "Curse you, WIKIPEDIA LAW!"), and I couldn't exactly figure out a speedy deletion tag which fit, so here it is. ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Komala ITC and Technical Institute

[edit]

Trade school with no notability established. Article created yesterday and contributors have been spamming about it in several other articles Corpx (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Aren't trade or vocational schools considered secondary or tertiary level institutions? Don't we generally consider educational institutions at those levels notable? Drawn Some (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think there's a set of guidelines for school notability (WP:SCHOOL is dead). I dont believe in automatic notability for something that's lacking significant coverage by reliable sources. Besides, in India, there is a trade school on every corner. Corpx (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem is the failing of WP:V, as evidenced by the fact that to get the two sources the article creator has to invent a name only found on Wikipedia. As the nominator says, these for-profit schools as common as pushcarts in India. Abductive (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article has no reliable sources. I looked for some using the full name given in the title as well as fragments of the name, and the only hits I got were the Wikipedia article and a single-digit number of pages that do not qualify as reliable sources. The institute does not even appear to have its own site. Sebwite (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had the same question as Drawn Some on the notability of secondary and tertiary level institutions. While secondary level institutions have been accepted per general consensus, I'm not sure trade schools have been given the same consideration, especially given that these don't fit into general accreditation boards and/or the number of them. This particular one likely exists and their students are allowed to take accredited exams, but nothing really beyond that. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spaceman7Spiff. Salih (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaahin Filizadeh

[edit]

Non-notabl Canadian academic. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Abductive (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another non-notable, low ranking academic. Hairhorn (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as individual fails WP:ACADEMIC. DreamGuy (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Assistant professor with a record that does not stand out among other assistant professors; few citations in Google scholar. Actually holding an NSERC chair might be grounds for keeping, but being "associated with" one is not. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assistant professor, was not a good choice for the ARS to attempt rescue. I see no actual evidence of holding a named chair: associated apparently means that one of the full professors in the department holds it, Attahiru Alfa--who might well qualify for an article. DGG (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real assertion of notability, and I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Primary

[edit]

Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for bands. I expect a conflict of interest. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Myspace band. Lugnuts (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Their only album is a demo, not a commercial release, the entry for that should get deleted as well: People Going Places. Hairhorn (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Bankruptcy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcy basics

[edit]

Original research, perhaps better served by a redirect to the Bankruptcy article itself. Oscarthecat (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect Most of the information is already obtained in Bankruptcy. There doesnt seem to be any reason presented to warrent its own article on itself seems to be a shortened second articleOttawa4ever (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy leaving no redirect. Author to be invited to edit the bancruptcy article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bankruptcy. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assis Giovanaz

[edit]

Delete A non-notable footballer, did not made his professional debut Matthew_hk t c 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria at WP:ATH. --Jimbo^[online] 12:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus Cheers, I'^mperator 18:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Jackson (wide receiver)

[edit]

Never played professionally and was cut well before the NFL season started Yankees10 16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable player.--Giants27 (t|c) 19:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Limited references, not notable enough. --TitanOne (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't believe the article fails WP:ATHLETE, but if it did that wouldn't preclude the article from achieving general notability. Abraham Lincoln fails WP:ATHLETE--the "athlete" test is an "inclusive" measure, not an "exclusive" one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search of the Newsbank database shows more than ten feature articles about Jackson published in the Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express, and other mainstream publications. Even if he never plays a game in the NFL, such non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media satisfies general notability guidelines. The following are examples of feature stories on Jackson: (1) "Tahoka student takes byte out of competition," Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, May 10, 2004,[9] (2) "Football field no place for ankle monitor, San Antonio Express-News, August 13, 2005, [10] (3) "Should playing be an option? - Robbery arrest may not keep football star off field with Lancaster," Dallas Morning News, August 10, 2005,[11] (4) Upon further review, prep star deserves chance, Dallas Morning News, December 7, 2006,[12] (5) Ex- football star gets minimum sentence - Lancaster: Supporters testify '05 robberies were one-time mistake, Dallas Morning News, 2007,[13] (6) Run may catch up to athlete - Probation hearing today for ex-North Mesquite standout accused in burglary, Dallas Morning News, August 25, 2008,[14] and (7) "Police chase could cost former North Mesquite football player his second chance," Dallas Morning News, August 25, 2008.[15] Cbl62 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a "non-notable player" it sure seems like he's gotten a lot of coverage...--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources pointed to above to meet the general notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlist.com

[edit]

According to WP:CORP, this article may not meet critera needed to establish notablity for a corporation or organization, but does not meet WP:CSD criteria. ERK^talk 16:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete resembles spam, could also be a candiate for speedy deletion. Secondly no secondary sources are present in the article and no real indication to its notability. but mostly via being an advertisement Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only real source has the most trivial of mentions. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Thomas Foggin III

[edit]

Non-notable academic. Deprodded after 7.24 days by an IP. Abductive (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Abductive (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Is their any significant contributions hes made that could make him stand out in WP:academic? Hes written 3 books apprently but does he have a larger list?, maybe some awards with some refs? If not I dont see him meeting the criteria of wp academic Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those aren't books. Abductive (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I Should refer to them as publications instead. Though if had he written books he would probably would more notable. Anysense Im not seeing any more notability than a standard academic(nothing makes him stand out no awards, significant publications (how are they significant for the ones listed?) etc. And those people arent given articles unless they meet WP:academic which he doesnt seem too. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My thinking exactly. Abductive (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minimal cites at GScholar , which is usually the best way to decide if an academic is notable or not. No press coverage or forms of reliable source coverage that I've seen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of meeting WP:ACADEMIC. Deprod was ~~most likely~~ invalid as the IP is ~~undoubtedly~~ the latest sock of banned serial deprodder User:Azviz. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G4 by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Carlos Pacheco Moríello

[edit]

A non-notable footballer as not made his professionally debut Matthew_hk t c 16:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable youth football player. --Carioca (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G4 - was deleted previously through AfD albeit under a different name. --Jimbo^[online] 12:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4, so tagged; already deleted NINE times as "Daniel Pacheco", including twice at AfD here and here, also numerous deletions as Danny Pacheco and Dani Pacheco.. Perhaps WP:SALT these names? If he does meet WP:ATHLETE one day, an admin can unsalt if given evidence. JohnCD (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deleted (CSD G7) by WereSpielChequers. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 16:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon withers

[edit]

I think if his work were notable, someone would be saying something about it, and looking quickly, I didn't see any hits at the news archives for this artist. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Clear A7 candidate. If he's notable, someone's welcome to re-create the article. This is just a resume entry. Hairhorn (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local Nottingham artist with a strong Internet presence in self-submitted artist directories but no significant coverage in independent secondary sources that I could find. One self-published catalogue (2001) on Gbooks, nothing on GScholar or GNews. Fails WP:BIO. Enki H. (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article's author has blanked the page, so it has now been tagged for a G7 speedy deletion. Dawn Bard (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. deleted - can be closed. Enki H. (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Little point in redirecting to Gerald Walpin; the question of whether he is notable is not for this AfD. This article is a fairly unremarkable news article (WP:NOTNEWS), and more problematically is clearly a WP:COATRACK; it was only created and only exists as a criticism of Obama. User:SarekOfVulcan put it best - "Once there's actually some investigation that shows he acted improperly, or this blows up into something on the scale of the White House Travel Office firings, then it's notable enough for an article". Very few of the Keep arguments hold any water - once the obvious SPAs are dismissed, most of them boil down to "well, there are a lot of sources" - yes, news stories tend to have news sources writing about them, but that doesn't mean they're encyclopedic - and bare WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments. At the moment, we have an article on Gerald Walpin - this article doesn't need to exist alongside that, and indeed, in its present form, clearly shouldn't. Black Kite 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Walpin firing

[edit]

The article is essentially serving as a coatrack for a "criticism of barack Obama" style of article, which has been rejected in the past. Yes there are reliable sources that make note of the firing itself, but little in the way of there being an outright "controversy". There is nothing controversial about other politicians questioning a firing; it is a routine of Washington politics. There are many unreliable sources stoking the "controversy" fires, but they cannot be used in Wikipedia articles. So, absent a notable controversy, the firing in and of itself fails notability guidelines. And article on Gerald Walpin alone would likely fail WP:BLP1E, so there is really nothing salvageable here. This is a criticism article that couldn't be shoehorned anywhere else, hence the coatrack observation Tarc (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- there would seem to be more than enough material here for an article. McGuiness (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The subject is notable. Obama said his administration would be the most transparent ever. I had originally wanted to cite this material in the Transperency section of Presidency of Barack Obama, but on that article's talk page, it was suggested that the info be made into its own article instead. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was looking for a template to use, but Template:Spa doesn't fit the situation very well. McGuiness is a 2-day old account, and Dhruvsha made one vandalism edit 2 years ago, then inactive til what amounts to an unsigned "keep" vote was left on this page's talk page just now. Apologies to Messr's WP:AGF & WP:BITE, but I can count the number of AfD's I've ever initiated on one hand, so I find it a bit peculiar that this is being hit by newcomers. Tarc (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This item is an unfolding current event. Its relevance within the current historical context cannot be viewed in real time, and is void of definition due to its concomitance with more pressing issues and the piecemeal argumentative focus of the principal stakeholders. Wiki Palehorse (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - This will eventually become similar to Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy Should probably be incorporated into Obama's presidency article. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It will? If the position being taken is that it is a stub with the hope that the "controversy" will grow, that is even more of a reason to delete. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Gerald Walpin (currently a redirect). IG is a sufficiently high-level position that occupants of the office are sufficiently notable to have an article; it's just that usually no one has sufficient interest to write one. I've added enough biographical material to make this appropriate as a biographical article. TJRC (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; now that the biographical information has been removed to its own article, I no longer believe that this article merits keeping. It's a POV-magnet and little more. TJRC (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article was created first. Then afterward, the biographical article was created as a redirect to this article. The event is more notable then the person. The article should be about the event, not the person. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inspector General is really not much more than a mid-level postion that reports to higher level people, especially in a moderately important agency. There is nothing inherently notable about IG's. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —TJRC (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not sure how well-known or important this controversy will become, but there are almost 900 Google News hits on it, including some from mainstream sources. Article is no worse than a lot of what makes up Category:Clinton administration controversies and Category:George W. Bush administration controversies. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly this is an important figure in these times. Needs more info on his life though. It shouldn't just be centered on his firing. I see this as an icon for what is going to be happening to our elders in this age; being tossed aside. I think this will become a very important reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.224.106 (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It shouldn't just be centered on his firing. — A biographical article certainly should not. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article is about the event, not the person. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Gerald Walpin. No need for this talk about stoking fires. People are curious. When they see Mr. Walpin's name mentioned in media reports, they type it into Wikipedia, hoping for some answers. At least, that's what I did. -Mcasey666 (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonetheless, our policy here at Wikipedia, irrespective of what may be the popular fad of the moment, is not to host biographies of living people unless they can be neutral, verifiable, free from original research, and actually biographies, describing a person's life and works rather than making it seem that the sum total of their life was one event that they were involved in. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. The news service is over there. This is an encyclopaedia. It isn't a platform for political soapboxing disguised as poor biographical articles. If the subject is an event, or a dispute, then we must present it neutrally, as an event/dispute, not as an non-neutral article, giving only a partial account of the subject as a whole, masquerading as a biography of one participant in the event/side in the dispute. A good one third of this article isn't even about the person you would have it be a biography of. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have three different questions. One is whether Gerald Walpin himself is notable enough to warrant an article; the second whether his dismissal warrants an article, and the third whether a single article is sufficient to cover both of them. I believe he's every bit as notable as Fanne Foxe, Donna Rice, or Walt Monegan. Note that Monegan not only has his own article, but it in turn references Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. To my eye, Walpin and Monegan are rather similarly situated. The Monegan page was created after the page about his termination, and for 17 days it was a simple redirect to the article about his dismissal. So if we are to have any consistency, we should keep this article, and produce a separate biography of Mr. Walpin, which would link to one another, if there is sufficient material to warrant it. In the meantime, keep the redirect from Gerald Walpin to this page so that readers will reach it by either path.The Monster (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" Wikipedia should keep this article. Especially since it is beginning to have the reputation for being biases in respects to Barak Obama (failure to link articles about Rev. Wright (until recently), Bill Ayers, and Saul Alinksy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.244.224 (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - if we have an honest press and statesmen rather than politicians, this will be Obama's Watergate. It is impossible to resolve this issue in a way which makes Obama look better than a slimy mob boss. I for one am sick of the biases in Wikipedia. Deletion of this article would just confirm the bias is real. The "coatrack" excuse is just one more example of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwbaumann (talk • contribs) 06:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article should not be deleted because it "essentially serv[es] as coatrack..." It should only be deleted if it is a coatrack. Unless it can be shown that this article is like one of the examples of what is a coatrack provided by Wikipedia, then I cannot support deletion for the "coatrack" reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfu1984 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is your second edit ever and you're already an expert on coatracks and deletion procedures? Uh huh. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I ever claim to be an expert? I simply looked up Wikipedia's rules on "coatracks"; it really wasn't that hard to do. Additionally, why does it matter that this is only the second edit I've ever done? If you are unable to rebut my argument, and instead try to attack my credibility, it shouldn't matter if I've done 2 or 2,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfu1984 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping the article (but refocusing away from a bio), so that's not the point. But hot-button AfDs like this one typically attract many "new" users who are really vote-stacking socks or products of canvassing on external web sites. If you're the 1 out of 10 new user in an AfD who's legit, then I got it wrong. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Here is an article from the Chicago Tribune that specifically calls the Walpin firing a "controversy": http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-tc-nw-inspectors-0617-0618jun18,0,5718990.story.
  - Thank you for that link. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a nice example of Recentism. OK on Wikinews, but in a real encyclopedia, its only use is as a coatrack for pushing anti-Obama POV. I know that "Other crap exists" is no argument, but in this case it is more like "a lot more crap like this WILL exist". We do not really need hundreds of articles more to be patrolled against Obama bashing vandals.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, BUT keep as an article about Gerald Walpin. Whether or not the firing becomes article-worthy remains to be seen. Walpin, however, seems to be of sufficiently important position to warrant an article regardless. So redirect it and rewrite it, I suppose. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 19:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In cases of uncertain notability, WP:BLP advises us to 'cover the event, not the person'. I can see the case for redirecting Gerald Walpin to this article, but I can't see the case for the other way around. Robofish (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest of weak keeps at the moment, the nominator is right about this being a coatrack. However, the person may be notable not only for his firing, but for his position too. If kept, the article must with all due expediency focus on his life, not the firing. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the better course is to rename the article something like 2009 inspector general dismissal controversy and focus on the firing controversy, not this person's life. Then it's clearly not a coatrack, but instead a description of a political controversy. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely not. I abhor "controversy" articles, especially on something like this which is bound to reach "no-one really cares" levels within the next few news cycles. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Controversy articles are merited once the matter reaches the level of official investigation, such as White House travel office controversy or Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy for example. It remains to be seen whether this IG dismissal matter gets that far, hence my 'weak' on the 'keep'. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - And Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If this does reach an official investigation, I think that it would be time for a controversy article. But really, "controversy" and "criticism" articles are an endemic problem on the encyclopedia because they're magnets for crap content that wouldn't pass in a normal article. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Regarding "Politican John Smith controversies" articles, I'm in 100% agreement; I'm the guy who helped lead the flushing of all of them out of the 2008 presidential candidate BLPs. But articles about government ethics controversies, scandals or investigations, that's a whole different matter. Usually the only way that these can be handled in enough depth to be clear and fair is to have a separate article for them. As a pragmatic matter, in a case like this I think a separate article is the best way to collect information as it happens and keep the pressure off articles where inclusion of the matter would lead to undue weighting. If the controversy fizzles out then the article can be boiled down and merged into somewhere else. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem is, it's a grey area. Obviously, we need to cover Watergate; and obviously, we don't need to cover Mustardgate or Flygate; but there's a line in the middle. And personally, I think most editors set the line too near Mustardgate for my liking. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it is a grey line. When it comes to bogus controversies about personal and cultural behavior that the professional bloviators carry on about, I say skip it. When it comes to government ethics, accusations of firing watchdogs etc, if there's even reasonable chance of substance to it I tend to be old school and want to cover it, regardless of who's in power or the motives of those making the charges. But I grew up during Nixon and tend to be instinctively in favor of investigations.... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Incidentally, strong delete in its current, non-biographical form. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge with Gerald Walpin. It remains unclear if this will still be considered a major controversy after it has passed. I suggest making a biographical article on the former IG (see for example Janet Rehnquist).--– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 04:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no justification for a whole article on the firing: if it is considered notable it should be a mention in another article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on Walpin himself may be needed (but perhaps not, given the length of the article of the office itself), but if the subject himself wasn't notable for an article before the "controversy," then a weak article on just the controversy is superfluous. Grunge6910 (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge This is more of a coatrack issue and should either be renamed into an article on the man, if he is notable, or deleted. Brothejr (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article needs some work. But there is lots of very substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Improving the article should be the focus, rather than the calls for censorship from the usual crowd. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who has called for censorship? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No-one. CoM has this delusion that Wikipedia is trying to censor anything anti-Obama. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An intentionally inaccurate, misleading and extremely unbalanced article started by Grundle2600—about the firing of a non-notable inspector general (one of sixty-four federal inspector generals)—that blatantly violates WP:NPOV policy and is designed as a WP:COATRACK on which to hang an anti-Obama conservative editorial (The Wall Street Journal) and opinion column (David Limbaugh in the Jewish World Review). Newross (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please quote the parts of the article that you claim are "inaccurate." The article is balanced, because I quoted both sides. The fact that Obama is not willing to give specific answers to questions about why he fired Walpin is Obama's fault, not mine. If Obama had given specific reasons, I would have put them in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, this definitely should be mentioned in the Presidency of Barack Obama. II | (t - c) 21:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Whether or not the Wall Street Journal's editorial is at all justified isn't relevant in so much as that this has gotten coverage past that. If keeping is not an option then I'd favor merging to Gerald Walpin. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the references provided demonstrate that this event is sufficiently notable to be worthy of a Wikipedia article. I would, however, suggest deleting or merging Gerald Walpin - he isn't notable in his own right, we don't need both articles, and WP:BLP advises us to 'cover the event, not the person'. Robofish (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that Walpin was Chief of Prosecutions for the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and was all president of the FBC, I'm pretty sure he meets WP:N even aside from this event. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Chief of Prosecutions for the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York ? Prez of an organization for 2nd circuit lawyers? I'm hard-pressed to seethe notability of either. The FBC itself is a stub. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gerald Walpin. Making a separate article of this , more extensive than the original, is totally unwarranted. Personally, I think all Federal officials at his level are notable, but regardless of whether he was earlier, he certainly is now. This is indeed a partisan coatrack, but removing it altogether is whatever the word is for the partisan opposite--I'd call it " sweeping it under the rug", & it might be worth an essay, for it isn't the first time I've seen this sort of thing here. . DGG (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on the controversy is the "original" article. Walpin never had his own article - I created Gerald Walpin as a redirect to this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the right title forthe single necessary article nonetheless. It should have been written that way from the start. DGG (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've rewritten the lede, don't know if the rest is needed now. -- Banjeboi 11:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This will be the latest she said/he said battle between conservatives and the Obama administration as all players jockey for positions in the ever-increasing politics games with the 2010 US election cycle heating up. Conservatives, who seem to just need to find something to smear Obama with are talking this up big time - scandal! tax payer funds! etc. - to little effect besides volume. For that reason alone we likely should keep this here so there is a repository not on either Johnson or Walpin's BLPs. I'm sure this is the umpteenth "Obama scandal" whereever we're housing all those. The lead as of this writing is fine and can serve as a reasonable stub and eventually this could certainly be a good article as it's notable enough and many reliable sources besides opinion pieces exist. Certainly should be policed for coatracking and POV-pushing issues but the basic nugget is fine here. -- Banjeboi 11:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe I should say "weak merge," but there doesn't seem to be very much useful NPOV information in the article as it is now. The article currently is a clear coatrack of editorial opinion, but that could be fixed through editing if there were a reason to do so. But there is no reason that this should be a separate subject from the biography (especially given that the biography is merely two paragraphs). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was created first. The biography article was only created later, as a redirect to this article. The fact that there was no biography article before this article was creatred is because this person is notable for one event. The article should be about the event, not the person. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're basically making the case that neither article should exist. See WP:ONEEVENT. It seems this subject could be covered quite adequately as a single paragraph in the AmeriCorps article, which is currently the case. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment If this AfD closes with a consensus that the topic is notable, a merge is only an editorial step which needs no admin action. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or in the alternative, assuming a suitable parent article can be found, merge. I just read WP:COATRACK, and this is that. Right now, the content as it stands would violate WP:UNDUE even if it were merged into Gerald Walpin. Unitanode 04:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the moment, it's an attempt to make Obama look bad. Once there's actually some investigation that shows he acted improperly, or this blows up into something on the scale of the White House Travel Office firings, then it's notable enough for an article -- for now, see WP:NOTNEWS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has already been verified in the sources that Obama acted improperly. The law says he must give a notification and explanation 30 days before the firing. As Senator, Obama even voted for the law. He did not give 30 days notice before the firing. And he still hasn't cited any specific action by Walpin that justifies the firing. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a coatrack - merge anything useful to the main article, but mindful of WP:UNDUE. ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What "main" article? This article was created first. The "main" article was created later, as a redirect to this article. This person was not notable before this event. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "What "main" article?". Maybe the AmeriCorps article where it is already covered with proper weight for now?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure coatrack. If someone wants to add something small to Gerald Walpin, go crazy, but no redirect, please. --Calton | Talk 13:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as per my comment above [16].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tabos

[edit]

Non-notable neologism whose prod was removed. Heading this way, rather than to CSD, to avoid any biteyness. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I can't fathom how someone would think an accidental misspelling of some word should just become a hip new slang word. JIP | Talk 15:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. I mean, come on, someone accidentally misspells "taco" as "tabo", and the mere fact that someone else notices this misspelling, makes him think it's notable enough to write a Wikipedia article about? Come on! Just because there are, what, a total of two people in the world who use this term doesn't mean it's encyclopedic! You have to first make it notable enough for independent news sources to write about it, and then write a Wikipedia article about it. Wikipedia is certainly not a trying ground for newly-invented slang words to try their first chance to gain publicity. JIP | Talk 19:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a word commonly being misspelled in a text message does not need its own article. ERK^talk 16:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, even if the people who made it up are world famous in Provo. Cnilep (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for all the good reasons cited. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for being a neologism (WP:NEO), something made up in a single day (WP:NFT), trying to assert inherited notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) and every reason that JIP articulated above. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism and because WP is not for things made up one day. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep, as article has been completely rewritten since nomination and all deletes have been withdrawn. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetery of the Holy Rood

[edit]

* Delete, This is nowhere near nuetral and cemetary is not notable. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

~~Why is the article citing Wikipedia as a source? That is not third party.....IS this allowed?Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Article has been completely rewritten and is a quality article. I did not think this possible and again congratulate the person who managed it. Keep Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm working on this right now. I've deleted a significant amount of text that was either redundant with another Wikipedia article or a copyright violation of the cemetery's official website. I've also cleaned up some areas and removed POV. I have no comment on notability, which is what I think this discussion should focus on. I will be deleting the internal Wikipedia references momentarily. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia, or any other wiki, are excluded as sources, for hopefully obvious reasons. I am uncertain as to what would make a cemetery notable. Consider Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills), for example - one of many cemeteries with articles. It has many famous bodies there. I don't know if that's what makes it notable, but it doesn't hurt. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero sources to indicate notability. Shereth 17:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- changed to Weak keep, meets criteria now. Shereth 20:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If any resurrection occurred here, would it qualify as a Rood Awakening? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Auburn Cemetery is surely notable, if only one is wondering who is paying Mary Baker Eddy's phone bill. PhGustaf (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep per Molly Brown.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per improvements. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I pinged Shereth and Hellina - if they change their !votes, I can speedy keep it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now has multiple references from a variety of independent sources, including two books, and articles from both the New York Times, and the New York Daily News. Note also that the list of notable burials there is now up to 14, all of whom have articles on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable interments - hence notable in itself as well. Collect (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collegiate Development Football League (CDFL)

[edit]

Fails notability. Tagged since May (no references, etc.) with no improvement. Durova^Charge! 15:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable league.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, this one doesn't seem to have the notability either. Not that it couldn't... but it doesn't, and in its present state I think that no article would be better than an unrefernced and unattended one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COGIATI

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article about an unscientific gender test that is mainly based on prejudices and POV, there's no evidence that this test is used by professionals. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 14:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence that anyone other than the author uses this test. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced pseudoscience, not notable (not even notable as pseudoscience). Hairhorn (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
Weak keep. Sourced to the COGIATI website, which may be the only friendly source; the links to hostile reviews seem reasonably reflected in the text. It may welll be notable as pseudo-science; and such articles are a public service. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still consider it unsourced; the COGIATI website falls squarely into the camp of sources not independent from the subject. If it's the "only friendly source" that doesn't bode well for the credibility of the test. Hairhorn (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saving joy

[edit]

article with no assertion of notability for its subject, speedys removed by 2 brand new SPA's Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are a small nonprofit. If I understand this correctly then if you don't have a newspaper source than on wikipedia it can't be true. Every organization doesn't seek adulation or press to feel that we make a difference in the community as well as the world. Every good deed or event is not documented. I could understand if we were not promoting something positive. It's volunteer work guys. The only payoff is that you help your fellow man. If that is not worthy to give a broader audience to in these days then I don't know what is.

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atect98 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC) — Atect98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Question: So you are saying flat out that an article on your organization does not have reliable sources independent of your organization? Wikipedia doesn't need documentation of every activity of the organization; the encyclopedia needs adequate documentation of the organization as an entity and its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A More Perfect Onion (talk • contribs) 17 June 2009

A non profit doesn't attract media attention. For example the majority of our year round programs are at shelters for battered women and children. You are not allowed to document these events. We also do events where we are a small group within a larger event such as the sprint for the cure race in DC. We are not the main focus point of larger events. Therefore, we would not have direct press association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atect98 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a no. Delete due to lack of verifiable notability, see WP:ORG. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm sure you do good work, but if you do not meet notability guidelines then you cannot stay. Wikipedia is not your web host to get you a "broader audience". Charity is its own reward, Wikipedia is run by volunteers, who work for free, and who follow the guidelines laid down. Both User:Atect98 and User:Nichellebelle80 have registered solely to create this page, which creates massive COI issues. If you are notable then someone will create the article, and therefore there should be no need for you to do it. The thousands of volunteers at Wikipedia don't spend hours writing and improving articles so that others can come along and make a vanity article, no matter how good a cause they feel they are doing it for. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, While the organization might do great work, there are no independent reliable sources that discuss it. With out independent reliable sources, notability of the organization can not be verified according to wikipedia guidelines. A new name 2008 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to lack of reliable sources, and contradictory arguments of opponent of this AfD. If you don't "seek adulation or press to feel that we make a difference in the community", why do you care if you have a Wikipedia article? Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the original rebuttal by Atect98, where you said "If I understand this correctly then if you don't have a newspaper source than on wikipedia it can't be true". It seems we can do a bit to help further your understanding. No one is saying the Saving Joy organization is fake, false, or made up. I know I can speak for myself, but I don't doubt that your group exists. However, the issue at hand is that it lacks the independant outside sources to show that the information provided is notable enough for inclusion. Volunteer work is great, and there are plenty of such organizations that do their part to help. But unfortunately not all of them are well-known enough for inclusion. This doesn't mean in any way that what they do is not meaningful, it just isn't verifiable by independant sources. I hope this clears it up for you a little. →^Jog_Con← 18:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You could take it further than that. Wikipedia policy is about being able to prove to readers that content submitted by two people writing under pseudonyms is not falsehood or fiction. Readers don't trust us. We're just pseudonyms on a WWW site. They only trust (reliable and independent) sources. No reliable and independent sources existing therefore means no article may exist. This is deletion policy and notability in tandem. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the organization is notable enough, it will eventually receive media coverage and the article can be recreated. Just because it's a small non-profit doesn't mean media coverage is impossible. See Nashville Homeless Power Project for example. Kaldari (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched Google a couple of different ways and found no reliable sources or, indeed, anything beyond the organization's own materials and the article that is the subject of this AfD. There is no bar to reconstruction implied if the organization grows to meet the notability standards. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am the original author. Saving Joy cannot be proven notable because it does not seek media coverage. Although we have been offered coverage we have always refused. We sought to provide information on the charity for those who might have questions. Our only goal is to provide for the needy and the homeless. Please delete page as the organization is not and never will be notable according to Wiki's standards. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nichellebelle80 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lack of media coverage of an organization's activities does not imply a lack of coverage in reliable sources of that organization. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. I note that this has been twice relisted by the nominator, but WP:RELIST discourages relisting in these circumstances. I cannot see that another week will bring any different arguments to the table. As always, a discussion on merging or redirecting can be opened on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Indymedia

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

In March, user:Thegroove nominated this article for deletion, see [17], observing that it "[f]ails our notability and reliable source [requirements], as almost all of the sources provided are self-published, and the ones that aren't don't say anything that indicates notability. Google News turns up nothing except a minor incident involving the seizure of a server." On the face of the article, that editor concluded, the subject organization evidently "has no claim to have done anything significant or noteworthy."

The nomination was well-taken, as I explained in comments supporting it, but consensus was not reached (a decision, good wikiquette obliges me to disclose, that I disputed, see [18]). The passage of time has only strengthened the case for deletion. Despite a college try by user:jezhotwells, see [19]), nothing added to the article since March has patched the holes in the article's hull that were discussed in the first nomination; if anything, more bulkheads have given way (one of the few independent sources cited has been flagged as a dead link, see [20]). I think it's time to reconsider.

Bristol Indymedia is not notable, and should be deleted. WP:ORG instructs that an organization "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject ... Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The article cites nothing reliable that, individually or in sum, shoulders that burden (indeed, it cites very little except Indymedia articles, the very antithesis of "independent of the subject"). A google search hardly suggests that underinclusive editing is to blame, which takes WP:SOFIXIT off the table as a remedy. See also WP:ATD.

A last-gasp alternative theory of notability argues that the authorities' 2005 seizure of the organization's server saves the article. As I explained in March, however, that dog won't hunt. Even assuming that the seizure itself is notable under WP:EVENT, the nominated article isn't about the seizure -- it's about the organization whose server was seized. WP:ORG is crystal clear on this point: an organization "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage" (emphases added). That isn't the case here. Bristol Indymedia isn't the "subject" of the Register's coverage of the seizure, for instance, see [21] - the seizure is. Participation or involvement in a notable event does not by itself bootstrap an organization into notability. (Even if it did, premising this article's survival on the notability of the seizure event gives rise to serious problems with WP:UNDUE.)

Finally, to the extent that there is anything salvageable in the article--i.e. notable and backed by reliable sources--the article should still be deleted, and that content merged into Independent Media Center, Bristol Indymedia's parent organization. That article already has a section on the server seizures. There is simply no need for local subsidiary, which is not notable in its own right, to have its own entry. That's why, for example, Scotland Indymedia and Portland Indymedia are redlinks. (But, I realize, see WP:WAX.)

It's high time we dropped the curtain on this article. I propose its deletion - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. all users who participated in the previous nomination have been notified of the relisting. Ordinarily, I would also notify the article creator and significant contributors, but in this instance, the only significant contributions to the article by a registered user are from user:jezhotwells who has been notified qua a participant in the previous AfD. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an improvement since the last AFD; one of the references (this page on the World Association for Christian Communication website) has some coverage. Other sources already existed in the article; the BBC reference has Bristol Indymedia as the main subject, although it is not on the main BBC News site and there isn't much content, and there is also the coverage of the server seizure controversy, which is mentioned in the main Indymedia article and was why I suggested a merge/redirect. Although it may just about meet the guidelines, much of the content doesn't appear to be notable and can be removed, and without secondary coverage, it is unclear whether the selection of incidents in the "Bristol Indymedia Ongoing" section accurately represents the organisation so it should probably be removed. The rest is either non-notable or similar enough to the main Indymedia article, so in my opinion a redirect, and possibly merge some of the content, would still be the most appropriate decision. snigbrook (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit to being dubious of the "WACC" article. Would a press release from Bristol Indymedia, posted on an independent website, even if stamped with the independent website's imprimatur, satisfy WP:ORG's requirement that sources establishing notability "must be ... independent of the subject"? (See also WP:Independent sources.) Doubtful. And for the following reasons, I think that's what we have here. The overall tone of the "article" posted at WACC seems much like a press release, and unlike every other contemporaneous "article" in WACC's archive, see [22], this one lacks a byline.

Where those points are merely suggestive, what really gives the game away is a telltale locution in paragraph 2. Having noted that the site tries to emphasize local voices, the article/press release anticipates an objection: "[a] critic might say that this would leave us as nothing more than an online version of a local paper; but we believe we are far from it." (Emphases added). "Us"? "We"? Something doesn't smell right here: Why would an article written by WACC about Bristol Indymedia refer to its subject in the first person? A source that was genuinely "independent of the subject" would refer to the subject in the third person - "[a] critic might say that this would leave them as nothing more than an online version of a local paper; but they believe that they are far from it." Yet this article obstinately (and, unless one rejects a priori the possibility that this article/press release was written by Bristol Indymedia, inexplicably) refers to its subject in the first person.

With all this in mind -- the tone, the aberrational absence of a byline, the otherwise inexplicable use of the first person to refer to the subject -- I find it highly unlikely that this article/press release is truly "independent of" Bristol Indymedia, regardless of where and under whose auspices it is posted. It seems to be a press release, or similar subject-generated material. It does not, therefore, at least in my view, substantially bolster the case for notability under WP:ORG- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it may have been copied from [23] although some changes have been made - so it was written by someone associated with Bristol Indymedia (the absence of byline may be because the writer doesn't want to use their real name). It appears to have been published as an article, not a press release, and it appears to be WACC's decision to publish it (probably they wanted something written from an Indymedia volunteer's perspective), so in some ways it is independent coverage and in others it is not. snigbrook (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good detective work. :) The changes appear to be trivial (the paragraph breaking is a little different, and the WACC version has a parenthetical to describe where Bristol is in the world), with one exception relevant here. WACC's reprint omits the first paragraph from the original, which frankly admits that the text was written--as a blog entry, no less! See WP:SPS--by "an Indymedia volunteer, a reader of the site and a writer on the site" in order to offer readers "a perspective from inside...." Given WP:ORG's requirement of the intellectual independence of material used to establish notability, this discovery seems seems to throw out the WACC source, unless the bare fact of WACC's decision to reprint adds some weight? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard that suggests sources such as this may be acceptable, although the discussion was in 2007 and the situation may have changed since then. The fact that the author is not named in the WACC version (and only uses a pseudonym on the blog) may be a problem. Whether it's an acceptable source for notability or not, I support a merge/redirect to Indymedia unless more sources are found for significant coverage. snigbrook (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (if there is anything left to merge) to Indymedia. Regretfully. (1) I agree with the outcome of the discussion above: that the WACC source is very borderline for the purposes of establishing notability, if at all. This is probably just an example of what can happen when the same person is active in two similar projects. (2) Another independent source would be the Venue (magazine) article, but that's just as bad, only in a different way. Since this kind of magazine tries to report everything interesting that is going on locally it's not really very suitable for establishing notability. And if you read the article you will see that it discusses Indymedia-like projects in general, followed by a brief history of Indymedia itself, with one small section each for London, Seattle, Washington and Bristol. If even the local events magazine frames Indymedia Bristol in this way, I don't think it can be used to establish independent notability of Indymedia Bristol. (3) The server seizure was notable, but not as widely reported as it should have been. It was just one event, and I think it makes most sense to see it as an attack on Indymedia in general, not specifically on Indymedia Bristol. So it makes most sense to discuss it at Indymedia, as is done already, where it can be put in the wider context including the similar event in the US. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BIMC is considered notable enough to be cited by author and journalist George Monbiot, Bristol communications company Montage Communications in its PR Blog, the BBC as a local news provider, the City Council as as useful forum for those who wish to recycle goods (citations added to article in new sub-section Media Comment). The local established corporate press does not cite Bristol Indymedia, even though often sourcing stories and copy from this and other open publishing and copyleft publications. Ironic really, as Wikimedia itself is often in the same position. So the only notable local media in Bristol are all owned by Northcliffe and subject to the dictats of a highly POV conglomerate. If the result is to delete, then the artcile should be merged into Indymedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cite by Monbiot doesn't have any information about Bristol Indymedia, so isn't useful as a source, what is needed is coverage (which can be a problem even with articles about local newspapers that are published by major companies). You mention about the Northcliffe publications, of the four in the Bristol media category two don't adequately assert notability and may be deleted if they are nominated. The comment that they are "subject to the dictats of a highly POV conglomerate" isn't relevant to this discussion, although if this is something that has been mentioned by reliable sources it may be appropriate to include it in the relevant article(s) - I don't think it's typical of newspaper publishers, as other newspaper companies (such as Johnston Press) don't appear to have any consistent POV. A merge of the Bristol Indymedia article into Indymedia is what I currently support, although it would effectively be a redirect as most of the information is already there. snigbrook (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Monbiot piece cites a post at Bristol Indymedia ("BI") in a footnote - and to support a non-essential example, at that. It's a trivial mention at best (see WP:ORG ("[t]rivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability")), and, even assuming that WP:SPS doesn't apply (Monbiot's site says it was published in the Grauniad, and we can assume that's truthful for present purposes), user:snigbrook is quite right: Monbiot's piece isn't about BI. It is completely irrelevant to the notability analysis.

Your claim that Bristol City Council's link to BI supports the latter's notability is, with all due respect, ludicrous. Reviewing the content of the page you ask us to believe supports notability, [24], the sum total of its coverage of BI is a link to Bristol Indymedia's site, without comment, and as one of five links for recycling in the city. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that that link makes BI "the subject of significant coverage"?

The red herrings having been duly swept off the table, what's left? A passing mention in [25], a blog post, see [26] and cf. WP:SPS ("self-published media, ... [including] blogs ... are largely not acceptable [sources for Wikipedia]"), a regional BBC item that all-but exemplifies the kind of coverage WP:ORG has in mind in excluding "trivial or incidental coverage," see [27], and a whole lot of self-published material. None of this, individually or collectively, shoulders the burden of demonstrating notability.

Your fondness for BI is apparent, but the bare facts that an organization exists and that "there are those who love it," Daniel Webster, argument in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, reprinted in 15 The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster 11 (1903), do not by themselves make it notable within Wikipedia's guidelines. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest that the blog [28], does suggest notabilty as the blogger(s) are a PR company in Bristol and thus should be considered knowledgeable about neews media in Bristol. The story shows how Bristol Indymedia has broken news stories that are later picked up by the establishment media. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I would rejoin that that argument suffers from two defects, either of which would be fatal. First, it's a blog - and blogs are expressly given as examples of WP:SPS. That policy isn't absolute, of course, and it offers two exceptions to its rule. Blog-sourced material is acceptable if it is (a) a legitimate newspaper that is publishing in the form of a blog, "so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control," or (b) when the author is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (emphases deleted). Might the square peg blog source you cite fit into either of those round holes? No.

Exception (a) doesn't apply because, as their "about" page confirms, the "PR Bristol" blog is not published by a newspaper, but by a PR company. Its writers are not professional journalists, and the blog is not subject to the editorial control of any newspaper.[29] Nor does exception (b) help. The subject of the article is Bristol Indymedia; it is hard to imagine what is involved in becoming "an established expert on" Bristol Indymedia, and there is no suggestion that "PR Bristol"'s authors have been "published by reliable third-party publications" on the subject of Bristol Indymedia or anything else.

So, to get the blog in, you'd have to argue for a new, unenumerated exception to WP:SPS, and/or, as WP:GAME reminds us, explain why the purpose of the policy is thwarted by inapposite wording. (WP:ILIKEIT, the basis of virtually every defense of the article advanced here so far, isn't an exception, either.)

Second, even if the blog is an acceptable source, it doesn't help your case. The girl in the blue shirt on the right is very cute, but that won't suffice. What other help does the post offer? It spends two paragraphs talking about BI. And that's appropriate, because BI is not the subject of the article! The subject of the article is the pollenating function of new media. BI is the given example used to make the point. Recall the purpose of the search: per WP:ORG, we're looking for sources that make the subject of our article "the subject of significant coverage" (emphases added). What is offered up? A source that may or may not be acceptable under WP:SPS and which in any event provides only indirect and limited coverage.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources seem just sufficient to show the site to be notable. In my opinion all of the well-established IMCs are notable as alternative press. We are normally fairly liberal in interpreting whether or not a news site is notable. I suggest that a less expansive article might be received here better. There is a tendency, which I well understand, to look at a very detailed article for something of perhaps questionably borderline notability, and judge it unfavorably, but that's really irrelevant equivalent to judging that an article should be deleted because of poor writing. DGG (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This says nothing to address the criterion of WP:ORG, or even WP:N for that matter. Can you offer any argument or evidence to support BI's notability more substantial than "[your] opinion [that] all of the well-established IMCs are notable"? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is now well-written, footnoted, and demonstrates coverage in multiple independent sources, so that satisfies the general notability guideline. Beyond the general guideline, it is beneficial for WP to have information on media outlets, particularly the more specialized ones, both for our readers wanting to see what's behind the news they read online and for our own internal purposes in determining how to weight sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming for sake of argument that the GNG (i.e. WP:N) is more liberal than WP:ORG, it isn't controlling here, WP:ORG is, and it is not satisfied, as I've explained above. (If the GNG overrode more specific guidelines, having subject-specific guidelines would be nugatory; see my 02:06, 4 February 2009 comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization_(2nd_nomination) (explaining that WP:N is "a safety net, not an escape hatch. That is, it exists to ensure that every article has an applicable notability guideline, not to override more specific and restrictive notability guidelines that might apply")).

It makes no odds, however, whether WP:N or WP:ORG is controlling: this article fails both. Despite your and Jeremy's protestations that the article "demonstrates coverage in multiple independent sources," that simply isn't true. As I noted above in surveying what coverage is cited (comment, 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)), the coverage in the cited sources is trivial or incidental. I've already addressed why it fails WP:ORG, but for sake of completeness, let us note that WP:N requires "Significant coverage," i.e. coverage that "is more than trivial[,] but may be less than exclusive," and that "address the subject directly in detail." This article fails to demonstrate that. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A few comments:

WP:N is controlling. The other notability guidelines are an either/or. It would be counterproductive to require articles about well-defined topics, such as movies, to pass a topic notability guideline in addition to N, while an article about a pencil eraser would be held to the lower standard of N. Besides, a media outlet is much more than just an organization because of its publishing activities; see the WP:NME essay. ORG was written to provide a notability framework for self-contained organizations such as social clubs and is not a good fit here.
Beyond the obvious utility of the article in covering a media outlet and any unanswered questions about the police raid, all that needs to be demonstrated is coverage in more than one independent secondary source. And while the coverage must be non-trivial ( i.e. a listing in the telephone book doesn't count ), it doesn't have to be just shy of exclusive to the article.
An article on a police raid on an organization is of course about the organization; so is an article about its founding or criticism of one of its publications. Otherwise would suggest that a subtopic of an article could be notable without the parent topic being notable.
At any rate, while many of the references in the article are primary sources from either Bristol Indymedia itself or similar organizations, or are brief mentions in secondary sources about some very specific aspect of the organziation, three of them do provide in-depth coverage.
The BBC article on the relaunch, the Register's article on the specifics of the seizure which was widely reported in the media, and the WACC article on the growth of the organization. I also expect there's coverage in Bristol-area newspapers that we haven't visited yet. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that WP:ORG is inapplicable, or that WP:N overrides it if it is. WP:ORG expressly applies to any "company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service." BI can be considered an organization with a product or an organization providing a service, but either way, it doubly fits the bill. On its own terms, it is a subset of a "movement" and a "project," which might even make it triply so if these qualify it as a "team." [30]. And you refute your own position when the linguistic difficulties inherent in denying that this organization is an organization poke embarassingly above the waves. To argue that "[a]n article on a police raid on an organization is of course 'about' the organization" is to twice concede that BI is an organization, which amply suffices to place it within WP:ORG's control.

You don't appear to dispute that if WP:ORG is controlling, this article fails, so I'll set that point aside. And I've already explained above (3:54, 20 June 2009), it actually doesn't matter whether WP:ORG or WP:N controls, since this article fails both: "WP:N requires 'Significant coverage,' i.e. coverage that 'is more than trivial[,] but may be less than exclusive,' and that 'address the subject directly in detail.' This article fails" to carry that burden.

I dispute that it is "obvious" that there is any utility of covering this "media" outfit. Please explain the precise utility of having a separate article for a non-notable minor regional subdivision of the Indymedia group that could not be achieved equally (or better, insofar as it would not require stretching WP's guidelines to include it) by a redirect to Indymedia?

Lastly, setting aside the utterly nonsensical claim that "[a]n article on a police raid on an organization is of course 'about' the organization," you appear troubled by the implication that "a subtopic of an article could be notable without the parent topic being notable." That's leading wording, but one sees the point. And on the point itself: So what? That seems commonplace. There is an article about Bono; there is an article about U2 in which Bono performs; there is not an article about Bono's parents. Indeed, WP:SBST expressly warns that "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability - particularly for individuals known for one event," and both WP:UNDUE and WP:EVENT, individually and cumulatively, make clear that just because you are involved in something that is notable, that does not justify coverage of you. It may justify coverage of the event. If there was no article about Indymedia more generally, perhaps the server seizure would justify an article about the server seizure. As it is, the event should be incorporated into the Indymedia article - to have entire article about an otherwise non-notable subdivision of the organization based purely on the event creates WP:UNDUE problems to the extent that the article says anything not directly related to the event providing the notability hook. And the appropriate level of coverage of the putatively notable event is already provided in Indymedia, making the deletion of this article is the appropriate response.

It would reflect poorly on this encyclopedia were it to be lead by the nose into retaining non-notable content by the gossamer WP:ILIKEIT justifications offered in this AFD.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is just about enough coverage in this discussion to meet the main notability guideline (which imo supersedes the other guidelines). Davewild (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Further citations from USA Today, Business Exchange, a subsidiary of McGraw-Hill, and Venue magazine, a subsidiary of Bristol News and Media added. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously mean to contend that [31], [32], and [33] support notability? Have you even read these links you're citing? What possible theory of WP:N or WP:ORG, or their animating purposes, would recognize this stupidity as a serious argument for notability?! The last one is even more preposterous than the City Council citation: you're going to claim that inclusion in a list of dozens of city links on the "Venue magazine student guide" makes this organization notable?

I'm sorely tempted to think that if someone notable followed them on twitter, you would cite that as evidence of their notability, Jeremy. What I cannot understand is why you think this kind of desperation helps rather than hurts your case. That you have to cobble such nonsense together demonstrates the absence of serious notability-establishing sources. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I see 4 keeps and a merge. Why is this thing still open? I'm supposed to read through all this discussion? Yikes. If it needs to be deleted I suggest renomming it in 6 months. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Simon Dodd: I am not sure who you are referring to when you mention "Jeremy"? Are you assuming that Jez refers to Jeremy?

Merge and redirect to Indymedia. I agree with the nominator that this is insufficiently notable to justify a separate article. However, it is verifiable that Bristol Indymedia exists and does exactly what it says on the tin, so WP:PRESERVE should apply.
In such cases, I'm persuaded by Uncle G's reasoning in User:Uncle G/On notability, and would refer you to that essay for very detailed arguments in support of this approach.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Deletion seems to be the general consensus I'm getting out of this formatting trainwreck... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ColorfulTabs

[edit]

No claim of notability, no external sources. (Was speedied, but recreated, so I'll go this route) ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Note that this article is about a Firefox add-on. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

Chromatabs was inspired from the idea behind ColorfulTabs. Thus the idea behind ColorfulTabs has received notable recognition.
Here is another external and independent source (Leveraging Human Perception for Happier Tabbing https://labs.mozilla.com/2006/11/chromatabs/)?
ColorfulTabs was featured on television on BBC World (see BBC Click archives available online http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/6262703.stm#6).
ColorfulTabs has been distributed and featured in the German magazine CHIP (edition 05/2009 and 09/2007) for it's utility which has circulation of over 406,000 copies per month and over 1.63 million readers per issue.
ColorfulTabs has been distrubuted with the German PC magazine "PC-WELT".
Circulated with COMPUTERBILD February 2005 - Europes biggest magazine.

If the above do not substantiate the claim of notability kindly let me know what specific verifiable source/reference are you looking for? Regards, varun21 (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, having a section called notability does not make you notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Notability section in the article does not refer to the Notability as described by Wikipedia. Kindly do not confuse it with Notability. Refer to the above, and also the references and external links cited within the article. Additionally I'm looking to a possible solution to this issue instead of collecting pointers to "what's wrong with the article". Suggest a possible fix instead of deletion. For example quote an article which clearly claims notability. I also saw articles on other software like Firefox. I do not see any claims of notability there.

Regards, varun21 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content "A lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably-sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia".

Regards, varun21 (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps there should be a section in the Firefox add-ons article about popular add-ons? If not, I vote delete. I like the extension, but it is not notable for a stand-alone article. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 17:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify Notability that we seek in context of this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_a_policy_or_guideline While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy is being violated. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_not_notable "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable." ... Instead of just saying, "Non-notable," consider instead saying, "No reliable sources found to verify notability", or "The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability", or "The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard." Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to research and supply sources that may establish or confirm the subject's notability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hiding/What_notability_is_not

"Notability is not objective"
"Notability is not judged in isolation"

Regards, varun21 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here we go;

Chromatabs was inspired from the idea behind ColorfulTabs. Thus the idea behind ColorfulTabs has received notable recognition. Not true, that is simply an assertion, as there are no third party sources to support the notability of either.
Here is another external and independent source (Leveraging Human Perception for Happier Tabbing https://labs.mozilla.com/2006/11/chromatabs/)? Again, not true. This is a firefox add-on and mozilla is the developer of firefox, so not independent. Still a primary source.
ColorfulTabs was featured on television on BBC World (see BBC Click archives available online http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/6262703.stm#6). True enough, but featuring on Click is not an achievement recognised within the software industry, it's five minutes of filler on a channel which struggles to fill 24 hours with news.
ColorfulTabs has been distributed and featured in the German magazine CHIP (edition 05/2009 and 09/2007) for it's utility which has circulation of over 406,000 copies per month and over 1.63 million readers per issue. I have no doubt that there a lot of happy German PC owners who read this magazine, however the circulation level of a German magazine has very little to do with this product, and while this magazine may be notable you cannot inherit its notability.
ColorfulTabs has been distrubuted with the German PC magazine "PC-WELT".
Circulated with COMPUTERBILD February 2005 - Europes biggest magazine. Again with the German publications, again they may be notable, that does not make you notable.

And thank you for pointing me to arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, I always find it to be a fascinating and humourous read, however that page does not add to the significant third party coverage that you are missing. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object! News 24 comfortably broadcasts 24 hours of top-quality news every day. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear the gentleman's objection but ask him to concede that Click does not equal notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course. But I must protect my precious BBC. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines: Thus this article could be anything but not a deletion candidate. You can tag it for lack of notability. But deletion is not a valid course of action.
"worthy of notice" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines Given that ColorfulTabs has been noticed by the above mentioned media, it does not need additional propaganda to make it any more noticeable. It has made a difference to the world thus collectively the above the notability by above mentioned resources proves noticeability of ColorfulTabs.
Notability is not judged in isolation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hiding/What_notability_is_not)
Notability is not objective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hiding/What_notability_is_not)

Regards, varun21 (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you restated you arguments but added bolding, I'm fully convinced. Except that all you are doing is asserting notability by restating Wikipedia's policy. You are not actually proving notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Darrenhusted's elaborate explanation. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notability cited: Cited notability by third-party cites CNET, PCWorld and Mashable in the article. Regards, varun21 (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not additional notability, simply two more refs which do nothing more than give the personal opinion of two internet writers. "15 Must-Have Firefox Downloads" and "Best Firefox extensions" are not notable achievements but columnists making lists. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tab Mix Plus cited the same and deleted the prod tag. Two different sets of laws for these articles? Regards, varun21 (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the notability in totality instead of claiming "nothing is enough". In case none of the sources make this notable kindly mention the sources that you accept for notability by providing their URL's or names. Regards, varun21 (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

How has the notability been asserted?
1. CNET
2. PCWorld
3. Mashable
4. Computerworld
5. BBC World
How this makes this article notable?
1. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources the above sources fit into one or more definitions of Reliable Sources.
2. The sources are reliable (regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand - technology in the context of ColorfulTabs).
3. The sources are third-party sources.
4. The sources are published.
5. The sources merit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Reliability_in_specific_contexts Reliability in specific contexts.
6. BBC is considered a reliable source under Wikipedia:Current science and technology sources.
7. Computerworld is considered a reliable source under Wikipedia:Current science and technology sources.
The topic has received significant coverage in the above mentioned reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
The topic quotes all secondary sources.
The topic quotes third-party and reliable sources which are independent ot the subject being covered.
The sources are independent of the subject.
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22colorful+tabs%22+OR+%2Bcolorfultabs 99 news articles.

Regards, varun21 (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - d/l stats cited are significant. Inclusion in a significant number of independently published must-have lists seem to speak to WP:N. Note, though that user:varun21 apparently continues to WP:POINT after being asked not to do so by admin user:ZimZalaBim. Paleking (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid SR 388

[edit]

There is no reason to make a Wikipedia article for an unfinished, unofficial fangame that no one knows anything about. Please take this down by request of one of the game's developers. Infinitysend (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V - sourced only to rumours - and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unofficial fangames are normally non-notable enough as it is, but this one isn't even finished yet. JIP | Talk 15:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – while we normally don't delete articles upon request from the originators of the topic (except in sensitive cases), there is nothing out there that can provide any notability for this (at least from what I could find). MuZemike 04:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Besides, how can you make a game about SR388 after it gets destroyed at the end of Metroid Fusion? —harej (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SunGlassesUK.com

[edit]

No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. One 2003 puffpiece? Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Note that this is about an online retailer of sunglasses. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Someone commented on the talk page "Is this an advertisement or what?", and that's my feeling as well. If the fluff were removed, article would be empty, and it seems there is nothing notable to say. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: relied too much on primary sources. Alexius08 (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is covered in various sources as a successful business idea, it is a notable topic. I would like to understand why the explanatory details of this coverage would be considered "fluff". Cinagua (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Cinagua (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: just based on the number of statements in the article that are solely sourced to press releases and the subject's own website. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eating Approach

[edit]

Prod declined by author. Article is redundant to Vegetarianism Lacto vegetarianism and Lacto-ovo vegetarianism. Adds no new content, and it's hard to imagine what new content there might be. This is essentially either a unnecessary list page or an unnecessary disambiguation page. There's no real need to keep this around all week if someone can come up with a speedy delete category for it. Hairhorn (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diet (nutrition). I was in the process of converting it to a redirect when the AfD nom was made. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unlikely search term, so I would argue against a redirect (even though a redirect would get rid of it faster). Hairhorn (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Eating approach" gets a few thousand Google hits, all of them using the term more or less euphemistically for "diet"; a redirect wouldn't cost us much, so I think it could be justified. But I'm not going to lose sleep either way :) Gonzonoir (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, me neither... Hairhorn (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While a redirect would have been fine to avoid the hassle of an AfD, now that we're here, there's no point in a redirect. That is not a search term, and looks as though maybe it's a trade name. Those factors both recommend against redirect. Shadowjams (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin James Leighton

[edit]

NN actor - a bunch of bit parts and voice-over work. Fails WP:ENT - does not have significant roles, a substantial fanbase or a unique contribution Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication he meets notability criteria. Dekimasuよ! 06:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Listed at User:Ha!/paid editing adverts. DGG (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly Fails Notablity and WP:BIO.Clear paid advertsing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Laurent (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Properties

[edit]

NN corp - all of the mentions are either in passing or lack the substantial coverage in sources independent of the subject that the notability guidelines require. Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Provided sources are not sufficient to establish notability, and cannot find anything else on Google or Google News. Laurent (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Note that this article is about an Australian developer of apartments / flats / tenements. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I confirm that the links in the article do not establish notability. Fails WP:CORP. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising without a doubt. Get Dumb 09:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep descriptive article about reasonably notable company. The sources are weak, but that's usual with internet companies of this sort. A more honest way to do paid editing is to accept the job only if the company can provide good sources, or pay you for finding them and you do find. DGG (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom the article clearly fails notability and WP:CORP and clear paid advertsing. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly unsubtle advertising. the 2 articles I found in google news search are the director commenting on the housing market rather than articles actually about viva properties and does not assert notability of Viva properties. having said that it's still not wide coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly advertising, fails WP:CORP. Orderinchaos 20:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has substance WP:CORP. User talk:Gregor20 11:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC) — Gregor20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Based on what? It fails CORP miserably. Have you read the policy in question? --Cybercobra (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bet he hasn't, Cybercobra. Look at his edits. COI at it's finest and furthers the argument to delete as advertising. Get Dumb 04:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor20 is the name of the Elance client that commissioned this article as well the username Greg Rips (co founder) uses on Twitter. Ha! (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The coverage in reliable sources amounts to "company got awarded a contract, incidentally mentioned in an article about rent and incidentally mentioned in an article about opposition to 21 houses being built." Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to pass the guidelines for notability. Ha! (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Snow. Speedy, whatever. This isn't going anywhere. StarM 23:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strath Creek, Victoria

[edit]

Non-notable Australian town, it has only fewer than 1,000 of its population. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a fundamentally encyclopaedic subject - Peripitus (Talk) 12:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real towns are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No such thing as a non-notable town.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per long-standing policy that every inhabited place is considered "notable" for Wikipedia. Although the original stub was written by an editor whose only other contribution was vandalism, the article has been improved and now merits inclusion on WP. Mind matrix 14:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A locality with a recorded history of over 170 years. Subject of a couple of books, A Century of Education at Strath Creek 1892-1992 and Whispers in the Valley: A View of Strath Creek From 1838. There will also be the inevitable trail of public records and newspaper articles associated with a locality with ~400 people over such a period. Melburnian (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifiably real settlements are inherently notable per long-standing consensus. Melburnian's comment demonstrates that this is more notable than many other similar-sized localties. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominator has made valid contributions to AfD before, so this is probably a case of hasty nominating and/or a result of not realising that towns are inherently notable. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 19:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to list of Wikipedias. Flowerparty^☀ 00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gan Wikipedia

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Completely non-notable Wiki encyclopedia site, the last AFD was keep per IAR policy. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias. The previous AfD was riddled with incorrect keep opinions: we don't have articles for all other Wikipedias, many have no article at all and many of the other small ones are redirects to the list. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia#Removal of Articles about smaller Wikipedias lists a number of previous AfD's which ended in delete or redirect. Redirects for many of these articles were opposed and reverted though, leaving us with no option but AfD's or a RFC. There is no good reason to exclude Wikipedia versions from our guidelines, and most of these Wikipedias fail WP:N (those that don't of course can have a separate article). Fram (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should Venetian Wikipedia, Pennsylvania German Wikipedia, Wu Wikipedia and the like also be deleted as well, then? Ω (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they have no evidence of notability, yes, they should be deleted or (preferably) redirected. As yuo can see in the history of these articles, I have attempted a redirect, but was opposed. Another editor tried a prod, but was opposed as well. Fram (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, isn't continuing the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia#Removal_of_Articles_about_smaller_Wikipedias a better mechanism for overall resolution then this AfD? It seems to me that this is creating a problem rather then fixing anything, especially since this is the second nomination and there's a continuing discussion going on elsewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't something like WP:SNOW cover this? Ω (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one discussed this any further after I replied there. A month later, I started an AfD for one of these articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Sámi Wikipedia), and only then did the discussion resume there. It looked as if people only wanted to revert the redirects, but were not interested in any discussion of it, leaving me (and other likeminded editors) with few options. I don't see how this is covered by WP:SNOW, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashubian Wikipedia (2nd nomination) ended in delete and redirect. Other options to deal with these articles en masse are welcome, but don't blame me for not tryiong redirection and discussion first, before starting an AfD or commenting in another one. Fram (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the rush is all about. If you give everyone a month or so to comment, it's simple enough to go back to these pages and address them then (there's a nice neat nav box and everything!). Who knows, maybe by then there will be enough content fleshed out on the pages to change your mind on deleting them... which, incidentally, is one reason why WP:ATD is written into the deletion policy. Besides, isn't waiting better then being accused of "kamakazie edits" and such? There are certainly good reasons to be quick about deleting things, within the general scheme of things, but I don't see any of them here.

PS.: For the record though, I would and do support redirect/merging the articles to List of Wikipedias, and since I opened my big mouth here I'll go over to the discussion and voice my support for merging/redirecting in that discussion as well. Ω (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect due to lack of sources about this website. Same as we'd do for any non-Wikipedia organization that had non-notable versions/chapters/editions. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Chiliad22 is dead right. The notability of Wikipedia is not inherited by its various sub-projects, so ones with a lack of dedicated reliable sources don't need their own articles. (Of course I'm ready to be corrected if there is a load of coverage out there I haven't found.) Olaf Davis (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all Ohm, I don't know why you have such a problem with the AfD process, but it's a fine way to bring more attention to an issue that involves the destruction of articles. I mean, that's what it's here for. The other discussion has sat nearly stagnant for a week now. It's not like there is a lively debate over there that is being hijacked with this AfD. Gigs (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify my !vote... I mean "boldly redirect all of the likely non-notable ones". If there's a controversy, then we can revisit that one. Gigs (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias, like many of the small Wikipedias in Template:Wikipedias. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with at least Redirect. I think we should respect the existance of the Gan Language Website in Wikipedia. Otherwise, we may ask whether we should delete articles related to other Chinese dialects such as Cantonese, Hakka and Minnan. Ricky@36 (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Taoist Community

[edit]

Non-notable religious community established in 2009, 262 G-hits, zero G-News hits. Deprodded. Accurizer (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 11:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no sources to indicate that this is a notable group. No prejudice against the article's reincarnation should it become so. pablo_hablo. 12:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. So new a group is unlikely to be notable, and this one isn't - may become so, but not yet. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above - no evidence of notability. Nuttah (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Flowerparty^☀ 00:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Said

[edit]

Delete. Not notable other than his unfortunate death. Fails WP:BIO, this is WP:SINGLEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my position as sufficient references exist to establish notability. I am not withdrawing the nomination as that would not be fair to editors who have voted to delete in good faith. WWGB (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough notable Rirunmot (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable individual. Giant Snowman 11:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, chief of police of a country's capital!! Punkmorten (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, chief of police of a country's capital, with more exclamation points!!!!! Scanlan (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, chief of police of a country's capital, with more exclamation points!!!!! Scanlan (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, chief of police of a country's capital, sans exclamation points. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why delete useful information? Zero^talk 14:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being chief of police seems pretty notable to me. Lugnuts (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not known for anything besides his death, which seems to me like a one event thing. Mogadishu is one of the most lawless areas on earth and the government and the police exert very little control over the city. He may be the police chief by title, but did not do much Corpx (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple, reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of the individual can be found; a three-sentence permastub does us no good. And please, how about an article on Somali law enforcement agencies before a random bit about one of its functionaries? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because he isnt an American police chief a´nd gets tons of recognition because of that fact doesnt mean he isnt notable. I say Keep.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if he doesn't get any recognition, regardless of nationality, then he fails WP:N. Giant Snowman 23:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the tiresome "systemic bias" excuse for justifying stubs like these... True, a police chief in a poorly-covered African country might be notable, but WP:BIO still requires the subject to have received coverage in "published secondary source material..." And true, someone like Eldrin Bell probably isn't that notable, but the solution is deletion of that article, not retention of this one in order to "balance" it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tell you what......if someone can find me a reliable source dated before his death, I will consider changing my vote. Otherwise, this looks like WP:SINGLEEVENT to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in my own opinion, I see three counts of notability. Firstly, he was the chief of police for a nations capital, secondly, he was assassinated (yes I am aware of WP:SINGLEEVENT) and three his death received notable media coverage which stated that it was a significant moment in the course of history for that conflict and city, which leads me to believe there must have been pre-death notability to establish this individual on such a pedestal. All we have to do is find it - so I believe this is an article for expansion not deletion, personally. SGGH ^ping! 12:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What makes AS less notable than any other police chief of the capital of a country ?. Lack of English sources mentioning him in contexts other than that of his death. This, however,does not mean that sources does not exist. Alternate sources reaffirming his notability will no doubt be found in Arabic-language websites. For the moment, the article should remain on wikipedia. --Roaring Siren (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I say because of the improvement of the article since the Afd tag was placed on it. Plus good sourcing.--Judo112 (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Kjetil_r 17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage from independent sources? Corpx (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, that is the usual words from the "lets delete all articles with non-american subject" groups. Well there is alot of independent sources.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)--MarkusBJoke (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIAS. A person in a similar position in a Western country would never be brought to afd.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and don't make assertions you cannot sustain. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to question you as the nom, I was merely pointing out the unintentional trend that seems to be prevalent here at WP. I should have been more careful in wording my point. I'm sorry.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of not assuming good faith, but the fact that articles such as Michael Gaffey remain a sub on Wikipedia and doesn't get nominated for afd. As I have said before, sources asserting his notability definitely exist, but they might not be in English. The fact that he is a police chief itself is evidence enough for his notability and rather than delete it, if we can get Somali Wikipedians to work on it, we can improve the article. --Roaring Siren (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obvious keeper. To change the reason for the Afd when you suddenly realise it might not work can be discussed.. but in the end its still a Keeper.--Judo112 (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Brewcrewer and Roaring Siren, let's get real.
  - Yes, we know the old "systemic bias" chestnut. Oh, sure, having more articles on relevant African topics is a Good Thing. But bringing up articles on random American police chiefs (the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument) really is not a justification for topics on similarly trivial Somali ones. What should happen is an a priori consensus on what constitutes a notable police chief - and we have WP:BIO for that. And by the way, we do not (as far as I can tell) have articles on the incumbent chiefs of police of Paris, or of Berlin, or of Rome, or of Moscow - nor does there seem any particular imperative for that to change. They are, after all, civil servants, bureaucrats, unelected, serving at the behest of politicians. They may have received significant independent coverage, in which case a reconsideration would be in order, but it doesn't seem to me that notability inheres in them simply by virtue of their post.
  - Allow me to refer you to WP:BURDEN, an official policy. "Sources might exist" is a convenient way of dodging the issue, but if you assert notability, you have to prove it - you can't say, "oh, too bad, it's in Somali, you have to trust me on this one".
  - Let me give you a hint: there are no Somali Wikipedians. Oh, sure, you'll find a few names of sporadically active émigré users in Category:User so (at least one of whom is apparently unfamiliar with WP:MOS, given this), but by and large, Maslow's hierarchy of needs indicates that Somalis (who, if they speak a language other than Somali, will speak Arabic, and only then English or Italian, but who also have not had functioning schools since 1991) will spend their time fighting to survive warlords and al Qaeda, and scrambling to find whatever food they can -- they will not be sitting in air-conditioned rooms "improving" English-language Wikipedia articles on the late police chief of Mogadishu. And furthermore, the premise that considers "improvement" on Said's biography is fallacious: much of Africa's history is a blank spot, which can only be covered tentatively; the Somali economy has not provided for a consistent literacy level, and the social investment in that literacy level is likely to be diverted back into traditional occupations and a rural structure. The fact is that Somalia simply doesn't have the luxury or the interest to produce, on its own, ample coverage of its own history, not to mention its policemen.
  - In sum, it's terribly counterproductive keeping a worthless article and urging editors to find more Somali sources on a phenomenon (in-depth coverage of Said's life) that almost certainly doesn't exist at all. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is the chief of police of the largest city and capital of Somalia. There's absolutely no denying that he is a notable person in Somalia. It's not even a close call. Thus, to the extent that it's verified that he exists and his name is mentioned in some English language sources, he's a keeper.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but "he's just notable" doesn't cut it here - particularly when considering his status as an unelected civil servant. The size of the city or its status as a capital is also immaterial - if I told you that Denis Yevsyukov, Michel Gaudin, Dieter Glietsch, Heru Winarko and Kim Seok-ki all are or recently were police chiefs in Moscow, Paris, Berlin, Jakarta and Seoul respectively - all cities considerably larger than Mogadishu - would you rush to create stubs about them? Hopefully not, because the standard thus far has been, and I hope will continue to be, WP:BIO, with its "depth of coverage" standard. We have hitherto not accorded great attention to chiefs of police; there's no compelling reason to start with Said merely because he was killed in the last few days. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why "he's just notable" can't cut it. WP:BIO should be limited to people that are of questionable notability, not people that are very notable in their own non-English speaking country. That aside, I'm perusing the sources and now I'm not even sure why we're having this discussion. The New York Times saying "Somali analysts said the loss of the police chief, Col. Ali Said, would be a major blow to the transitional government" and similarly the BBC saying that his "death will be a significant setback for the pro-government forces" settles all notability questions. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO is a neutral, objective standard whereby we measure notability; notability isn't Brewcrewer saying "this guy's notability is absolutely undeniable" (nor is it Biruitorul saying "this guy just isn't notable"). And in any case, if his only notability lies in the impact his death had on the (already tenuous) hold of the Somalian government (and, given lack of coverage prior to his death, that does seem to be the case), then why not simply mention it at, say, Central Somalia spring fighting of 2009 or 2009 timeline of the War in Somalia? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know all about objective standards of WP:BIO and I similar know all about WP:COMMONSENSE. Police chiefs of major cities are notable, end of story. WP:BIAS comes into play for precisely this scenario, when we don't have enough Somali editors to edit articles of clearly notable people using Somali-language sources. Also, the links provided above do not show that it was only his death that had an impact, which may lead to the wp:oneevent argument. What the sources show was that he was a very notable person, because only the death of notable people have a huge effect on the government of the subject's home country. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proclaiming something as "end of story" only begs the question: really? Odd, isn't it, that the police chiefs of Moscow, Paris, Berlin, Jakarta and Seoul -- or for that matter of Mexico City, Beijing, Kyoto, São Paulo and Rome don't have articles here? There's a reason for that, laid out above: they're unelected civil servants, in office (usually) briefly and at the behest of political superiors. They're functionaries who differ little across time and space. Oh, sure, some of them are bound to receive sufficient coverage - Bill Bratton, Bernie Parks - but by and large, it doesn't happen.

I don't claim Said was a nonentity. However, the relevant coverage on him all revolves around his death, and we have plenty of space at 2009 timeline of the War in Somalia to add in three or four lines on his death and its impact (which in any case is all we're bound to have on him for the foreseeable future). - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The chief of police of Mogadishu is notable. There is also plenty of coverage in reliable sources. His death is reported because he is notable, not the other way around. Btw, does anyone know how his name is written in the local writing? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The chief of police of Mogadishu is notable - why? Because you say so? Then one naturally wonders why we lack articles on the police chiefs of most of the word's great cities; a hint is provided in my reply just above your vote. And anyway, have you considered what, if any, might be the contextual relevance of this "article", given that we even lack an article on the present-day Somali Police Force? And why, in extremis, we could not merge and redirect at Central Somalia spring fighting of 2009 or 2009 timeline of the War in Somalia? - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the chief in police, especially in a country like Somalia, is an important position of power. I disagree with the merge, because he is not only notable for dying. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not to be querulous, but do you have something to back up this assertion, or should we just accept it on faith? After all, he was just an employee of the Ministry of Interior, and his power could have been removed at a moment's notice. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that this is just another case of nationality discrimination. had Ali been a police chief in any state in America we wouldnt have had this discussion right now. Strange. I still say Keep because i dont see a reason for deletion as of now.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Nationality discrimination"? By whom exactly? Because if the comment is targeted at me, I take umbrage at that. I've taken great pains to justify deleting this on solid policy grounds, and for you to lazily come in here and say, "oh, goodness, if he were an American, why, there'd be no question of notability" - with no attempt to actually grapple with the points I've raised - is, well, uncharitable. Like I've stressed, Thomas Lafayette Houchins Jr., Herbert Jenkins and Roger E. Murdock likely do not merit articles here. But in no way does their presence (which should eventually be eliminated through AfD) justify Said's. We don't run a quota system here, with junk on America having to be counterbalanced by junk on Somalia. The idea is to reduce both kinds. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some strange way there is still mutch more "junk" articles on American this american that, than other countries combined. strange. or not.--Judo112 (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Although there is no second "delete" opinion, the "keep" opinions - with the exception of that by GMH Melbourne - are poorly argued: they assert notability, but do not cite specific sources or address the quality of the sources offered by others, which has been contested. Sandstein 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Green

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. The current cited sources include passing mentions, a contributor piece, and an announcement of her inclusion in the 100 Women of Influence 2016 list, which does not automatically confer notability. Although a Google news search yielded some sources, they primarily consist of passing mentions or self-published materials, none of which establish independent notability. GSS ^💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Australia. GSS ^💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article in Sydney Morning Herald is rather strong, but yes, Google News is mostly WP:PRIMARY.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/headdd-20170424-gvrdku.html		Newspaper of record		✔ Yes
https://www.afr.com/women-of-influence/why-networking-is-vital-when-starting-a-company-20190717-p52851	~ Basically just quotes.		~ Rather short section of the article.	~ Partial
https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2016/10/05/79021/green-recognised-on-women-of-influence-list/			Routine.	✘ No
https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11	paid promotion as noted by Scottyoak2	? Doesn't seem to be an established magazine?		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

TLA^tlak 16:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sydney Morning Herald piece is an interview, hence it should not be considered an independent source ~~article appears to be an interview-style piece with a "he said, she said" format~~, and it requires a subscription to access the entire content. Additionally, the Australian Financial Review article is published by a non-staff contributor and should be treated as self-published sources, similar to many at WP:RSP. GSS ^💬 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I evaluated my sources according to SIRS and wrote the content around this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you approved these sources. No offense, I just really want to understand what has changed since then. Fact and Curious (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact, I never approved these sources, which is why I declined your submission. These sources do not establish notability because they do not provide the required coverage for the subject, as pointed out above. GSS ^💬 17:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was just accepted today, I thought the editor's approval depends on the appropriateness of the sources. GSS suggested de-orphaning the page and improving the categories. I made these changes but now I'm a bit confused, was the fix that bad?

Also, I found another source that mentioned the subject, but just in case, I removed it now if it was causing the problem. Fact and Curious (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ : if these are the same person [34] and [35], I think we have notability. Australian person in the New York Times could be possible I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work digging that up. NYT is an international publication, so it's squarely within their breadth. TLA^tlak 20:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: The article from The New York Times seems to be an opinion piece, as it focuses not on the individual herself but rather on her views, evident in the frequent use of phrases such as "saying" and "said". Conversely, The Cut article is written by a different "Alison Green" and is unrelated to the subject of this article ~~self-published, bearing the name "by Alison Green"~~. GSS ^💬 04:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. That NYT columnist is not the subject of this article. That columnist (born abt. 1974), is the daughter of an American journalist named, Steve Green, who died in 2001. The subject of this discussion (born 1986) is the daughter of John M. Green. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well spotted. Thank you for your attentive review. @Oaktree b:, considering these findings, it may be worth reevaluating.

04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, without the two sources I listed above, I'm not sure. I can't really !vote one way or another. Struck my prior vote/comment, just going to sit this one out, so to speak. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough sources that exist (both in and out of the article) to establish notability under WP:GNG. I have found 4. Plus also I think it is safe to say the AFR article counts towards GNG. It is more than just quotes and SIGCOV refers to the substance of a source (ie. a passing mention) rather than the length of a source. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GMH Melbourne: I agree that there are articles, but simply having them doesn't automatically make someone notable; they should provide significant coverage, not just passing mentions or interviews. As mentioned before, the AFR article is written by a contributor. Can you please list the four articles here for review? Just saying you found four isn't enough; they need to be shown for proper consideration. GSS ^💬 04:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the sources I have found (not already in the article) that count towards WP:GNG: [36] [37] + the AFR and SMH ones already mentioned. I understand that this is a borderline article but I think there is enough to meet GNG with at least two sources that qualify. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing the sources. To pass GNG, the subject needs coverage in independent, reliable sources. While the sources you mentioned are undoubtedly reliable, but they lack independence, so let's examine them closely. As I mentioned earlier, the article by ARF was authored by a contributor, not staff. According to WP:RSP, there's a consensus that such sources lack independence and should be treated as self-published. The SMH piece you mentioned is an interview, which is also not independent.

Now, let's discuss the two links you provided. The first one by ARF isn't about the subject of this AfD. The article includes comments from multiple people and heavily relies on their words. Similarly, the one from the Daily Telegraph heavily depends on phrases like "he said" and "she said". Since they aren't independent, they are insufficient to establish notability. GSS ^💬 04:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding this potential source: https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11 ... APAC Entrepreneur is solicited advertising. Their article subjects are expected to pay to be included on the site. You might find this interesting: [38]. And this: [39]. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fixed up the table. TLA^tlak 12:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is within WP:GNG. Good sourcing. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ:, could you please highlight which sources you believe are good? Numerous sources are discussing a different individual with the same name, leading to confusion. Additionally, there are a few sources consisting of interviews. Thank you. GSS ^💬 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems some disagreement on the suitability of the source material. Additional analysis on this point would be very useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was relisted twice in the same day so consider this the second, not third, relisting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the subject is notable and there are sources to demonstrate that. Nathan N Higgers (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Nathan N Higgers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just stating "there are sources" doesn't actually establish anything. You need to specify which sources, because as I mentioned above and in my deletion rationale, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. While there are some sources, they aren't about this person, but about a different person under the same name. Additionally, it is suspicious that you were registered today and your first edit was to !vote here, so I highly suspect there is a case of WP:PAID and/or socking. GSS ^💬 05:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep--withdrawn by nom. (non-admin close). JJL (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 3

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not enough info for an article, not officially confirmed. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO, it is confirmed: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6211809.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=morenews&tag=morenews;title;5 . There may not be much info, but the article still deserves to be there. "It's over 9000!" (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been confirmed on the official Battlefield twitter http://twitter.com/BattlefieldHQ/statuses/2115722608 EFJO (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: If it's been confirmed, then I say that it should be merged into the series page until there's more information.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it is a part of the Battlefield series, and has been officialy confirmed, it seems logical that it should have it's own page. Sure it may not have much information, but confirmation from an official source (or sources, including the twitter page) seems enough to classify it as a true instalment in the battlefield franchise, and thus deserving of a seperate page. halo6556 (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Besford. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besford Court

[edit]

Stub created in error. Besford Court is not a village. It is a large, but non notable private house 2Km from the village of Besford. The village of Besford already has a page. Kudpung (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator had forgotten to add ((afd)) to the article. I have now done so. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 11:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Besford, which already has more information on Besford Court than does this article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. JJL (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Thryduulf. JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above - but without prejudice to re-creation as a substantive article if substantial information can be provided. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I endorse Peterkingiron's comments. The building is Grade II listed as are many of the walls etc around the estate. Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep and move to piano maintenance. Flowerparty^☀ 00:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care and maintenance of pianos

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a manual. OboeCrack (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agreed. Delete Ω (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wp:NOTHOWTO sums up my thoughts perfectly. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems less like a how-to than a list of maintenance/aging issues for pianos, which seems a reasonable breakout of the main article to me. JJL (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJL. SpikeJones (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on! I only really glanced at the page earlier (my bad). After seeing what JJL said and taking a second look I see that this page is a breakout from the main Piano page (be sure to look at the page history and the talk pages). That being the case, the result here should undoubtedly be Keep. That being said, this page needs attention. The fact that it needs attention is a reason to start copy editing it, not a reason to delete it, though. Ω (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd also suggest a move to Piano maintenance; it's the title alone that makes this look like a deletion target. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, agree. (for whatever that's worth...) Ω (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too had issues with the title but struggled for a good suggestion. This one works for me! JJL (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was in a bit of a foul mood yesterday, and really only glanced at the article. Now that I have, I agree with Smerdis. (Hence my comment yesterday being struck out.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Anti-Defamation League. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League

[edit]

POV fork - attempt to remove criticism from Anti-Defamation League John Nagle (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record. I did not remove all criticism. I moved everything to the new page, put up a link, and I kept a criticism section in the main article with a one-sentence summary. The nom could certainly have expanded that to a paragraph, in keeping with what is done on the hundreds of Wikipedia articles on organizations that attract extensive criticism.Historicist (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a rather strange article. It's an attempt to remove the "Criticism" section from Anti-Defamation League to a separate article. That's in a sense a POV fork. The editor who created this article also deleted all criticism from the main article. Weird. --John Nagle (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it back where it came from. There was no prior discussion of this split. If it were done properly a summary should have been left, and to avoid being a POV fork it would need to reflect both the negative and positive views of the subject. But I don't think it's worth trying to fix - just put it back. Will Beback talk 07:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of "Criticism of..." articles, which are started when there is a very large amount of criticism content that threatens to overwhelm the original article. This is indusputably the case here. Given that, it seems somewhat presumptuous of the nom to speculate on the "motivation" of the spinout, and it would be strange if we were to apply a different standard in this particular case. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article because, as User talk:Jalapenos do exist states, this is a routine Wikipedia approach when criticism overwhelms the page of an organization doing good work. And, just to be clear, there had been comments on the talk page about the disproportionate weight given in the article to criticism. For examples of other articles where the criticism is moved to a separate page, see Human Rights Watch, Noam Chomsky and many, many others.Historicist (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Both of the "Criticism" spinout articles mentioned have the effect of moving criticism of Israel to a spinout article. Is there a pattern here? --John Nagle (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the spinout articles on Human Rights Watch, and Noam Chomsky, do not move criticism of Israel to another page. They move criticism of critics of Israel (i.e., defense of Israel]] to other pages. What I fail to understand in Nagle's argument is why this page should be treated any differently form the hundreds of similar criticism pages.Historicist (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable goal but lots of this stuff should be excluded anyway. Whether or not I agree with the stance of the ADL on gun rights, the inclusion of the criticism by the JPFO based solely on their own publications (and synthesis from ADL sources) is unnecessary. We don't gain anything by quoting criticism by Noam Chomsky and other opponents of the continued existence of the state of Israel at length. Nevard (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are about 84 "Criticism of ..." articles in Wikipedia.[40]. Of those, 31 are redirects back to the main article. See, for example, Criticism of McDonald's, which started as a POV fork but was eventually merged back into the main article. Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement is currently being considered for a merge back into the main article. The separate "criticism" articles that stick tend to be on big subjects, like Criticisms of communism. --John Nagle (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nagle, the unbalancing of articles on organizations like the ADL, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch is a serious problem. These pages become extremely cluttered and unbalanced. setting up criticism pages is a good solution, and it is the one that is widely used already. You seem content to allow a very problematic (because unbalanced) page to remain so.Historicist (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User talk:Jalapenos do exist. Keeping it in original article both deflects from institutional history of ADL, and limits criticsm based on proportionality. --Jayrav (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Historicist (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In line with articles like Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses, it makes sense to take a large amount of significant criticism to its own article, because it really does seem to be an unwieldy subtopic. Not too happy with the suggestion that the creator exhibited bad faith through POV-forking. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very significant size difference between the two articles. In fact, that criticism article is longer then the ADL article with its criticism section.Matty (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to ADL main article. LotLE×talk 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; otherwise, Merge it back to the main article. In principle, I support the creation of Criticism of... articles on the grounds that doing so allows the criticisms to be discussed in more detail without unbalancing the main article. However, in this particular case, the article in question is pretty awful. There is no structure to the article's sections. It is effectively just a laundry list of criticisms. The lead provides something of an overview but it is only a loose summary of the article's contents (probably because the article's contents are such a jumble). This article needs rewriting in order to be a valuable stand-alone article. Otherwise, merging it back to the main article would be doing us all a favor. --Richard (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the main article. Unlike what most editors have stated here in reality the criticism section isn't long or large or overbearing or whatever else you want to call it. It's certainly not large enough to stand up as an article on its own. The article was not in need of a content fork. While the criticism section was a little large, it could have easily been trimmed back. It does not need a separate article. The split, which was not discussed, has changed the editorial bias of the main article by providing one point of view, while the other "sub-article" provides another. We should not be splitting articles into positive sides and negative sides and I see no consensus to say otherwise. Both WP:STRUCTURE and WP:POVFORK provide valuable insight on why this should not have occurred. If AfD results in a keep, we've lost the original contribution history which is in violation of WP:SPLIT and needs to be corrected immediately following the guidelines on that page. Matty (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the main article, per above. (Just realized I hadn't actually voted.) --John Nagle (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nagle, since you are the nom. Do we also merge Criticism of Noam Chomsky, Criticism of Human Rights Watch, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of the BBC, Criticism of Osama bin Laden , Criticism of Coca-Cola and all the other criticism pages back onto the main pages? And, if not, can you please tell me what the difference is between this page and those? I ask because I can see no difference between the Anti-Defamation League page and the many other pages about organizations such as Criticism of Human Rights Watch, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of the BBC, that have such pages except, of course, the the ADL is a Jewish defense organization.Historicist (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) and Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator), where I'm also arguing that the "Criticism" article there should be merged back into the main article. --John Nagle (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Bill O'Reilly but not Noam Chomsky? Why the selectivity?Historicist (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that. and I also see that you took that position only after being criticized here for your very selective choice of which Criticisms of page to make an issue of. And I also see that others on that page have responded much as have several veteran users on this page, by pointing out that these pages have their uses in instances where criticism overwhelms that page of a legitimate individual or organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicist (talk • contribs)

Nagle, I find it troubling but interesting that you seem to want to take down only the separate criticism pages of organizations and individuals that defend Israel and Jews. By your standards, it is fine to separate out Criticism of Osama bin Laden in order that Osama bin Laden's page is protected from being overwhelmed by criticism, but it is not legitimate to separate out criticisms that threaten to overwhelm the page of the Anti-Defamation League. I know what it is like to take a stand and then feel that you have to defend it. It is an emotional thing. When criticized, we tend to act defensively, often without thinking an issue through. But please stop and think whether this position truly represents the ethical and moral standards by which you want to be known.Historicist (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please. --John Nagle (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree that it is inappropriate to mischaracterize the actions of other editors, accusing them, for example, of removing material that they have not deleted,of acting in a "strange" manner when creating articles of routinely used and commonplace type, and of being "weird."Historicist (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I continue to be interested in an answer to the question of why you select only certain "Criticism" pages for deletion.Historicist (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably time to throw WP:OTHERSTUFF in. Just because something else exists on Wikipedia is not a valid argument on its own to keep something else. Matty (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. That lots of other Criticism of... articles exist is not in itself an argument for keeping this one. The question, however, is, given that so many virtually identical articles exist, why are we arguing exclusively about this one. As I see it, either separating text so that criticism overwhelms the page is a good idea, or it is not. If it is not, if this AFD succeeds, then everyone who voted for it ought to also vote to remerge Criticism of Noam Chomsky, Criticism of Human Rights Watch, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of the BBC, Criticism of Osama bin Laden and the rest back onto the main pages. Or explain the difference.Historicist (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a pretty clear cut case of WP:OTHERSTUFF; "if we delete this we have to delete those". Each article is assessed on it's own merits, which is why this article is at AfD. Please start assuming good faith and stop bringing other articles into this deletion debate. Matty (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to ADL article. Matty made most of the points that matter, just add one more. There seems to be 2 motivations that have been raised to justify the splitting the topic, to either "hide" such criticism or to allow more criticism without concern for overloading the main article. I think both are incorrect, the criticism should be weighted in proportion to how it is treated in the sources and criticism should be in the article for anybody who wants to read an encyclopedia article on the ADL. If it was too much in the main article then chop it down a bit, but just separating it and having a single line in the main article on broad definitions of antisemitism does not seem the way to go. Nableezy (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork, and merge it back into the original article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any reasonable good reason why it should be removed or merged. --Boatduty177177 (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC) — Boatduty177177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep In looking at the pre-fork article, about one-third was made up of criticism. This is exactly when to fork, when a section starts to overwhelm the rest of the article. If this does end up being merged back in, the section should be drastically pruned to provide some measure of content balance without WP:UNDUE issues. Alansohn (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the main ADL article. There's no real reason to have this as a separate piece. CJCurrie (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 issues here, the page may be kept since it cannot be merged fully into main article in its current state due to length issues. However a good summary should be added into the main article with main aspects. Also note user tried to completely remove criticism before [41] so I reverted [42], there are some POV ~~or inexperienced user~~ issues, yet a separate article is needed, completely merging 2 articles will result an overly long article. For a guide of how properly separate articles, try reading Amnesty International#Criticism and Criticism of Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch#Criticisms and Criticism of Human Rights Watch or Criticism of the BBC and BBC#Criticism_and_controversies Kasaalan (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I made some improvements in the Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League since it was just copy paste its titles and contents were not properly set. I won't edit Anti-Defamation League#Criticism until this debate will result. Kasaalan (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you are coming from but put simply all the ADL needed was the criticism section trimmed, there really isn't enough information to split the pages yet. If the main article was in excess of 100-200kb I could see why a separate section would work alone but in its current state there doesn't seem to be a need to start splitting the ADL article into little sub-article stubs. Matty (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How much the article's length, how do we check page lengths. Kasaalan (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We assess each case individually, which is what we are doing now. Matty (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)r[reply]

I mean how you measure page length, there was a way but I cannot find it right now. Also can you tell me the length of the Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League page. Kasaalan (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back This is clearly an attempt to remove criticism from the main article. Likeminas (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true user tried to remove criticism, that is why I reversed him. However, leaving a summary style criticism in the main article, and developing criticism as a separate subpage is better, just as other examples I provided. As a general approach separate criticism articles are better. Kasaalan (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no consensus to say that separate articles are better. The criticism articles already in existence are significantly longer then the ADL article has. Matty (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The community-wide consensus is that shorter articles are better; a healthy summary (with a link to this article) will keep the main article appropriately balanced and resemble other similar articles. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 10:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter articles are not better, but sub article approach is better for readability, therefore advised. Kasaalan (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could relate to most of your points so far but saying that having the entire article split up is better for readability does not make sense to me. I also don't see how splitting a relatively short article up into sub articles is appropriate. I'd agree that certain articles do need to be split up due to size constraints, but this is most definitely not one. Matty (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all WP:NPOV material to the main Anti-Defamation League article, otherwise this is a blatant violation of Wikipedia:Content forking and WP:NOTOPINION. IZAK (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it hard to vote either way. The negative coverage in the main article has been gutted and needs reinstatement. However, criticism sections are problematic in themselves, it being better to merge information into a more flowing discussion rather than just have a section for the bad bits. Further the coverage of criticism, is in any case not broad enough. The ADL has been attacked from the right, and not just by anti-Semites. Kahanists and right-wing Zionists, such as our friends in the JIDF, have attacked the ADL's support of land for peace [43]. No doubt there are better sources available than this.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not only attacked by right, they are attacked by left Jew movements as you can clearly tell. Also it is pretty obvious ADL attacks to its left and right too. Kasaalan (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the right as all the article records at present is criticism from the left, with Jews such as Chomsky already mentioned. If the article covers a range of criticism, it becomes less of a POV-fork. But it still needs to be reflected more in the main article--Peter cohen (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have a point. If you don't claim only right wing criticizes ADL I have nothing to object. Kasaalan (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge salient material to main article. "Criticism" articles are, IMO, magnets for improper material. All material to be merged should also be accepted by consensus in the main article, just in case this article gets burdened with improper claims. The AfD, however, is not the place for specifics on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 08:14, June 19, 2009
Merge per IZAK and peter cohen. obvious content fork with some false information. also, on June 15/16 historicist selectively canvassed several users on their talk pages ([44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49].

I'm surprised that this has only come to attention now, given the nature and status of some of the people that received that note. Matty (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvas shouldn't change the situation (if user new he wouldn't know what canvas is either), user acts POV from the beginning however, the AFD should be about policies, not vote count anyway. Also we should somehow require better guidelines on what is a proper subcategory article and what is not. Most of wiki guidelines are too general. Kasaalan (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I support merge as well. However, the claim (probably correct) that there is false information in the article is irrelevant here. The solution to bad information in an article is to correct that info... the exactly same concern would exist if the content is merged back, so the quality of the current text does not help us in the merge/keep/delete decision. LotLE×talk 00:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, it was the forking that determined my decision. the false information is fixable once the criticism is returned to the article. oh, and no offense to the users canvassed, only pointing out the inappropriateness of the canvasser. untwirl(talk) 04:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a pity that no sooner was this AFD begun than it was listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East. ( In response, I listed it in the Israel-related discussions page. And wrote to several people who had edited the ADL page. ) The ADL has very little to do with Israel. I believe that whoever added this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East acted inappropriately.Historicist (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty hypocritical of you. You just admitted to selectively canvassing for support, which is inappropriate. Whoever added the article to the Middle East deletion sorting page did not act inappropriately, like it or not Israel is in the middle east and the ADL is related strongly to Israel. I'm sorry to say this but I really do think you are acting in bad faith - don't take this with any negative connotations because I mean it in the nicest way but perhaps it is time to step back from editing articles you feel strongly about. Matty (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This entire forum is misconceived because issues surrounding mergers and POV forks belong at article talkpage, not afd. However, I would like to state for the record that it was a good idea to split the article. As pointed out be numeroud editors above, the criticism section was taking up a disproportionate amount of the article and thus violated WP:UNDUE. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are mistaken. see WP:POVFORK: "As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged,or nominated for deletion."untwirl(talk) 14:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put it back, until there is a proper summary in the main article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, whatever. "Criticism of..." articles are weaksauce POV forks created to either shunt criticism away from a main article, or to concentrate all the criticisms under one pointy roof. Both sides of a debate can have a vested interest in the creation of these monstrosities, so whatever the rationale was, let's jsut get rid of it. I'll risk invoking a side-tangent of Godwin's Law to note that we don't even have a Criticisms of Nazism article. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is, however,Criticism of Osama bin Laden , on a separate page to protect his page from being overwhelmed by criticism and no one here is suggesting taking it down. The problem that is being addressed is what to do with organizations like the ADL that attract a great deal of attention from anti-Semites and others. In similar cases, pages are set up, for example: Criticism of Noam Chomsky, Criticism of Human Rights Watch, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of the BBC. It seems to me like the best solution to the difficult problem that some individuals and organizations attract aggressive and exaggerated amounts of criticism on an ongoing basis.Historicist (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A reasonable way to do it in the circumstances. There remains enough material in the main article for the really major controversies, and this is a good way of handling the minor ones. There is no way other than criticism sections or articles to deal with such minor attacks and specific issues. The most we can do is try to find more subtle names for them. DGG (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back—in this case, there is no danger of the criticism section overwhelming the main article as the latter is significantly longer than the former. --darolew 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 18:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project board

[edit]

I'm not really sure what this page is, what it means, or why it exists. Only one user has edited this page. Why does this exist? Mononomic (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. WP:NONSENSE? Delete Ω (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incoherent, possible speedy delete. Hairhorn (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like someone is using Wikipedia to host notes and/or instructions for a business project. Wikipedia is not your web host. I'm tempted to tag this for speedy as G1. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...which i have done. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...which was promptly removed by Dank. In the edit summary, he/she wrote:

Declining speedy deletion; it's not db-nonsense (mild vandalism), and it's not db-test, and AFAIK it's this person's first contribution. There's already an AfD going, that should handle it.

Just FYI... Mononomic (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whatever this is it is not encyclopaedic. It's not quite a WP:CSD#A1 (no context) but not far off. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephens Scown

[edit]

Non notable solicitor, no references or reliable sources are found in this article. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 16:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is now one reference in the article, backing up the claim regarding Dragons Den (I have not investigated any details regarding the source though), however this doesn't make them notable imo. The claim that they have a "national reputation in the industry" regarding their mines and minerals work remains uncited as of the timestamp of this comment. If it is verifiable I might reconsider my opinion, but I don't think that on its own is likely to swing it for me - after all I suspect there are many regional firms of soliciters with similar natational reputations in the industry. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I tagged this article with ((Db-inc)) shortly after it was created … pure weapons-grade Vanispamcruftisement … Happy Editing! — 141.156.165.77 (talk · contribs) _{17:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete. One article in a local paper is far from enough. Suspect promotional piece masquerading as encyclopaedia article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Skydive Experience

[edit]

Seems to be nothing more than an average local skydiving centre, with one aircraft. Not notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Fails WP:COMPANY ttonyb1 (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost a G11 speedy, but even if rewritten, the company does not appear notable. Frank | talk 21:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPAM? Delete (if that's not clear) Ω (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Joe407 (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was - Speedy Deleted (A7) . Article made no attempt to show notability - amateurs in a local league with "77 fans" - Peripitus (Talk) 12:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABCDE FC

[edit]

Contested prod. Amateur club that does not assert notability. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article actually looks like a joke, to me. Is there anyone who knows for sure if this team actually exists? Ω (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not a joke as it is listed on this page ([50]), but it's certainly not notable enough to have its own page. TheLeft orium 10:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now we're getting to the heart of my main concern regarding the notability argument. I can understand the WP:NOTE guideline, but WP:NOTE isn't enough of a reason on it's own to delete something, is it? Using lack of notability alone to argue for the deletion of a page seems to be imposing personal value judgments onto others. Maybe it's just my political leanings that are shining though here, but this sort of thing is something that I tend to "knee jerk" fight against. Ω (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. What argument would you use? (Note: I haven't voted delete yet) :) TheLeft orium 11:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could imagine an argument based on WP:NOT... "Wikipedia is not a directory" seems like it could fit... maybe WP:V? I'm barely familiar with the topic of this article, but I could easily see an argument being made re: notability is all, which is my main concern. The article seems to be dealing with a professional sports team, which would seem to make it notable enough to rate some sort of article... otherwise, who's value judgments on which professional teams are acceptable do we use? This argument against using notability in this manner seems obvious to me though, so I tend to worry that I'm not fully expressing myself when talking about it. Ω (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean now. Thanks for letting me know! :) TheLeft orium 11:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Notability is not at all subjective nor is it an attempt to make a value judgement about a subject. Notability is strictly defined for Wikipedia purposes as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Note the inclusion of "reliable sources" and independent sources". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not notable for Wikipedia purposes does not mean worthless or insignificant, just that it does not meet our criteria for inclusion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So then why base an argument on notability at all? You offered at least 2 alternative reasons in your comment right there... The problem is, if you really stop and look at all of these nominations then the issue with using notability should be obvious. I or anyone could probably nominate 100's of articles based on the notability guidelines by themselves... The way that I see it notability is a very useful guideline in concert with other policy, but it doesn't stand on it's own very well. This is actually articulated quite well within the notability guideline itself. Ω (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Fails WP:GROUP and, as individuals, WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pongo cricket

[edit]

Contested prod. Website that does not indicate any Notability Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:Notability and WP:Notability (web) as the website has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. TheLeft orium 10:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only because notability (or rather lack thereof) is not a reason by itself to delete an article, in my opinion. It's normally a (very) string supporting reason, but by itself WP:NOTE could be used to argue for the deletion of innumerable articles. Ω (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps.: Now that I actually look at the page, I could probably be convinced to support a deletion if a good reason were put forward. Ω (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, a total of 5 hits on Google, and not all of them were about this company. Ridernyc (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. --Dmol (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Terrazas aka Amalia Terrazas

[edit]

Contested Prod. Non-notable person. The author also appears to be the subject of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One question, how do you guys know that User:Amaliaterrazas is Emily Terrazas aka Amalia Terrazas? It seems to me that you guys are making a (rather large) assumption here. 10:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Ω (talk)[reply]

Note the word appears. Ridernyc (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK... well, at the very least the article does need to be moved. The naming scheme is simply incorrect, but that alone doesn't really justify deletion (does it?). The article does mention some awards and television shows, however. That could easily justify at least a stub level article, if the content were rewritten properly. I don't really care about the subject matter enough to look into it at all, but I can easily imagine that this person is notable but you and I just don't realize it. Ω (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IF your not going to actually look into it then don't comment, for your information I tried find sources to establish notability and could find none. Ridernyc (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there though is, why should I care if you couldn't find sources? I know for a fact that I would have a tough time finding sources for 3/4 of the articles on Wikipedia. Is that a reason to delete 3/4 of the articles? All I'm hoping for is that maybe someone will stop and consider, is deletion perhaps not the best solution? Just stop and take a look at all of the nominations here! It's almost a wonder that there are any articles on Wikipedia at all... Ω (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments in many AFD's seem very pointy to me. I think you have concerns about notability in general and should take them to the appropriate policy and guideline talk pages. Ridernyc (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, you have my apologies. I'm definitely not intending to be "pointy"... I do have a concern with the use of WP:NOTE, but not with it's existence. I don't see what I could bring up in terms of making a "policy change" that would address the manner in which the guideline is often, in my view, misused. If you'd like to steer me in some direction though, I'm all ears.

I would very much like to point out one thing from the Notability guideline itself, though:

These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

Ω (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And under which of those polices have you found anything to support inclusion of this article? Again if you have issues with notability go discuss it at WP:N. If you have found sources that establish notability for the subject of this article make that case here, not general complaints about notability. Ridernyc (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, I don't really need to argue for the article. It's a similar principle to "innocent until proven guilty", since the default action is keep. Regardless, if you want to have a personal debate on the subject then I'm more then willing to carry on on your talk page about it (or my own, for that matter). Ω (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really true - subjects are considered unnotable unless proven otherwise. WP:BURDEN says that material "challenged or likely to be challenged" - and that includes the entirety of this article - "must be attributed to a reliable, published source... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." That would appear to be the case here. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:BURDEN is within the WP:V policy, not the WP:NOTE guideline. I have no real issue with deleting many of these articles, but you guys should provide some good reasons (for example, see Edison (talk)'s reply below). At the very least, the next admin or whoever that comes along could then WP:SPEEDY rather then having to drag people through all of this... Ω (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, WP:BURDEN is part of WP:V, which is a policy. Does that not count as a 'good reason'? Or do you disagree with my interpretation of the sentence "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"?

Edison also cites the same lack of sources which Ridernyc and I do, and then makes comments about the style of the article which is actually more a matter for rewrite than deletion.

As for speedy deletion: there's a very specific set of circumstances under which that's allowable, and I don't see that this article meets any of them. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point(s) are that if your arguing that the page should be deleted based on WP:V, then use WP:V as a reason rather then WP:NOTE. At least then there is a clear and concise argument about why the page should be deleted.

The reason that I pointed out Edison's arguments below is precisely because their good arguments. My question is, why weren't at least one of those arguments used initially rather then a lame "it's not noteworthy" argument. Take a look around at the rest of the AfD nominations. The sheer number of "delete per WP:NOTE" nominations/reasoning given here recently is a perfect reason to question every single one of them. You may not agree with that, but obviously I do, and it seems to be having some impact.

Anyway, the reason that I brought up speedy deletion is because, when the article is recreated after it's deleted (due to the fact that none of you were going to make a compelling argument that the article should stay deleted), instead of an admin being able to reference this nomination and saying "ok, this is just a WP:RECREATE so I can speedy delete it", this whole long drawn out process will be rehashed... AGAIN Ω (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it should be and stay deleted is that the subject seems to lack any sources to establish notability, in violation of WP:V, WP:N and WP:BIO. In my opinion those (or the relevant bits of them) say essentially the same thing, but I can be explicit if it helps: my deletion rationale is per all of those. Anyway, I'm not sure we need to extend this discussion - at least not on the AfD page. Best, Olaf Davis (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, unless someone is trying to make a belaboured point. My "delete" is based on the guideline WP:NOTE which states in the first paragraph that "[w]ithin Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Articles should verify that they are notable, or 'worthy of notice'". A guideline is a perfectly legitimate criteria for deletion, but it must be stressed that within this guideline, notability criteria is essentially backed-up by a requirement for verifiability. They go hand in hand. Perhaps some of us are using some editorial short-hand during this discussion, which I admit is rather exclusionist if a newcomer were to pop in. For that, I would apologize, although it must be stressed that WP:NOTE is clickable and any closing administrator worth her or his "power" (ahem) would fully understand what we are all getting at here. This article, in my opinion fails to demonstrate evidence of notability and notability, which is claimed in the article, cannot be verified. freshacconci talktalk 16:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should write some sort of essay... (although, doing that seems somewhat egotistical...). Regardless, here's one reply that I made earlier for your consideration: User_talk:Excirial#Avoiding_Deletionism.2C_a_suggestion Ω (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources to indicate the subject's notability, which as Ω says is the criteria for inclusion in a dedicated article. If Ω or anyone else wants to suggest a suitable target for merger I'm happy to listen but I suspect there isn't one. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Olaf Davis. Does not satisfy WP:NOTE, the only real criteria for keep or delete. freshacconci talktalk 14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided to satisfy WP:BIO. The article is a blathery and frothy piece of apparent self-adulation, along with extravagant praise for everyone who helped the subject in her career. It reads at times like a Christmas letter, full of bragging. Edison (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. I just gave the article a sandblasting for style to remove much of the hyperbole and fluff, and then went looking for sourcing. Unfortunatley, I came up with empty hands for Emily Terrazas... as not even listed in cast for those two Spanish shows. I did find some 9-year-old sources for Amalia Terrazas, but not much enough upon which to build an article. There is far too much in the BLP that is unsourcable. Bless her for being creative, but this one will have to wait. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lot's of "assisted on" and "helped with" stuff, but no notability of her own. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my search did not turn up sources to support that this person is notable enough for a biographical entry in Wikipedia. Enki H. (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, since it does not say the childrens' books have been published. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW. Also per WP:CSD#A7 J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Michael Jonathan Guiver

[edit]

Declined speedy. Non-notable artist, blatant autobiography. No sources cited, none found in my own search. While we're at it, there's also a redirect page, Philip guiver. Also this is the third time this page has been re-created, so I suggest both it and the redirect be create protected. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is one WP:NOTE delete that I can actually get behind. If he were able to reference something other then his MySpace page... Ω (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (again), and Gabriel Rojas Hruska too. A walled garden is being created here. Dekimasuよ! 12:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also doubt he realizes that he is putting his work that he wants to advertise onto Wikipedia under a free license. Someone might want to talk to both of them about that. Dekimasuよ! 12:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(very) Good point... how? On his talk page? Isn't there a separate procedure for copyright violations, as well? Ω (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject of this article is non-notable and it amounts to nothing more than self-promotion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this many times already, give me a fair amount of time so that I can cite some reasonable sources, which I do not have access to right now. Do you people seriously have nothing better to do all day? Steven w. black (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time this has been posted. I don't see any imminent changes in notability: he's still an art student. (Also, are you sure you want to release the copyright on your own paintings?) Hairhorn (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd recommend speedy deletion because I don't see any notability assertion in the article, but if it's already been declined, I guess I'm missing something. Rnb (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, this should be moved to CSD under Criteria 11 - it is just promotion. - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just checking the logs - this article was already CSD as A7 once this morning and immeditely recreated. It can still be A7ed. - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. This was a tricky one; if we were simply counting votes, this would be a clear delete. However, most of the arguments here seem to be focusing on the paid editing thing. As of now, the fact that the author may or may not have been paid to write an article is not a reason to delete said article. I personally feel as though paid editing goes totally against several Wikipedia policies, but as there is no community consensus on it as of yet I feel we can't use it as a rationale in AfDs. Those calling for the article to be kept mention that the article was once a GA, has been cleaned up, and can be worked on. This shows that this article was once considered fairly high quality, and that there is room for improvement and a desire to do so. For that reason, I'm giving the keep arguments a little more weight than the deletion side, and closing this no consensus. If you have a problem with this closure, please feel free to talk to me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalberg Global Development Advisors

[edit]

Paid insertion into Wikipedia. Self promotion. More information on the spam/advertisement by banned Zithan (talk · contribs), at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_Ha!. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has a long history, and is even a Good Article. If some content on the page itself is problematic then why not be bold and simply remove it or otherwise edit it? Ω (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly only primary sources, weak refs YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it was paid for, but looking at the refs, it seems notable enough. It's also been cleaned up somewhat. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: On the one hand, this is more notable than the local radio stations that wiki lists by default, and their projects of more general interest than a local DJ's program format. But, the sources sited hardly establish notability and this is more a directory listing than an encyclopedia entry. The sources are self-cites, directories, maybe a PR about a donation or, and things like contractor reports. It is possible, if written by a PR firm, they simply don't understand the target audience. Perhaps if someone could dig up some dirt or real notability sources that would help. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I don't have much sympathy for paid editing, this particular article is well sourced, and its subject appears to be notable. Laurent (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources were used six times! What can we do now? Probably delete the present version. Alexius08 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The case for notability is not strong: in the lead article, I see trade publication coverage of their minor award, unlikely to be well known outside the development consulting industry, if there; and appearances on various lists. Even if this non-consumer consulting business were notable, the obvious conflict of interest makes all of these articles read like blatant advertising, and they all share the problem of evasive abstraction and glittering generalities that's typical of the tone of spammy articles about non-consumer businesses and their personnel:

Founded in 2001, the company specializes in issues relating to global development and globalization. The company serves clients in the public, private and non-profit sectors. Dalberg coordinates several public–private partnerships and international commissions.

Dalberg claims expertise in the domains of: access to finance, education, global health, corporate engagement, energy and environment, economic policies, agriculture, conflict and humanitarian aid, and strategy and performance.

Allowing any of these articles to stay means allowing misconduct to achieve its intended goal. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Cirt ,YellowMonkey and Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön.Clearly POV by pushing by Paid account.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dalberg Global Development Advisors/1 article also reviewed as to whether it should remain GA YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and edit considerably. I think his firm probably is notable. Sources are weak, but the Financial Times article shows they consider him reliable. DGG (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well as salt, burn and nuke - this is pure PR. The Financial Times mention is essentially self written, i.e. they were hired by the FT to write an article. Smallbones (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all POV pushing by paid account. Aditya ^α _ß 17:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 18:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor E Reviglio

[edit]

Contested prod from last October with no reason given. Non-notable doctor, and article is written like a resume rather than an article. Matt (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done some simple cleanup on the page. It certainly still needs work, but the primary reason for nominating it for deletion (reads like a resume) is basically taken care of now. I understand the objection, but not the reasoning that because an article "reads like a resume" is a reason for deletion. Ω (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of impressive research, but nothing notable enough to merit an encyclopedia entry. Hairhorn (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indocation of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article looks better now, but no notability has been established through significant coverage/peer reviewed research etc Corpx (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The clean-up definitely helped, but it didn't lend any more credibility as far as inclusion. Reading over WP:BIO and WP:BLP, I'm not seeing anything particular that sets this doctor apart from his colleagues. I didn't see anything online about his supposed research (and if he made breakthroughs in his field, I would definitely see a stronger reason to keep). However, if anyone else can come up with more to back up his importance in the field, I would welcome the article being kept and further refined. →^Jog_Con← 18:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be helpful if the prodder would do the citation search needed to asses notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A recent Ph.D. with a research profile that does not stand out. His best-cited paper is a case report on a single instance of keratitis after keratomileusis, which does not stand out among nearly 170 papers on similar cases.[51][52]. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broncolor

[edit]

Delete per nom YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible references at all to establish notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Corporate vanity, notability not established by reliable sources. MER-C 10:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak sources, no evidence that the company is notable. Laurent (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-consumer business, obvious advertising/brochure tone; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalberg Global Development Advisors. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Cirt and YellowMonkey.No credible ref to establish notablity Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Widely known company in photographic lighting. How can you delete an article on a company that names its product "Flooter"? Here are print book showing their products: [53] Macro and close-up photography handbook By Stan Sholik, Ron Eggers; [54] Professional interior photography By Michael G. Harris; [55] Glamour nude photography By Robert Hurth, Sheila Hurth; [56] Fotopraktikum By Gerkan Meinhard Von, Ernst A Weber, Meinhard Von Gerkan; [57] Focal encyclopedia of photography By Michael R. Peres (calling the company "the leading Swiss manufacturer"). Notability clearly established. Fg2 (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem to be a major company; the sources above are sufficient. /there are probably product reviews to be found as well. The actual content is fairly descriptive and non-spammy. Paid editing has its problems: the author wrote what amounts to a minimally sourced article, which could have been sourced much better, as xe was trying to satisfy the client, not a produce a good article. DGG (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paid article, POV pushing. Aditya ^α _ß 17:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: As Fg2 pointed out, they do show up in a lot of books [58], also in a few academic pieces [59]. It seems that they're used by a lot of professional photographers and are well regarded and notable in that field (and also to academics that use their products). It's a shame there aren't some sources that focus on the company rather than mentions of the products but if multiple notable products makes a company notable then they're notable. Ha! (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Bowman

[edit]

Delete per nom YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Rewrite per DGG's offer. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Delete Too much bias/COI. Possibly notable, but would need complete recreation to sufficiently clear it. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If he had a band or a local radio station you would hold him to what criteria for notability? I wouldn't react against the paid status as this is just disclosure but article seems more like a resume than encyclopedia. Perhaps with a few more sources - does he have patents or was he mentioned in other works- it would be fine. I'd be more interested in the guy mentioned in passing who got the extraction process to work as this guys seems like more bluster than substance but it is hard to tell from the article as written. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. None of the references seem to establish notabiliy (actually many of them seem to be primary sources) Laurent (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Cirt ,Yellowmonkey and Laurent1979.Clearly fails WP:N and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would consider being a member of the Order of Canada a sign of notability. This article might be better served being stubbified rather than deleted. Reso lute 18:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, especially given DGG's offer to rewrite. Reso lute 20:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Order of Canada is notable. Article can be appropriately rewritten, & I will do it if kept. The refs from Canadian Chemical News are acceptable 3rd party sources. I do not necessarily oppose paid editing, if done to our standards, but this article, and the other examples from the same source, are example of writing formulaic unconvincing PR-style articles, not encyclopedia articles. DGG (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep DGG is right, being a member of the Order of Canada meets the first point of WP:ANYBIO. Poor writing is not a deletion criteria, rather justification for cleanup. --kelapstick (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Order of Canada is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough here to establish notability and with DGG's offer to rewrite I think we can keep this article. Davewild (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Order of Canada. Ha! (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion

The article does not conform to the title. Rather than discussing her contributions or influence as a whole (which, alone, would not be very long) the article is solely about her bare arms. The editor who created the article (User:Grundle2600) has been pushing for more mention across Wikipedia on Mrs. Obama's arms, and his attempts have been decried by many as simply unencyclopedic (see: [60],[61],[62], Talk:Michelle Obama#Sentence on her arms, Talk:Michelle Obama#Second sentence on her arms). The creation of this article only furthers that opinion, especially since much of the material is copied verbatim from the article that he attempted to create a while back entiled Michelle Obama's arms (as an admin, I checked it out). In addition, the Michelle Obama article is rather short and any/all influences on style/fashion should go in there. Furthermore, both Jackie Kennedy and arguably Nancy Reagan had more of an impact in three and eight years, respectfully, than Mrs. Obama has had in six months. Perhaps in time, if there is a "Michelle look" like there was a "Jakie" and a "Nancy", then this topic would hold some water. But for now, all should go in the Michelle article because there isn't a reason to create a new one (especially one which focuses solely on her arms). Happyme22 (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this article does not conform to the title is because when I created Michelle Obama's arms, which was an accurate title, the consensus of the deletion discussion was to incorporate the material into a large article about Michelle Obama and fashion. The consensus for deletion was agaiast wikipedia policy, as no one cited any official rules to justify the deletion. I would prefer that Michelle Obama's arms be restored, because I cited 11 articles about the subject from mainstream sources, which makes the subject notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you think the deletion decision was incorrect, the correct next step was WP:DRV, not recreating the article with an inaccurate title. Your comments on this page only confirm that G4 speedy deletion of this article is exactly what should have happened. Why didn't you go to deletion review? Lady of Shalott 03:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) *Delete. Content fork, anything worthwhile should be part of Michelle Obama, her arms and influence on style haven't reached the levels of Michael Jackson's influence on other artists just as yet. Also, the previous AfD on her arms was a delete, so if the content of this page is similar (and there's nothing other than her arms, so an admin should check it out) it should be Speedy Deleted G4. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin and I checked it out; it is written nearly verbatim and is in violation of SD G4. However, when it was tagged for SD the tag was removed by User:Jclemens who said it was not G4. I've contacted Jclemens. Happyme22 (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit conflict, I started my message before you added that piece in, so ignore. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a "subpage" of the Michelle Obama main page. I certainly agree that the writing could and should be much better, but that alone is not a reason for deletion. Regardless, this is more of an issue to be discussed on Talk:Michelle Obama then here, and sure enough there is a discussion occuring there now about this article/issue. Ω (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused; what does it being a subpage have to do with anything? The topic of her arms is not encyclopedic. It's content forking. The latest discussion dealing with her arms was last commented on June 11 and has pretty much been put to rest. Happyme22 (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've re-read this page and both Talk:Michelle Obama and Talk:Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion. I can understand the point that you and others are attempting to convey to Grundle2600, but I can see his "side" as well. In my opinion he's simply not articulating either the article content or the "debate" points well. It may not be very important information to you or I, but it's certainly an important topic to many other people. Other First Lady's and other notable women have sections or whole articles on their social influence... "It's not important" just doesn't seem to be a good reason to delete content to me I guess. Ω (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One additional issue that I'll dare to bring up is that this seems to be a poor use of the AfD process. It seem to me that it would be more constructive to continue to work with the Talk:Michelle Obama "community" and reach some sort of consensus on the issue prior to bringing it here. My apologies for being somewhat "preachy", but this seem to me to be a common problem when it comes to deleting articles... Ω (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that saying some people are interested in Michelle Obama's arms is a legititmate reason for keeping the article. Many people are interested in Michelle Obama's fashions, and there is still room for those in the Michelle Obama article rather than creating a new one. In addition, this article's title was used as a mask to cloak the content, which is a long diatribe and satirical statements about her arms. As for "poor use of the AFD process": I disagree completely. I would have deleted it myself per SD G4 but one speedy deletion tag had already been removed, and the next step to contest the creation of an article is AFD. Nothing wrong there. Happyme22 (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have restored the article and re-opened this discussion after speedy deleting it on criteria G4. I didn't notice that a previous speedy deletion request had been turned down, though I do think that this article is a clear example where G4 applies. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Unencyclopedic" is NOT a reason to delete an article. The subject of the article is notable per WP:NOTE and the information is verified by reliable sources. Not that it is relevant, but the deletion of the article on Michele Obama's arms was ill-considered and against Wikipedia policy and was nothing less than an attack on common sense. I am ashamed that Wikipedia editors want to suppress knowledge about such topics. Drawn Some (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unencyclopedic" is most definitely a reason to delete an article. See our deletion policy: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to: [...] Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Jafeluv (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC for that and other points NOT to argue during deletion discussions. Drawn Some (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unencyclopedic" is a reason to delete an article. The argument to avoid there is stating "the article is unencyclopedic" without explaining why it's unencyclopedic. That's how I interpret it, anyway – if you want to keep discussing this, we can continue on my talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Jafeluv has pointed out, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC does not say that "Unencyclopedic" is not a reason to delete an article, but even if it did, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC just lists some editors' opinions: anyone can write a page giving their opinion. On the other hand content not suitable for an encyclopedia is listed in a Wikipedia policy as a criterion. Besides, even if policy didn't mention it, to deny that unencyclopedic matter should be excluded from an encyclopedia would be absurd: that's what "unencyclopedic" means. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree that the deletion of Michelle Obama's arms was against wikipedia policy. Here is the list of sources that were cited in that article:

^ Michelle Obama's right to bare arms, The Boston Globe, March 19, 2009
^ a b c How to get Michelle Obama's toned arms, CNN
^ Strong-arm tactics: First Lady of Fitness: Michelle Obama's guns inspire workouts, Chicago Sun-Times, March 10, 2009
^ How to get Michelle Obama's toned arms, The Seattle Times, March 25, 2009 (This is a different article than the CNN article of the same name)
^ Michelle Obama Goes Sleeveless, Again, The New York Times, February 25, 2009
^ All Hail the Leader of the Fashionable World, The Washington Post, January 21, 2009
^ Michelle Obama and our buff-arm fetish, The Chicago Tribune, February 26, 2009
^ Michelle Obama: The right to bare arms, MSNBC, February 25, 2009
^ Michelle Obama bares arms in official White House portrait, Los Angeles Times, February 27, 2009
^ a b Michelle Obama's toned arms are debated, Los Angeles Times, March 29, 2009
^ Obama's Choice to Bare Arms Causes Uproar, ABC News, March 2, 2009

Given those sources, I think that Michelle Obama's arms should be restored.

The consensus to delete Michelle Obama's arms was against wikipedia policy.

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely un-needed arm fetishism. If you want a policy reason (surprisingly that doesn't appear in the deletion policies), then we'll have a crack at WP:POVFORK. MickMacNee (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope that isn't an attempt to make a real argument. The only thing that you said there was WP:IDONTLIKEIT... Ω (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'I don't like POV forks' and think they should be deleted. Thank you for listening. MickMacNee (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a "fetish" on the subject. I cited 11 articles about the subject, all from mainstream sources. That makes the subject notable. For you to say I have a "fetish" on the subject is a personal attack, not an argument for deletion. And if having a "fetish" is a reason for deletion, then why hasn't the article on Phoebe Cates been nominated for deletion? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world is this a WP:POVFORK? That makes no sense. Was there an article discussing Michele Obama and style and fashion and one side said she had no influence on it and the other said she did so a rogue editor split this off to exaggerate a minority viewpoint or something? Come up with something that makes sense. Drawn Some (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is effectively a recreation of the Obama arms article. Consensus was delete then, and nothing has really changed since then. Gigs (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this drivel. Anything salvagable can be merged to Michelle Obama. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something "drivel" is not an argument for deletion. I cited 11 articles about the subject, all from mainstream sources. That makes it notable. If being "drivel" is a reason for deletion, then why hasn't the article on Pauly Shore been deleted? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY c4 and WP:RECREATE. The nominating admin concluded that this article is substantially a recreation of an article that we have already decided to delete. Policy dictates that this article is presumptively toast, then, unless someone is challenging that conclusion. No one has done so, and unless they intend to, I think we can speedy this and bypass the extended debate. To the extent that we can't, if this article isn't covered by WP:RECREATE, I second MSGJ.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Recreation of article about her arms which was previously deleted by AFD. Should have been speedily deleted as such. This retitled article is simply an attempt to game the system. Fails notability. Content fork. Unencyclopedic, and gives undue weight. Edison (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to note the earier conversation that this wasn't actually WP:SPEEDY because of a disagreement between admins/concern raised by an admin. This page was also intentionally forked from the main Michelle Obama page, and this nomination seems to be more an incorrect use of AfD in order to cut short the conversation then to actually solve a problem. Most importantly though, what's all the rush about? Ω (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep During the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms, it was suggested that the material from that article be incorporated into a broader article on her influence on style and fashion. So I created Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion for that purpose. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as G4 and trouts to those needing it. 'arms' my ass. Jack Merridew 15:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms, the arguments for deleting the article went against wikipedia policy. The consensus itself went against wikipedia policy. I cited 11 articles about the subject, all from mainstream sources. That makes the subject notable. Just because the subject was silly is not a justifiable reason for deletion. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should delete this article, but only if we restore Michelle Obama's arms. The discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms did not cite any official rules to delete the article. Instead, the only arguments were attacks against the subject. But I cited 11 articles about the subject from mainstream sources, and that makes the subject notable. I want Michelle Obama's arms restored. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In posting this comment, Grundle - the two articles' creator - is now saying he thinks the AfD should result in this article's deletion, but only if we re-create Michelle Obama's arms - so as several editors who have talked with him about it in various iterations have said here, he is interested, really, in getting the material about her arms in, and is just shifting from one approach to another to do so. Does this mean he has backed away from his own "keep" comment? Speedy may have been the proper response after all. Tvoz/talk 16:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that the article is not about the arms anymore but about her influence in these areas as a whole. As such, exporting material from Michelle Obama to this new article is something that is quite allowed in the policies and even preferred by WP:SIZE to avoid making the main article too long. The title of the article might need a change to conform MOS but the goal to fork out style and fashion related material from the parent article is perfectly fine within policy and the !votes for deletion based on the previous article fail to take into account that the page does not reflect the previously deleted version anymore. Regards So Why 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply about the length of the main article below in my "Delete" comment. Tvoz/talk 16:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sweet jesus on a pogo stick, we're here again? As noted by others, the "arms" article was already deleted via AfD. Despite the title and slightly expanded topic area to style, the bulk of the article still centers around the the lady's ~~pecs~~ biceps. Where this falls short in the notability guidelines is the "...presumed to satisfy" aspect of it. It appears from past discussion on the main Michelle Obama page as well as in the prior AfD that the subject matter is simply not appropriate for a standalone article. Its just...fluff, like the kind of off-beat story that what's-her-name on CNN does about potato chip pantsuits and other silly season junk. Not everything mentioned by the media is instantly article-worthy, and via the 5th bullet point of the "General notability guideline", editors have the support they need to decide, by consensus, that some reliably-sourced events are just too dumb and too irrelevant to warrant an article. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about pecs. It doesn't even mention her pecs. Why would you say it's about her pecs? What kind of a comment is that? Drawn Some (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant biceps, must've had a brain cramp. There was little need for your strawman retort, though. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially a re-creation of the deleted "arms" article: this editor has tried repeatedly to insert this material in one place or another and it's been removed each time by consensus, so this is his latest gambit. In reply to User: SoWhy's comment above: the Michelle Obama main article is only 19K of readable prose and no one has agreed to a need to cut it down by forking off the material about her influence on style and fashion; in fact at present it is a reasonably sized article and this section is an integral part of it. If the size of the main article becomes an issue, the editors would decide which section was reasonable to fork, and it would not necessarily be this one done by fiat. What Grundle has tried to do in various ways is to expand upon the mention we already have about her arms (which the editors of the page see as proper weight for this minor matter), and when that was rejected by consensus he tried another angle - but it has always been about her arms and the coverage (no pun intended) they have received. Tvoz/talk 16:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the one who tagged it with G4, but Jdclemens disagreed and declined the nomination. Even though I tagged for another admin to look at rather than just deleting, I think the article is basically the same as what was deleted per the prior AfD, and that G4 should apply. Lady of Shalott 16:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as trivia. This is exactly what an encyclopedia shouldn't document, perhaps it will at some time in the future change the way we see arms on woman - but that is one for the crystal ball, and not for an encyclopedia. As for Grundle2600's comments: Not everything that gets written about in reliable sources is material for an encyclopedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The subject is clearly notable. There has been lots of substantial coverage of Michele Obama's fashion and dress. Any issues with this particular version of the content can be corrected with editing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While certain aspects of her fashion coverage are notable, those belong in the Michelle Obama article (which is already quite short). The problem is not so much in the title of the article's subject, but in that the title is a mask for what is actually written in the article -- it is a long diatribe about her arms. Happyme22 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like the Obamas and all, but this kind of fawning over them is getting embarassing. Sure this kind of thing is covered in the news media, but it's really a topic for style magazines, not an encyclopedia. Maybe some of it can be merged into a brief mention at Michelle Obama, and maybe someday in the future she'll be remembered for her fashion influence and we can write about it then, but for God's sake she's been the First Lady for only a couple of months. Peacock (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a bunch of unrelated facts tied together using WP:OR. Corpx (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. There are many articles discussing her influence on fashion and style in general and her arms in particular. The article is extremely well-referenced with reliable sources and there is no original research at all. Drawn Some (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree this article needs to be largely rewritten and a lot of the stuff about her 'arms' sounds far too much like something that would be deleted under db-nonsense. However, the topic is clearly notable. A lot of things could be added here, such as media coverage of her at the G20 Summit. Her fashion and dress got as much coverage here in the UK as her husband did. Mr pand [talk | contributions] 17:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However we must look at the larger scale; brief stints in the media to not account to notability. There is still a lot of room in the Michelle Obama article for all her notable fashion acheivements. As I say in the introduction, if a "Michelle look" comes about and this fashion coverage is endless, then a page dedicated to her fashion may be appropriate down the road. But that's WP:CRYSTAL. As for now, the article's title serves as a mask for what the content is -- long diatribes and satirical remarks about the non-notable subject of her arms. Happyme22 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion. Note the word influence. I think the notable topic title you are trying to defend with this keep is Media coverage/analysis of Michelle Obama's clothes. Two entirely different things. MickMacNee (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The naming issue can be sorted out. But I don't think there's any question that her dress and fashion has received very substantial coverage. Fashion isn't a major interest of mine, but I think it's a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In certain cases, yes, ChildofMidnight, her fashion can be a legit topic. But as of yet there is no indication that we should create a separate article, especially one which does not conform to its title. All things fashion belong in the Michelle Obama article. Happyme22 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The name can be sorted right now, just remove the words influence on for the title and you are pretty much at where this article is. MickMacNee (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and update: User:Grundle has now copied verbatim a section of the Michelle Obama article on her fashion and style and added it to this new article. It seems to me to be a desperate attempt to provide additional information while still retaining all the non-notable info about her arms. One should not copy material from one article and place it in another without consensus to move. Happyme22 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course her arms are notable. They have received significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. To say that they are not notable is to reject our guidelines on notability. Please find a valid argument if argue you must. Her arms are more notable than 75% of the articles that come through AfD, at least. Drawn Some (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, an entire article devoted to her arms is ludicrous. Her arms are already covered in proper context within the Michelle Obama article and we don't need more. This has been discussed many times before (Talk:Michelle Obama#Sentence on her arms, Talk:Michelle Obama#Second sentence on her arms). Happyme22 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the topic is ludicrous is a matter of taste but it is simply false to call it non-notable for it clearly is. Not only is it notable, but the sources themselves are quite respectable, the most important newspapers, television networks and news shows, and magazines that exist. There are dozens if not hundreds of articles on her arms, specifically on her arms, discussing them in great depth. There is more in-depth coverage of them weekly if not daily and it shows no signs of abating. Call it ludicrous but do not misrepresent it as non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed non-notable, which is why I noted the "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article" part of WP:N earlier. Grundle2600, and other editors apparently, have an over-reliance on the "its reliably sourced!" argument. It isn't the be all, end all arbiter of what is appropriate for an article. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit it meets the criteria for inclusion but you just don't like it? Drawn Some (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That many sources have puff pieces on the topic, yes. That isn't enough to warrant its own article though, and consensus on the main article seems to be that it isn't relevant enough for that either. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is a coatrack for her arms, and there's a strong consensus against having an article on this topic. I think the idea of having an article on her arms is bloody stupid. Fences&Windows 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) as blatant recreation of deleted material. This is gaming the system, plain and simple. MuZemike 21:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridiculous excuse for someone's arms obsession. Each First Lady's BLP main article includes a discussion of their influence on style and fasion (or lack of influence), and the Michelle Obama article should be no different. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utter crap. Peter Damian (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like in the previous deletion discussion, no one who favors deletion has cited any actual wikipedia rules that the article violates. They have called the article "fetish," "drivel," "ridiculous," and "crap," but those are all personal insults, not an argument for deletion. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, there have been many comments above that cite policies and guidelines such as notability, content forking, recreation of deleted material, and coatracking. Why are you only cherry-picking the obviously bad ones, e.g. Damian's "utter crap" entry? Tarc (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand as previously discussed. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm normally an inclusionist but this is way too unencyclopedic. Last time I checked, we were going to be the sum of human knowledge, not a tabloid covering people's arms. If you want policy reasons, WP:NOT and WP:CONTENTFORK. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails many policies and guidelines, as per comments above. Summarized: unencyclopedic. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:POVFORK........and unencyclopedic. This is better suited for People magazine. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic silliness. Ostap 04:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 05:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comparative comment. Nancy Reagan really loved the color red and wore it frequently. You can find lots of references that talk about this. That does not mean that a Nancy Reagan and the color red article is warranted or that a Nancy Reagan's influence on style and fashion article is warranted. Her liking for red is succinctly and appropriately described in two sentences in the Nancy Reagan main article and that's it. Her influence on style and fashion is also described in the main article, in about four paragraphs or so. That's all that's needed there, and here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. This is perhaps the silliest AfD discussion I have ever seen. Grundle2600 writes a pointless article about someone's arms, it is quite rightly deleted, and Grundle2600, not content with accepting consensus, tries to resurrect essentially the same trivial article under a new title which claims it is about her "influence on style and fashion", but it is still clearly about her arms. And we are debating whether to keep it?? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the above. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are thousands of sources covering this topic from an international perspective. Per WP:CENSOR, "being objectionable is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content isn't objectionable, but the topic is ridiculous. There's a difference. Fences&Windows 00:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference. The delete camp seem just like mullahs demanding that women cover themselves and censoring the press accordingly. There is a clear sentiment of outrage which perhaps arises from the systemic bias of the demographics of Wikipedia editors - not the sort to look favourably upon the huge topic and industry of fashion. The test at AFD is not what we personally think of a topic but what the world makes of it. The world's press have written many thousands of words about this topic on many occasions - I recently read an interesting account of how Michelle Obama compared with Sarah Brown and Carla Sarkozy on the occasion of her visit to Europe. If this were another sort of topic then it would be waved through here with speedy keeps by virtue of the abundant sources. Because it concerns fashion, the sentiments of Mrs Grundy appear instead. It is a disgraceful display of personal prejudice and WP:CENSOR tells us that this is contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, this should have been deleted under G4 as a recreated deleted article - what a mess. DRV was the correct route here and instead we're doing AfD 2.0 of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms. Sometimes t really is better to wipe the board clean and start fresh. This is rather WP:Undue and likely pointy in some way - the mind reels. This is a case where our policies of WP:BLP trump normal proceedings and an article is so short and malformed it's actually doing more harm than good and fueling that Wikipedia is disreputable. I'll likely take this to DRV myself if it's not deleted for abusing prior consensus. We can do much better than this and our readers deserve much better. -- Banjeboi 10:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per Hilary Clinton's elbow — and note that I opined G4 somewhere above. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, you voted delete above too with a G4 rationale. This isn't Chicago, you can't vote twice. :) Tarc (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete Really? An article about Michelle Obama's arms? It should be speedied. There is no reason that changing the title can be allowed to circumvent g4. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. I agree with Grundle2600 that Michelle's fashion choices are important, but I think her arms deserve one sentence in one paragraph under "Influence on fashion" in the main article. Yoninah (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is where it is. Tvoz/talk 04:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Lucien's Forthcoming Album

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jack Lucien's Forthcoming Album

Classic case of "X artist is going to release an album X". In this case, it's 4 months ahead of time. The only sources are YouTube, a MySpace blog and a link to iTunes. The link to iTunes could be considered alright except that it's a link to a single released in January without any indication that it's going to be on any new album much less this particular one. It's just too early. Once there's a release date or solid sourcing, it can be revisited but it's too early. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hammeriffic album; we have no deadline and can definitely wait for a title on this. Nate • (chatter) 08:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No title? No verifiable links? Then here comes the hammer. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I tagged this with ((Db-album)) shortly after it was created, but it was declined for procedural reasons … pure WP:CRYSTAL … Happy Editing! — 141.156.165.77 (talk · contribs) _{17:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
- Comment — Despite the Keep decision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Lucien (2008-11-08), the subject's main article consists of nothing but WP:LINKSPAM and broken/bogus links … it is pure vanispamcruftisement ("Lucien believes in aliens. However, they don't believe in him.") and it probably would not survive another AfD. — 141.156.165.77 (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and smite with the hammer. MuZemike 04:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: another job for the WP:HAMMER; nom and Nate said it all. Cliff smith ^talk 17:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes this page should probably wait until the album is released. Maybe somebody should stop the graffitying on his wikipedia page. All information correct but there are some people obviously hacking, how do you block people Deobook (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)DeobookDeobook (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: album information been published on myspace^[1]. Should be kept. Graffying should be stopped Thaliafan (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)ThaliafanThaliafan (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - MySpace is not considered a reliable source since it is a self-published source. — 141.156.165.77 (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain pong

[edit]

Non-notable game. Appears that WP:MADEUP applies. From article, ..."incredibly new, relatively unknown sport, references and citations are unavailable." ttonyb1 (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, the article by it's own admission fails WP:V. Cool3 (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edited. Although WP:MADEUP does not apply, I see how this article fails to overcome WP:V. Could this article be moved, save deleted? Eggbandit57 (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MADEUP applies for that very reason. It does, after all, point out exactly how our content policies apply in this sort of case. No sources existing means no article. That is policy here at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for documenting the heretofore undocumented. That must happen outside of Wikipedia, beforehand. Uncle G (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "relatively unknown sport, references and citations are unavailable" = Fails WP:N. Classic WP:NFT game. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NFT. Pastor Theo (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFT. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WP:NOTAVOTE; delete arguments prove to be the strongest here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ClimateTalk

[edit]

Vanity page/product placement/whatever you wanna call it. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral What an unfortunate name for a protocol. The kyoto protocol really makes it hard to search for anything about a "climatetalk protocol". I'll mark the article for rescue, but most of the stuff I find looks like press releases. [63] [64]. Gigs (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're googling you can quite easilly exclude a word from the result set by pre-fixing it with a dash. So I searched for "ClimateTalk protocol -kyoto" and didnt get any global warming stuff - but I still didnt find those links so thanks for posting! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its an open protocol so no need to reject this for spam. Looks like quality and useful technical information. Sources have been added to show noteability, granted they're in the industry related press, but thats the best one could hope for with a HVAC specific protocol, even if its technically stunning. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ClimateTalk is an open protocol, non-proprietary and open for adoption. A Wikipedia page seems warranted. This is not product placement because it is not a "product". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloud9ine (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC) — Cloud9ine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Gigs (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response : This is an open protocol, and specifications are released to anyone becoming a member of the alliance. Initially developed by Emerson, this was handed over to a managing organization (Global Inventures) now running the alliance. Specification overview is at http://www.climatetalk.com/wrdclt/docs/ClimateTalk_Spec_Overview_ASHRAE_09.pdf . Detailed specs are released to any adopters taking membership to the alliance. Global inventures handles ZigBee, Homeplug etc. If this isn't open neither should they be. Again, open protocol does not mean spec is open and there on the internet. You still need to get a membership and pay administrative costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloud9ine (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC) — Cloud9ine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Whether the protocol is open or not is irrelevant to whether we should have an article on it. Gigs (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for news sources, books and articles, and generally on the web, and I failed to find any independent secondary sources referring to this system. In the very unlikely circumstance that this is kept, it needs rewriting as it is full of jargon. Fences&Windows 20:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I also could not find additional independent information. The supplied company representative PDF here also mentions proprietary messages. Proprietary is not open. No mention is made of other members. There is too much here that needs correction that it should be deleted. I would also agree with the company representative that the other protocols mentioned by comparison should be identified properly as well should they have the same identified pitfalls. This is not an ISO standard open protocol and needs to be identified as such. (Sysint_37) 12:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC) — Sysint_37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- REMOVE It's a product placement. Otherwise, where is the published standard and please indicate where any other manufacturer or entity is adopting this "open protocol". Essentially it IS a product placement if the only user is Emmerson in their products. sysint_37Sysint 37 (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC). — Sysint_37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

For what it's worth, the proprietary messages are a method in the open protocol for adopters to use their existing protocol messages wrapped in a ClimateTalk message wrapper. It is not a ClimateTalk proprietary message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloud9ine (talk • contribs) 13:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC) — Cloud9ine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:N, it has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Click23 (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of pincodes of India

[edit]

WP is not a repository of indiscriminate information such as lists of pin codes Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These appear to be the Indian equivalent of United States ZIP codes, but is simply a list of those codes with locations. This appears to be nothing more than a list thereof. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs There are lots of articles similar in construction to this for other countries - see Category:Lists of postal codes, however all of them seem to have at least some explanation and introduction that this article lacks. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale, and similar articles have been deleted in the past - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in India, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss postal codes 1000-1999, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Sri Lanka. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory appears not to have come to a definitive consensus. These are all the deletion debates that link to the category, I've not looked for others, nor have I looked in detail at the debates to try and see if there is any pattern to what was deleted and what kept. No vote from me at present. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is exactly the sort of thing WP:NOTDIR was crafted to prevent. Gigs (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. Separate article on history of the PIN code system in India, if provided, can stand up as an article. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article in its current form will have to be Deleted for all the reasons cited above. However, a new article Postal Codes in India or something like that providing information on how the postal codes are structured, the history and also a table with the allocation sequences will be encyclopaedic and useful. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that article already exists - Postal Index Number -SpacemanSpiff (talk)
- If this article is deleted (I still haven't decided if I want this or not), then that article (Postal Index Number) would make a good target of a redirect from this title. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of PIN codes of Mumbai

[edit]

WP is not a repository of indiscriminate information, such as lists of pincodes Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These appear to be the Indian equivalent of United States ZIP codes, but is simply a list of those codes with locations. This appears to be nothing more than a list thereof. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs There are lots of articles similar in construction to this for other countries - see Category:Lists of postal codes, however all of them seem to have at least some explanation and introduction that this article lacks. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale, and similar articles have been deleted in the past - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in India, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss postal codes 1000-1999, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Sri Lanka. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory appears not to have come to a definitive consensus. These are all the deletion debates that link to the category, I've not looked for others, nor have I looked in detail at the debates to try and see if there is any pattern to what was deleted and what kept. No vote from me at present. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is exactly the sort of thing WP:NOTDIR was crafted to prevent. Gigs (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mumbai. This can be listed there in just a few lines.Srikarcs (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'.WP:NOTDIR and the general consensus from prior AfDs that Thryduulf posted. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pincodes of localities in Kanpur

[edit]

WP is not a repository of indiscriminate information such as lists of pincodes Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These appear to be the Indian equivalent of United States ZIP codes, but is simply a list of those codes with locations. This appears to be nothing more than a list thereof. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs There are lots of articles similar in construction to this for other countries - see Category:Lists of postal codes, however all of them seem to have at least some explanation and introduction that this article lacks. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale, and similar articles have been deleted in the past - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in India, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss postal codes 1000-1999, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Sri Lanka. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory appears not to have come to a definitive consensus. These are all the deletion debates that link to the category, I've not looked for others, nor have I looked in detail at the debates to try and see if there is any pattern to what was deleted and what kept. No vote from me at present. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is exactly the sort of thing WP:NOTDIR was crafted to prevent. Gigs (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'.WP:NOTDIR and the general consensus from prior AfDs that Thryduulf posted. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of PIN codes of Bengalooru City

[edit]

WP is not a repository of indiscriminate information such as lists of pincodes Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These appear to be the Indian equivalent of United States ZIP codes, but is simply a list of those codes with locations. This appears to be nothing more than a list thereof. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs There are lots of articles similar in construction to this for other countries - see Category:Lists of postal codes, however all of them seem to have at least some explanation and introduction that this article lacks. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale, and similar articles have been deleted in the past - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in India, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss postal codes 1000-1999, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Sri Lanka. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory appears not to have come to a definitive consensus. These are all the deletion debates that link to the category, I've not looked for others, nor have I looked in detail at the debates to try and see if there is any pattern to what was deleted and what kept. No vote from me at present. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is exactly the sort of thing WP:NOTDIR was crafted to prevent. Gigs (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bangalore. This can be listed there in just a few lines. Sebwite (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NOTDIR. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'.WP:NOTDIR and the general consensus from prior AfDs that Thryduulf posted. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pincodes of Hyderabad City

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository of indiscriminate information. Lists of pincodes aren't encyclopedic material. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep very useful information. should be alphabetically arranged. --Like I Care 04:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:USEFUL. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no indications of notability, no kind of explanation (I have no idea what a pincode is and the article offered no information). TJ Spyke 04:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These appear to be the Indian equivalent of United States ZIP codes, but is simply a list of those codes with locations. This appears to be nothing more than a list thereof. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs There are lots of articles similar in construction to this for other countries - see Category:Lists of postal codes, however all of them seem to have at least some explanation and introduction that this article lacks. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale, and similar articles have been deleted in the past - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in India, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss postal codes 1000-1999, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Sri Lanka. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory appears not to have come to a definitive consensus. These are all the deletion debates that link to the category, I've not looked for others, nor have I looked in detail at the debates to try and see if there is any pattern to what was deleted and what kept. No vote from me at present. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only argument for keeping this and the other Pincode entries seems to be variants of "it's useful information", but being useful isn't itself enough to merit an entry, otherwise we'd have entries for movie listings and "places you might have left your car keys". Hairhorn (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is exactly the sort of thing WP:NOTDIR was crafted to prevent. Gigs (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. This can be listed there in just a few lines.Srikarcs (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.WP:NOTDIR and the general consensus from prior AfDs that Thryduulf posted. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Option A human nutrition

[edit]

Not gibberish nonsense, but trying very hard to be. I would send to speedy, but I always get redirected here when sending articles like this one to speedy. So, let the pile on speedies come. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article; it appears to be someone's school assignment instead. I would prefer to speedily delete this, but I can't find an appropriate criterion at WP:CSD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed, seems to have been someone's school assignment. Fails the first pillar (WP is an encyclopedia) as this is simply not an encyclopedia article. Recommend a speedy per WP:SNOW. Cool3 (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks less like an essay, and more like a lecture outline. I feel a snowstorm coming. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete surely someone can find a better place to take notes during class than wikipedia. Gigs (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for class notes/lecture notes/whatever this is supposed to be. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above: a vague essay that's hard to relate to the nominal title, whatever it means. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 16:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A (Pokemon)

[edit]

Article on a subject with zero notability and with no citable sources in existence. Proposing straight up speedy delete. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article isn't eligible for Speedy Deletion I don't think, but it does provide no claim to importance and is completely non-notable, even to diehard Pokémon fans. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we actually kept this, we'll be seeing articles for 'M, LM4, .4, PkMn, p T, and Charizard 'M, among others. With this many glitch Pokemon articles, we might end up crashing Wikipedia. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if someone registers with the username "DxDyDz." ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 05:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shit - User_talk:Dxdydz ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 05:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comes off more as a fan rave than an actual article.SPNic (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but in the future, just redirect to something like Pokemon_Glitches#Codes_and_glitches... the harmless redirect saves AfD workload. Gigs (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you sure it's not a separate glitch? The picture in that article is significantly different from this picture: File:Missingno-ny.png which is supposed to list all possible forms of MissingNo. Aditya ^α _ß 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Can't really see the grounds for a speedy, though. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Pokémon and remove the specific statistics. JIP | Talk 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article's creator didn't even bother to spell "Pokémon" correctly! Why? WHY?!? How does this happen? How? It only takes an extra half-second to type the accented "e"! How??? Oh, ouch! Oh, no! Pressure building! Oh no, not again— <Sesu Prime's head just exploded> -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 03:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it's any consolation to the editor who made this, while it's a goofy concept for an article, it's...unorthodox name is nowhere near as strange as those at DAFT. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Mickey

[edit]

Non-notable academic, deprodded. Abductive (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Abductive (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Academic unless the book is more notable than I was able to quickly gleam from google. Shadowjams (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Simply working at a University doesn't make one notable.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 03:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bye bye! Way too many academics slipping under the line these days. Hairhorn (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minimal cites at GScholar and no reliable source coverage that I've seen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professor whose book has not yet been published; no other evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One book, not yet published even. NOT NOW, to borrow a phrase from WP:RFA DGG (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welding Kumar

[edit]

Well structured and referenced article. However I'm afraid it may violate Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) Shadowjams (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —--Like I Care 04:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be notable enough.Wikireader41 (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted by nomination, it does not satisfy Notability (criminal acts), specifically Perpetrators. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Salih (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some might think that it makes no sense how a criminal like him should get an article in wikipedia. The guy became very notorious during the attack on advocate Shanmugasundaram in 1995 (related to TANSI land scam case) for which he was convicted and serves life term. I could produce hundred more sources only if online news was available since before 1995. He is not only notable for that incident, he was involved in attack on minister Mullai Vendhan. He has four murder cases and several other criminal cases to his credit. Pretty much every newspaper reading individual in Chennai knows about him and many more in Tamil Nadu. He is even discussed in a book about organised crime. So, it is not about one criminal case, Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) mostly deals with one time criminal event. I dont understand the claim of non-notability. --Like I Care 12:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification - Are the victims of these crimes high-profile individuals? Politicians, celebs, etc? That would bolster the claim. However a long time criminal record alone isn't enough. Part of the expanded policy in regards to criminal acts is a kind of journalistic professionalism to not promote or publicize criminal acts. Typically these articles are focused on the crime or incident, and it takes something extra to go beyond that for an individual article. Shadowjams (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case that got him to prominence was a highly political one, and the victim subsequently became a member of parliament. While in Jail, he also attacked a former minister of the state government, and another prominent politician. The coverage of one event was pretty much daily for over a few months by most newspapers including The Hindu and The Indian Express. The other incidents did not receive as much coverage although they did receive a fair bit. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, some are notable individuals. One former Tamil Nadu minister (Mullai Vendan), one lawyer (he was notable as lawyer because he filed a case against former Chief minister of Tamil nadu, Jayalalitha in a land scandal) who later went on to become a member in Rajya Sabha (Shanmugasundaram). Well, they dont have their articles yet which doesnt mean anything though. --Like I Care 20:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've finally decided. Reasons - not a one time criminal, he had a few murders to his credit prior to the famous Shanmugasundaram case. Subsequently there's also the attack on Mullai Vendan, a former Minister and John Pandian, city councilman and a regional politician. Also, the motivation for the Shanmugasundaram case falls under "unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event" as this particular incident was in retaliation for a corruption case against the then Chief Minister, let to a three week strike by the Madras High Court Lawyers association (therefore judicial activity was pretty much suspended) and finally the courts had to intervene and transfer investigation and prosecution of the case from the state govt to the federal govt. While Tamil Nadu elections tend to follow a toggle switch, this particular incident also contributed significantly to Jayalalitha losing the next election: from a 224-4 position it switched against her 8-221. So, as much as I hate the guy, and had to suffer reading about him every day, he is notable. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be enough coverage here to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expand the article a bit to include why and when on the listed murders, and why he attacked R. Shanmugasundaram. Once these are addressed I believe it would satisfy WP:N/CA. The other murders would be "notable for something beyond the crime itself". Click23 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthlessreviews.com

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

fails WP:N. no significant third party coverage about the website itself [65] LibStar (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see that as a reson to delete Ohms law (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you have given zero reason for keeping, and what about WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's the reason to delete... we write articles based on summarizing third-party sources, if there aren't any, or there's very little, there's no proper article to write (otherwise we could have an article on my Facebook page, or yours). The source cited here mentions Ruthlessreviews in passing and says it's a vulgar site... that's not meaningful coverage. I'd reconsider if better sources can be found... the google news results are somewhat promising, but as far as I can tell most related articles just repeat one of the site's taglines and that's it... that's not meaningful coverage either. --Chiliad22 (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm (re)reading the notability guidelines discussion now, partially due to this AfD, and partially simply for my own edification. However, my immediate response to the above includes two points: 1) a page within a website is substantially different then the website itself. 2) this was nominated before and the consensus was Keep... What's changed?

I can (and somewhat do) concede that the article is acutely in need of rewriting, at least in specific areas. Is that, in and of itself, a reason for deletion? In my opinion, the answer is no.

Anyway, if you want a "real" argument, how about this: That web site has existed for several years now and demonstrably has many users. That, in and of itself, can be said to generate some notability. Who is the arbiter of notability, anyway? Just because I may not have heard of something, some place, or someone, does not necessarily mean that the subject is not notable. Notability, in my opinion at least, should only be a secondary/supportive reason for deletion since it's simply too subjective of a standard to stand on it's own. 04:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Ohms law (talk)

Wikipedia has a clear guideline here WP:N. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that what I'm saying is that it's not as clear to me as it seems to be to you... *shrug* 05:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Ω (talk)

The fact that "I've heard of it" or "It's important in my life" are poor criteria for article inclusion are one major reason why the modern WP:N was developed, with its emphasis on the objective (existence of third-party sources on the topic) rather than the subjective (how important Wikipedians feel the topic is). As for the prior AFD, it was closed pretty poorly... half of the keep votes were from obvious partisans, 1 keep vote objected to the nominator and didn't provide a reason to keep the article, and the other 2 were week votes that basically considered a link from IMDB proof of notability, which is irrelevant per WP:N. --Chiliad22 (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that it would be fairly easy to turn those arguments around. I'm sure that you could do so yourself easily enough, and I don't want to turn this into some kind of back and forth pissing contest kind of thing anyway. If this article (or any other, for that matter) really is weak enough to truly fail a WP:NOTE "test" then it should be extremely easy to make any number of arguments based on any number of policies... Ω (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if it passes notability requirements, then show us the sources that prove it... there's really nothing else to debate. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then just use WP:V, which is an actual policy, in the first place... Why even argue from WP:NOTE? Ω (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is just WP:V restated. WP:V says everything in an article needs to come from reliable sources, WP:N says there should be enough content for an article if WP:V is applied. Applied to this article, if WND even is a reliable source, this article could only say "Ruthlessreviews is a vulgar website that hosted some pictures of a guy dancing on Ronald Reagan's grave". That's a very poor article, so WP:N rightfully says that we shouldn't even bother in cases where we can't source anything meaningful about the topic. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But see, all your doing there is stating WP:IDONTLIKEIT (about the article itself) and your own opinion re:notability and verifiability... Content disputes are not a valid reason for deletion, as specified in the deletion policy here: WP:ATD Ω (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely untrue... nowhere did I say I like or dislike this site. It's hardly my own opinion about notability and verifiability... WP:N clearly requires multiple sources with non-trivial coverage. There's no content dispute, only a dispute about the existence of sources. If you can't reply to the arguments I'm making, and continue replying to things I didn't say, I'm done here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it will be obvious to any impartial reader that I actually have been replying to the arguments that you have been making. I don't have anything against you personally and I respect your opinion, I simply challenge it, is all. I would ask for the same level of respect in return.

Saying "prove it" and/or demanding references/citations for every sentence in an article seem to be a very weak argument, to me. That's one reason why I brought up the WP:IDONTLIKEIT essay. Ω (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're still claiming to be replying to arguments I made, where did I demand "references/citations for every sentence in an article". Please quote where I said you had to provide a reference for every sentence in the article in order for it to be kept... I'm sure your impartial readers will be interested to know. Also, WP:IDONTLIKEIT says to say which policy applies and why, and that's exactly what I've done repeatedly... so you're quoting an essay that instructs me to do what I'm already doing. This is the 2nd current AFD where everyone in the AFD except you agrees with me, and in the other one an "impartial reader" is telling you "I don't know why you have such a problem with the AfD process..." I think you might need to think about whether all these impartial readers disagreeing with you might mean something. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Real" arguments aside, there is no notability for this website whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly notable for one small event, otherwise NN. Nakon 05:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Ribeiro de Araujo

[edit]

He's written enough books, perhaps with hard-to-find reviews, that I don't want to speedy-delete this one, but none of the books seems notable in a quick search. No hits on him at Google archives, only one hit for one of his books at Google books, with no preview and no reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 03:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 03:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the author myself. I would like to have an entry, but I understand your concerns about self-promotion. I can change the way it was written, removing what you consider self-promotion. Although my books were published in the US by a small publishing house, in Germany this is one of the best, and publishes authors such as Donald Trump, Robert Kyiosaki etc. Agents have exclusive rights to sell the rights of my best books to Italian, French, Portuguese, Japanese and Dutch and I believe I will be published in a few of these languages soon. I also have articles published in Brazil and 2 will be published in Germany in 2 months. Please consider keeping something about me. It is important to writers to be in Wikipedia, even if the writers are not widely well-known. Please feel free to email me for discussion about this if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabioaraujo (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when more books are published and reviews available, perhaps then he will be notable. The above comment would, unfortunately, justify a deletion as G11, promotional, but it will close normally soon enough. DGG (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Once books receive notable reviews, an article will be warranted. لenna vecia 16:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AI Aircraft Models

[edit]

This appears to be a list of aircraft to be used in a flight sim. It states that the list is of the "best and most used" but is not sourced at all. There is no indication that the list would meet any critera for notability. There does not seem to be a parent page about AI which might indicate notability. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete needs Wikifying and inline citations would be good. The notability of the list is also in question. Only "weak" delete because it may later prove to be a worthy entry.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 03:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a game guide or a link farm for downloads Corpx (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: looks like a game guide/link farm. Cliff smith ^talk 01:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:N violation. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deleted (CSD G4) by Anthony.bradbury. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 23:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew hawes

[edit]

This article does not present any evidence of genuine notability for this painter. Grahame (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any secondary sources - only the artist's website. Theymos (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a resume, and doesn't establish notability. Delete. Can't find sources either. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Hawes may be appropriate and administrators will be able to see how much content is shared with the earlier deleted (through AfD) Andrew Hawes. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy it is. G4. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys - this is an artist based in East Perth so I am not sure why you are not allowing the article in wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perthcriminallawyer (talk • contribs) 06:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't seem to fall into our inclusion guidelines. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn by nominator as it was heading for speedy keep. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States in Oslo

[edit]

fails WP:ORG. please note that we do not create articles for all US embassies, only notable ones. Any useful info from this article should be in List of diplomatic missions of the United States and United States Ambassador to Norway. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to pick one: having the cake or eating it. Deletion and merger are mutually incompatible. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it contains little useful information, so support delete. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article on a notable topic containing "little useful information" is reason to improve it, not delete it.--Oakshade (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is not an option. List of missions follows a fixed format with no place for anything more than already present. Merging Embassy (a larger subject) to Ambassador (part of Embassy) defies logic. I am not aware if Eero Saarinen needs any expansion on this building, looks like it doesn't. Norway – United States relations, perhaps, is the best merge target ... but I'm afraid it's on Libstar's red list as well. NVO (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The American diplomatic mission in one of the most important NATO countries during the cold war is certainly notable in itself. That it's an Eero Saarinen designed building makes this topic's inclusion without question; Just books about Saarinen alone [66][67] demonstrate significant coverage of this building by secondary sources. Even when it opened in 1955, the New York Times wrote an article about it.[68]. And the proposed new location the embassy is continuing to make press in such publications like Dagbladet.[69] There's probably a lot more sources in Finnish and bokmål. All of this took no more than a mintue to find. AfDs take at least a few minutes to create for me. Another example of why WP:BEFORE needs to be a absolute requirement. --Oakshade (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Update: found a few bokmål articles about the embassy's possible move in sources such as Dagsavisen [70][71] and the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation [72]--Oakshade (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why do you say searches in Finnish about this embassy? there is no large Finnish speaking population in Norway? LibStar (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps something about the building's architect who was born in Finland? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs expansion not deletion. Thre is a gorwing series of articles about U.S. Embassies, and Oslo should remain part of thatRockford1963 (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a bit thin on details but what has been come up with - which should be added to the article - show the notability of the building, that will remain regardless if it is repurposed as may indeed by the case. On a technical note: is the embassy of the US in Oslo the building or the delegation? Same grammatical conundum accompanies "St. Whomever's Church, Anytown" where it is ambiguous whether we are talking about the structure, the congregation, or what gets preached from the pulpit. Here, it seems specific to a notable building and that's a keep by me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee Traders

[edit]

I do not believe this article meets wikipedia's notability guidelines as it seems to simply be a phrase used in one location to refer to American merchants and lacks sources. Geraldk (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well referenced in history books like The California sea otter trade, 1784-1848 and many others. The article probably needs to be expanded to provide more context. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Spacemanspiff. But there would need to be a BIG development of this including good sources for this article to avoid deletion.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Merge or Rename-- this is an unsatisfactory stub, but could usefully be expanded (probably with a new name) into something like Trade of California before the gold rush. Richard Dana, Two years before the mast -- an account of his voyage from eastern USA to California in a ship that returned laden with cattle skins could usefully be cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep per additional references provided.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mogollon Monster

[edit]

Creature is not notable: the only references I could find are a few hits on AZcentral.com, see this search. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please read "The Mogollon Monster, Arizona's Bigfoot" by Susan A. Farnsworth published in 2001 or "Weird Arizona" written by Wesley Treat, Mark Moran (Editor), Mark Sceurman (Editor). Also, read more articles by following these links...

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/environment/144966 (This article was done by a large television station in Arizona).
http://www.azcentral.com/news/columns/articles/0304clay04.html (This article was published in the "Arizona Republic" which is a statewide newspaper.
http://www.wickenburg-az.com/?p=45 (The artical was written by a former "Arizona Republic" writer, now retired.
http://www.dolanellis.com/original_songs/wildfire.htm (The linked song writer even wrote a song about this creature).

(talk) 02:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The first link you provide is to an article that is barely serious; the second is by a guy who doesn't even believe it himself; the third is pretty much a joke (I mean, it's obviously intended as a joke). The fourth? A personal website that claims, probably correctly, that a guy wrote a song in which he mentioned this supposed monster (and offers the free download). None of it adds up to significant discussion in reliable sources of either the fictional monster or the popular belief therein. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge Seems to be fairly notable based on sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge where? Either way, it needs discussion, not just mention. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you Doc. But there is a book on it, and it wasn't published by Harper Collins, but seems semi-legit. Maybe DGG can let us know if Southwest Publishing is just a Vanity press... But even discounting the book, the monstah is mentioned now and again and seems like a semi-notable "urban myth", if you will. It's not a monster story with a whole lot of notability, but it meets my, admittedly low, standards unless someone can convince me otherwise. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also fearsome critters and list of monsters#North American Folklore (USA & Canada). We like these things at least as much as the 475th Family Guy episode and the Featured list of Claw Boys Claw singles. What can I tell you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look CoM, if it's not a card-carrying union member, and it hasn't made the front page of the New York Times, it doesn't matter, OK? Hey, I like urban myths as much as the next guy, but this one has no reliable coverage, unfortunately. Maybe I can convince you by offering a bribe? A nice shot of cheap whiskey, perhaps a Mitch Morgan? Sorry, I appreciate your zeal, but this one doesn't meet my equally low standards. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep. If repeated reports of such a creature can be documented to Wikipedia standards of verifiability, then it would deserve an article. I say "if" because only one reported reported sighting (in 1903) is adequately documented in the article (by reference to the published work Weird Arizona). A second sighing in the 1940s is unreferenced. The third on the list, sightings by Apaches, are given a reference to something called "3TV"; I assume this is a TV station, but as it stands, this reference is unverifiable. For a verifiable reference, we need either a published work or a website link to some reliable source such as a legitimate news-gathering organization. Whoever put in the reference to the Journal of Prevarication should look up "prevarication" in the dictionary; its author, Jim Cook, advertises himself as the "Official State Liar of Arizona". We don't need documentation of the creature's existence, just documentation of repeated reports. After all, Wikipedia has (and should keep) articles on fairies and leprechauns. Plazak (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairies and leprechauns have lots of reliable sources. This one doesn't. DreamGuy (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Jedijoe82 has improved the refs (especially to the online version of the Arizona Daily Star), and with the addition of the "Urban legend" section, I am persuaded that the subject has enough verifiable independent sources to have its own wiki article. Plazak (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are far less notable articles on Wikipedia I don't see any reason to remove it. In fact some of the editors have a hair trigger when it comes to the delete button their standards are not everyones. --Timpicerilo (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not demonstrated notability for its own article. We deleted Jacobs creature via AFD -- another supposed Bigfoot sighting -- for the same reasons, and that one was slightly more notable than this one (and thus gets a glancing mention in the main Bigfoot article. Being a regular at that article I can state that this one wouldn't be mentioned even there by the standards we've established (following WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE), so it obviously doesn't deserve a page of its own. DreamGuy (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bigfoot, which I had boldy done when it was first created. It's non-notable, fails WP:V, but still a plausible search term. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Notable based on sources. jedijoe82 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong, the recommendation of deletion is ridiculous--Timpicerilo (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's popularity stems from its diversity- this wealth of information comes from a wide variety of individuals knowledgeable in their contributions. If we eliminate articles because a few don't believe they're worthy it becomes detrimental to the integrity of the encyclopedia. Certainley at some point a line must be drawn when someone starts putting in articles about what they had for lunch but that is not the case here.--Timpicerilo (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character/fictional entity has been mentioned in various published books [73] a couple of which count as notable mention. Dream Focus 22:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dream Focus has it right. The appropriate GBooks link is [hhttp://books.google.com/books?spell=1&lr=&q=%22Mogollon+Monster%22&btnG=Search+Books], where I see, besides its use in two novels by the established horror fiction author Bentley Little & an academic reference in Abstracts of Folklore Studies & inclusion in some Arizona tour guides. Southwestern Publications is, however, a small almost extinct vanity publisher. I think it is indeed a local legend, though I would reduce the article to size, eliminating the long quotations. DGG (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources has been found to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with DDGs recommendation. Notability has been establish, with significant references. Click23 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

[edit]

Non-notable journal with no claims of notability, but there doesn't appear to be a CSD category for journals. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--I don't have time right now to do a more detailed investigation, but this search on Google Scholar gives plenty of hits. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am a bit surprised by the "no claim of notability", after all the journal is published by one of the major academic publishing companies (who obviously wouldn't invest money in it, if it wasn't "notable").I think it also has also enough hits on Google, Google Books, and Google Scholars; there are plenty of topics on wikipedia that score substantially less hits on Google. --Parisienxx (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Counting Google hits is not research. We don't use Google hit counts as a measure of anything, because (as anyone who knows how Google works will tell you) they don't actually contain any useful information, being, as they are, estimates. Notability is governed by the existence of multiple independent published works, that document the subject in depth, by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. A simple Google Scholar search for a journal title, which (of course) will match articles in the journal, which aren't necessarily about the journal at all, is useless, even if one were to accept that the hit counts, which are only estimates, mean something useful. Uncle G (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hey Uncle, I just wanted to drop a note there, on the top of the AfD page, as a word of warning--that editors not simply say "delete per nom." The answer I gave below took me an hour, and I didn't have that time earlier. Oh, nominator, that's how an AfD takes up valuable time. I could have read an article from Journal of Transatlantic Studies or made sweet, sweet love in the time it took me to get the "keep" answer together. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I know. I'd already noted that you were not presenting an argument for either outcome there, below, as you can see. ☺ It was Parisienxx whom I was replying to, and Parisienxx who pointed to the useless hit counts as a rationale for keeping. Uncle G (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GOOGLEHITS says "Google's specialty tools, such as Google Book Search, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search." So uh, please see the essay you cite before telling other people to see it. Web results are generally useless but no one was citing web results. Scholar/books/news results are potentially useful and shouldn't be dismissed automatically. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggest that you read the rationale being addressed before questioning the response to it. It wasn't a pointer to any actual sources. It was "This search on a search engine results in lots of hits.", to which the correct response is, indeed, to point out that hit counts have no meaning, and that Counting Google hits is not research. Uncle G (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - A lot of results on Google Scholar, Books or News is much more likely to be meaningful than a lot of web results. Of course there can be many reasons why those high numbers still don't show notability, but merely referring someone to an essay, which specifically says Scholar results are "more likely to return reliable sources", was a poor way of handling the situation. There are some obvious reasons why those scholar results aren't all that useful in this specific case, but tritely citing an essay didn't explain any of those reasons. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notice that Drmies wasn't giving that as an argument for either outcome, Who then was a gentleman. Uncle G (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was a journal started in 2002. However it has a notable editor and publisher, so there blatantly are claims of notability. Still, claims of notability are different than Wikipedia notability, meaningful coverage still needs to be found. I see a couple of books mentioning the journal in passing, citing it briefly as an example of rising interest in transatlantic studies.[74] To warrant an article, though, there would need to be more meaningful coverage. It's rare cases like this where I wish we could have a space to write about references, even if they aren't Wikipedia-style notable... since information on them might still be useful to readers. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first dozen or more pages of the Google Scholar search for the journal give hits from the journal, it is true, but after that there is mention of and citation from the journal. But then again, that was to be expected: academic journals aren't discussed the way Bigfoot is. A link to a Google Book search is more insightful, this one, which gives on the first page alone a couple of mentions, some lengthier than others, of the journal in books. Laura M. Stevens, in "Transatlanticism Now" (American Literary History 16.1 (2004): 93-102) mentions the journal (together with Symbiosis) in the opening paragraph as indicative of a new interest in transatlantic studies. There is a fairly lengthy evaluation of the journal in a footnote in Paul Giles and R.J. Ellis, "E Pluribus Multitudinum: The New World of Journal Publishing in American Studies" (American Quarterly 57.4 (2005): 1033-81): "Another new journal aiming for a niche is the Journal of Transatlantic Studies (JTS), published since 2003 by Edinburgh University Press. This latter publication, however, is oddly named, because its first three volumes have concentrated almost exclusively on politics and international relations within a transatlantic framework, examining the problems of the NATO alliance, and so on; despite JTSs promotion of itself as "multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary," it has so far published only one article in the field of literature and culture."
All of this together is not bad for an academic journal that's only been published for a couple of years. I'm not in the business of political sciences, so I don't know what the main databases are and if the journal is indexed by the big players in that field, but Academic Search Premier offers full-text access to it, and that's a good sign too.
Lastly, I would your draw attention to an essay, User:S Marshall/Essay, which I and another user believe has a few valid guidelines for precisely this sort of publication--academic, professional, peer-reviewed. Chiliad, you might like what we proposed there; please have a look.
Keep. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it per my essay that my friend Drmies linked above.
Also, it has a lot of googlehits. And bugger WP:GOOGLEHITS — that's an essay I do not agree with, and I fully intend to disregard it. Reasoning:
1) Notable things have a strong tendency to generate a lot of google hits, so it's a useful quick indicator;
2) I view it as simple common sense that proper scholarly journals merit articles on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's notability criteria tend to be kind to academics and scholarly things, which I view as absolutely right and proper.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you look into how Google works. The hit counts really are useless. They are estimates, for starters. Want to learn about this? Try putting "google" "hit count" and "estimate" into Google. Uncle G (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you've only responded to my second point, I'll take it you agree with the first.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's actually a response to your first point, if you check your numbering. As to your second point: Our nomal notability criteria apply, and there is no need for an exception. Scholarly journals should be covered inside Wikipedia in the ways that they are covered in the world at large outside Wikipedia. If they are no more than entries in long lists of "journals published by publisher X" in the world outside Wikipedia, then that is what they should be in Wikipedia. Similarly, if the world outside of Wikipedia independently documents them in depth, then they warrant articles in Wikipedia. Notability is not a blanket. Human knowledge is lumpy and uneven. Uncle G (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My first point was "Keep it per my essay"...—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's referring to your numbered statements. Perhaps you should refactor and make your first keep reason #1 and then you'll have 3 numbered listings and the rest of us won't be confused. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a keep to me. Although I have to point out the absurdity of the argument that "it's notable because a major publisher put money into it". This puts the cart before the horse. It also ignores the notorious case of the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. Hairhorn (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moderately established peer-reviewed publication by a respectable second-rank academic publisher. Included in the basic standard indexes for the field, America: History and Life and Historical Abstracts, but not Scopus or WebofScience--with the caveat that their coverage in this sort of topic is weak & they omit many good titles. Included in Ebsco, but not the other collected journal databases.--all this as confirmed by Ulrichs, which is the standard reliable reference for periodicals, & a good secondary source. It does more than lists it, it provides enough information to make a WP article. Held in 294 academic libraries, according to WorldCat. It is not yet in my opinion a very important journal, but its over the bar for notability. Uncle G is wrong this about Scholarly journals--they do not get covered by secondary sources in the normal way--yet this one does have some recognition in secondary sources. (the basic problem with academic journals is the same as with academic books or academics themselves--they are not of interest to the news media, and notability in their field has to be measured by the criteria of the field.) There is nothing sacred about the General Notability Guideline--it's just a convenient device for some articles. That said, there are some people here who consider all peer-reviewed journals notable; I do not. It depends on their influence in the subject, and that can be measured by library holdings and citations to their articles. For this, had there been 30 library holdings instead of 300, I would have said delete, because the other factors are a little on the weak side. DGG (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Brand Medicated Oil

[edit]

Article doesn't show proof of meeting WP:GNG. I tried to search for references before deletion and could only come up with the FDA link given (now not found directly through the link, but Google still has a cached version of the page). Killiondude (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has as references only a government directory-type listing with a broken link. Appears to fail notability and not a directory of every nostrum offered for sale. Edison (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourcing is found. No real hits on google news Corpx (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bozo bit

[edit]

This is an article that I spotted by happenstance. The article does not appear to be a Jargon term in the Jargon file, and appears for obsolescence purposes in older versions of the Apple Mac OS. But then it goes on to another usage when one has developer troubles, I guess, making it in my opinion a WP:COATRACK that promotes a book. I am, in short, not sure that this is going to fall into our inclusion guidelines. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changed to keep per argument given by Uncle G, below. Ohms law (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: both are verifiable from multiple reliable sources (some of which are cited in the article), and both have the same name. But there is no actual connection between the twain in any source that I can find.
The first belongs in an overall article about Finder flags (if separate from file attribute) for which copious sources discussing all of the flags (Bozo, Invisible, Bundle, &c.) exist. But we don't have that article yet. I'm not sure yet where the second belongs. Deletion isn't the answer here. An article split is (with this, of course, disambiguating the split destinations). We just need to determine where the second part of the split should go. The first is obviously Finder flag or file attribute. Uncle G (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed, so I've changed my vote above... The second part could maybe become a section in some other page. Software development, maybe? Ohms law (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but remove the coatrack stuff. I also agree with Uncle G. It should be merged into a general article on finder flags unless other sources document the use of the term "bozo bit" besides the book. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Humour - why is there not wiki page for butthead astronomer? LOL [ I make it a habit to not use this alias for trivia but it is quite notable and this question reminded me... ] I guess you could make a page on Apple related insulting jargon. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have Apple Inc. litigation#Libel dispute with Carl Sagan. Uncle G (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did find that. I guess I'm musing more generally rather than trying to answer specific issue here-

apple has a section on libel, and regarding culture comment below, excessive positivity and pompous jargon is the norm. Any deprecating terminology, while common in technical communities, seems notable when it hits the general population ( ever see recent DTC drug ads ? These aren't insulting but just lack accepted puffery and can be quite striking ( sounds more like an encyclopedia entry than an ad as do many drug inserts ) even if not something that is notable on a major news source but may be noted in ad related publications). I guess marginally notable but obscure jargon could be listed on a page. I'm not really sure a software flags page would be all that great- how much can you say about bit usage or parity, carry,oflow, sign bits, etc given notability criteria? The only thing of note here is the "Bozo" term AFAIK.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- OK, now the article makes a bit of sense. I'm leaving the discussion here open and not withdrawing my nomination, but the problem I think now is that there was no apparent connection to culture with Apple - what I read was something about a technical bit, an explanation as to why it was called a bozo bit, and how this factors into meatspace (and why one must never flip the bit). Perhaps this is a keeper, but the link involving Apple between the two must be found and/or explained better. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wouldn't be opposed to a DAB, but I'm puzzled where to put the latter stuff on the programming culture stuff, because that's not somethign that's really related to programming as such, just culture. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am too, as I said. At least one of the sources is explicitly discussing "Geeks". I haven't looked at the original McCarthy book to see what context it presents this information in. That might provide a hint. Uncle G (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both the usage as an early "copy protection" flag in the Macintosh Finder environment, and the use as in the McCarthy book with regard to software teams are sufficient. I'm not entirely convinced these are unrelated; there may be an analogy between the one bozo bit that prevents you from copying a file and the other bozo bit that prevents you from listening to a person's input. But I don't believe there's any rule necessitating a DAB page; they can coexist as a merged article of sorts, at least until someone creates a chart of file attributes on Macintosh filesystems within a technical article. I don't believe this article is "promoting" a book, as the book was published nearly a decade before Wikipedia was around. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no real reason for outright removal given. It has plenty of well-sourced information.Scientus (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has useful information. I've heard, more than once, a third use too - which I will take to the Talk page for the entry. Gordon Findlay (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this article because there are references to it out there on the web. It's a well known piece of history of Digital Rights Management. RPTB1 (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of IT companies in Bangalore

[edit]

This very general list is a magnet for non-notable companies. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. People occasionally prune the spam, but this probably exists better as a self-maintaining category. Gigs (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. JIP | Talk 02:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. Better suited for a category. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR. Pastor Theo (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is similar to other lists of the same type (List of XXX companies in YYY). Good lists like this can be very useful for navigating Wikipeida. This list needs clean-up: definition of "in" is unclear in title, headers for the table columns, removal of all redlinks, etc.—G716 <^T·_C> 06:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a directory. Yes, there are similar pages like this, but they need to be ultimately deleted also. Corpx (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete.WP:NOTDIR and the general consensus from prior AfDs that Thryduulf posted. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Removing as I copy pasted to the wrong AfD. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIR. Jtowler (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as failing WP:RS, and therefore failing both WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veritee

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is just advertising for a non-notable product. The first reference says nothing about Veritee. The second does not appear to be reliable, making the dubious claim that Veritee "slows aging". These references do not suggest that the article meets notability criteria at WP:N which requires significant coverage in reliable sources where the sources address the subject directly in detail. This appears to be the third deletion debate for this topic, with the result being delete the last two. Deli nk (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally inacurate your comments, where are you from ? this article provides two references from the 20 minute news paper the largest news paper in Switzerland in circulation and also provides a reference from market magazine the swiss magazine for economics and finance (the pdf is the menu for the magazine with clear reference for the Veritee article available in the print version) the product is very popular in europe and switzerland where it is the number one wellness drink. thank you for your understanding and for taking good note and good contribution to wikipedia..--Netquantum (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Hawaii originally. Thanks for asking. Deli nk (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if your are from Hawaii then you obviously dont know all those names in switzerland. --Netquantum (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

… which is a basic principle underlying our verifiability policy. Xe doesn't have to know. You have to supply proper sources using which xe, and any other editor or reader, can check the accuracy of what you claim. Uncle G (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is what we did provided references from the largest papers in switzerland in circulation (that was the point Deli doesnt know how to evaluate the sources!, we have more than 10 references for the article and one can find more than 100 references on the net. --Netquantum (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar advertisement-articles have been deleted twice in the past by AFD. Two refs are presented this time: the first links only to a table of contents and has none of the text. The second reads like it is based on a press release. Does not appear to satisfy notability at this point. The previous AFDs were full of Keep !votes from single purpose accounts. Edison (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be a concerted effort to promote Veritee on Wikipedia since at least 2005 including a claim that "we are woRking on a project to inform the general public about VERITEE WELLNESS DRINK". A number of incarnations of this advertising have been repeatedly deleted including Veritee, Veritee ® Wellness, VERITEE, and probably others. There is also this draft version in userspace: User:Baltusbaltus/sandbox. The title Veritee was protected from creation for a short while, too, in an apparent attempt to stop it. This also seems to be related to the repeatedly deleted article Patrick Buri (see now-blanked AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Buri), an individual that is being promoted by the creater of the current version of Veritee.[75] Deli nk (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not delete its not really important what happened in the past at this point this article seems interesting with good references. here i just added five other references. One can find more than 100 ref on the internet!!
We decided to remove the block after disscussion with jimfbleak (who initially implemented the block but then decided to remove it based on the new references), he removed the block and we want this.
if you remove veritee then you have to remove all other products in europe and switzerland (rivella, enviga, etc) because Veritee is everywhere in switzerland and a very notable product. --Netquantum (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Cite proper independent reliable sources that document this subject in depth. The two one-sentence mentions-in-passing, one advertisement, and one on-line supermarket shopping page that you've added as purported references don't cut the mustard. And no, the status of this product as a subject has no relevance to the status of any other article on some other unrelated subject. Uncle G (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain The article previously deleted at AfD was impossibly bad; this one might even be acceptable. It would be very useful to have a reference that did not seem to be derived from press releases--the likely best of them, in the "Market" newsletter, is not actually visible at the site listed: can anyone confirm the actual contents? . . DGG (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the market magazine pdf is a menu where one can see the veritee article on the innovation section! the full article is in the print version i have seen it! send and email to the editorial maybe they will send you the electronic version or confirm the news! I suggest that we all agree on a the article and references and then post the revised article..

--Netquantum (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In contrast to suggestions that Europeans would know that this is notable, the German (w:de:Veritee) and French (w:fr:Veritee) versions of this article have also been deleted multiple times each. Deli nk (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why dont you devellop a good article for this notable product one can find more than 100 references on the internet and we disscusses with several editors and we decided to post the article again. you are a student and you have to learn and accept that we would like this article and dont accept that you repetedly vandalise the pages--Netquantum (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Referring to any edit that I have made to this page (or any other) as vandalism is highly inappropriate. I have a made a polite, rational argument for deletion, citing Wikipedia's policies. You disagree. That's fine. But referring to anything I have done as vandalism is just insulting. Deli nk (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the classic teminology for people who repetedly delete text without listening other comments.

--Netquantum (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please stop vandalism, the issue is that in the past those article have been removed because of the lac of references but now we have more than 10 references and one can find many more on the internet. once we have a good article in the english version of wikipedia then the french and the germand version will follow and local editors will proceed.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netquantum (talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I unprotected this topic to allow what appeared to be a bona fide attempt at recreation. I also helped with the formatting and allowed recreation because I wasn't sure that it met the CSD criteria. I thought it was likely to end up here, but because of my involvement, I won't vote either to keep or delete. Netquantum has asked me to close the AfD with a positive outcome, but I can't see that that is justified, and an uninvolved admin should make the judgement of when a consensus has been reached either way. jimfbleak (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep i like Veritee and the article looks good and provides references in line with wikipedia's policy.--89.194.134.121 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
keep the article looks good--Sneess (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Question: Can you buy this product at Migros? Stifle (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just made research about Migros and yes seems the product is available at Migros: have a look here on the online sales platform at Migros http://www.leshop.ch , also i know that the product is available at Manor the leading food store in switzerland and also one can find this at Sun Store the largest drug / pharma store in Switzerland... I have seen it in London at Harrods! --Netquantum (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think any product stocked by Migros and other similar stores, or at least the manufacturer thereof, is, prima facie, notable. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This product seems as though it may be marginally notable... however, at least one of the references is totally useless from what I can tell ([76] only mentions it in a table of contents?), and most of the other references read very much like advertisements rather than reliable news sources. Additionally, the article's content is incredibly promotional, to the point I would have considered speedy deleting this had I come across it on new page patrol. This article needs a lot of work in order to bring it up to acceptable standard for Wikipedia, but considering the apparent single-mindedness of the author, I doubt that the work will be completed acceptably. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
seems obvious that Hersfold is connected and know Deli and starting an unfounded feud here , please read the comments and then you will understand that the product is notable and usefull as a reference. we like students on wikipedia but we dont want inexperienced students who ultimately fool around here with non sense. thanks for your understanding --Netquantum (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hersfold is an administrator and knows a damned sight more about Wikipedia than you do. Take his advice, understand his comments, he's a respected voice here - one of the top half a percent of editors. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in this case seems that Hersfold did not read the comments and does not understand the meaning and purpose of the market mag reference. what about the comments from Stifle this is good comments!!!! thank you for your understanding and good contribution at wikipedia.--Netquantum (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect Stifle's opinion here, however in my assessment of the article I came up with a different conclusion. I do apologize for misinterpreting the one reference, however that doesn't change much, as I'm not able to verify that source and none of the other sources in my opinion are usable. Please remember to assume good faith of other users; I'm human as well, and do occasionally make mistakes. Your comments previously are quite accusatory. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing more than an advert and spam, and the product is only marginally notable. Being sold in a store does not express notability. The article, if kept, needs a lot of work lest it be speedy deleted, and given the stubborn nature of Netquantum, I doubt that he would be willing to engage in these edits. seicer | talk | contribs 16:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you want to delete an article with several references including articles from the largest papers in switzerland in circulation (20 minutes) then seems that something is wrong I am waiting and will not oppose a good inteligent rewrite of the article so go for it if you know something about this subject.! thks--Netquantum (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment:: botom line is that the article provides several references from the largest papers in switzerland, we disscussed with several editors including jimfbleak and aggreed on the revised version, we also know that the product is on sale at the largest stores in Europe including migros and manor! what is required now is common sense!--Netquantum (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself uses words like 'Wellness' (which means what exactly?) and the fact that a drink (which contains water) has vitamins and minerals in it is no special claim. I can only see 2 of the sources (the third one comes up with a loading error) the first article seems to be an advertisement in itself, saying that the drink acts as a 'preventative drug' without actually citing any scientific studies or saying why the drink qualifies as medication. The second source only mentions the product in the table of contents (as has been said previously). This doesn't meet notability until better sources can be provided. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments the article uses the word "wellness" because the name of the product is "veritee wellness drink".

again the article is notable because we know that the product is available retail at the major super markets in europe and we have references from the largest papers in switzerland ! what more do you need for notability than reviews and articles in the largest papers.....thks for your understanding.!!!--Netquantum (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi you dont know what wellness means, and you are on wikipedia, type wellness and you will find out what it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellness_(alternative_medicine) --Netquantum (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments why dont we remove all products and product references on wikipedia. if we have to delete the Veritee article then we also have to delete "Enviga" "Rivella" " Red Bull" "Nestea" " Glaceau" etc.

I have spend a lot of time to ad this product article and would appreciate respect and common sense for a very notable product that is available retail al over switzerland and europe and provides references from the largest papers in switzerland !!!!!!!!

--Netquantum (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material and an admin may want to take a close look at Netquantum who just made pointy vandalistic edits to numerous other drink company articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Whatever kind of deletion is done I think salt should be added to the mineral water.~~ ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I second that? Netquantum seems to think Red Bull, Nestea, Rivella and Enviga are all advertising on wikipdia but Veritee isnt! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps it's just a frustrated editor. Best to show patience and understanding. I'm retracting my request for salt. It's not a good salve for wounds. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Article has been cleaned up with most of the spam removed; a minimal amount of notability has been established. I would recommend that some watch this article, however, so this article does not float back to the same problems as before in regards with spam. MuZemike 18:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The sources in this article would never stand up for the claims they're making. I'm pretty confident there isn't even an appropriate indication of notability (per WP:N or WP:PRODUCT) across the two accessible sources currently in the article. Yeah, not a particularly great reason to delete, but the underlying vanispamcruftisement concerns push me over the edge. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

prove it because you are totally wrong, i created the article because i use the product on a regular basis!!! and made some research about it and it helps my condition and promotes my health.--Netquantum (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can't find sources leading me to think that this meets WP:N or WP:PRODUCT. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please read the disscussion and you will find out that the product has more than 10 references from leading news papers and magazines in switzerland including 20 minutes the largest news paper in circulation, we have more references here then most articles in wikipedia. we also know that the product sells with leading stores in switzerland and europe--Netquantum (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to something that isn't a regurgitated press release? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT A DAY!!!! i looked at the 20 minute article and at the Extanssion magazine article and the content is totally different so obviously not comming from the same source, also if you look at this article it gives you references and info about the case but from a different perspective:

Eau Taillefine : ultime sursis pour un symbole

http://www.bloob.fr/la-presse-en-parle/eau-taillefine-ultime-sursis-pour-un-symbole-5087.html

--Netquantum (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, forgive me, but this article only mentions Veritee once towards the end. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes but this link shows you the different opinions and perspectives about this product and not based on a press release as you claim... Also, I am in Europe and in the print press one can see many more comments about this product, the other day i sow and article in Lematin explained that the product is chemical and the taste horible ( i dont agree but this shows you that all sorts of articles are arising and not based on press releases.--Netquantum (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemens i spend all day here and now i have to go and will be back tommorow, please understand that this article is good and not the only article i have done in the past and therefore i hope that all the time, research and work here will be usefull. for sure if we delete Veritee we have to delete many more products articles on wikipedia.

--Netquantum (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screamworks: Love in Theory and Practice

[edit]

Fails to meet WP:NALBUMS: an ubsubstantiated forthcoming album which has not even started production, has no third party references, and the sole reference which is supplied confirms that even the title is as yet unknown - the one given is a working title. Delete. I42 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no sources to verify title. My guess is they just threw the title up to dodge the WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and delete: The information was taken from a radio interview with the lead singer. The interview is available and summarized here. However, beyond a tentative title and release date, there really isn't much information yet to have a full article just yet. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 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 00:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a "working title" shouldn't save it from the WP:HAMMER; fails WP:NALBUMS anyway. JohnCD (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. An unreferenced BLP with minimal evidence of notability. ~ mazca ^talk 13:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Esteban Vélez

[edit]

Non-notable writer per WP:AUTHOR. No independent reliable sources. Most of the things I could find on Google are from blogs, wikipedia and its mirrors or other unreliable sources: [77]. Probably a cross-wiki spam, since the same article was created by Martin Champagne (talk · contribs · count) in several Wikipedias. Algébrico (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Algébrico (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Algébrico (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: deleted from Wikipedia in Spanish as self-promotion: [78]. Algébrico (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Algébrico (talk) 14:31, 11 June 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 00:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced BLP is mostly a list of what appears to be non-notable works. لenna vecia 23:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promise me not

[edit]

Contested prod. Novel series with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to fail WP:BK, and google returns nothing (alt. search). I put some tags on the article, but some further investigation led me to place it on AfD. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above !vote, a delete, was transferred from another nomination of the same article created by mistake. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. An accident on my part, but my vote still stands. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per first comment. Get rid of this nonsense.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 02:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically a plot summary of a book with no notability asserted. JIP | Talk 02:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs (serious) work, but that's not a reason in and of itself to delete. The article is talking about a series of books, so maybe it should be fleshed out to become an article about those books? Ohms law (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as established above non-notable. Ridernyc (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article gives us very little to go on - only the series title, no titles of books, author's name, ISBN... Searches find nothing to confirm, I seriously doubt whether this exists anywhere but the in author's mind. In any case, certainly fails WP:BK. JohnCD (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing to save here and searches to find something to add to it have come up empty. Might be notable one day but not today.--RadioFan (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My mother is working on this book series and plans to have all eight books published by fall/09. Please do not call my mother's work nonsense. Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the guideline on Notability {books), particularly the sections Criteria and Not yet published books; also, if you are writing about your mother's books, the guideline on Conflict of Interest. Wikipedia is not here to advertise forthcoming books. JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. And as it's clearly not yet published, such evidence is unlikely to be forthcoming for at least some months. --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This, I think, is drabble stored in Queen Padmé Amidala's mind. RossGod:RedeemCarlyne (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One, if Ohms law CAN flesh out this article, I'd be very interested. Two, I'm not personally acquainted with Drabble's work (but I do enjoy her elder sister's comments in many intellectual discussions), however this seems to me to me drivel in the mind of an intelligent teenager who needs to listen more closely to the conversations around (probably) her. (OK, I know this is a very small sample, but I couldn't resist that.) (As Robert Silverberg found in the case of James Tiptree, Jr, it doesn't pay to be too positive that you know the gender of someone you've not met...) Three, there seems to be no evidence outside this article for the existence of these books - and getting eight books of a series published in three to six months is only possible via our friends at lulu.com and similar. Self-publishing, in other words. No real commercial (as opposed to vanity) publisher would take the risk of putting out eight books by an unknown author so close together. Only spin-offs like the (to my mind excellent) Buffy books can get that treatment. Four, if Her Majesty is in fact the author's daughter, then the current non-published state necessitates deletion. As I can find no evidence of publication (and none is asserted in the article), I must conclude that WP:CRYSTAL is failed. Peridon (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am her daughter thank you very much. Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oohh...Touchy are we? Not trying to break rules here (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "Elizabeth Rullen" gets two Google hits, neither of them having anything to do with these books. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think it would be safe to say we can snowball this and speedy delete it as even the author of the article admits this has zero notability. Ridernyc (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Summer Set

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No reliable sources found. Only three EP releases on a marginally notable label, falls below the WP:MUSIC criterion of having two full albums on a notable label. I tagged this as A7 until I saw that the label was a blue link (I was confused since the "label" was in "redundant" "quotation 'marks'"). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:54, 10 June 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) 00:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - doesn't meet WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've updated the article with references, now it meets WP:BAND #1 Strummer25 (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It's not the strongest sourcing, but I think it's enough for WP:BAND criterion #1. I added two additional sources as well. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be enough coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts of Gettysburg

[edit]

Article is just a short summary of the book of the same name. Creator removed the prod tag left by another editor, so I'm bringing it to AFD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It will need developing but a Google Search brings up results that may suggest notability.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone finds evidence of reviews or other articles about this book. I see a lot of press junket type mentions, but no serious coverage of the book, in doing some news archive searches. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though. --Chiliad22 (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article, in its current state, is a mess. But the Mark Nesbitt book is highly notable and that can easily be confirmed via Google searches. The subject of ghostly apparitions at Gettysburg can also be documented. This needs a major clean-up, but not deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since my last input here, I have completely rewritten the article to meet Wikipedia's editorial standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:09, 17 June 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) 00:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The re-write has made it into a perfectly acceptable stub. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the pastor did good work. I believe in the work's notability. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rewrite seems to have rescued the article to the extent that, in my opinion at least, it is acceptable. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is well-sourced and evidently notable as it spearheaded the franchise. Them From Space 22:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Johnson

[edit]

This is about a living weatherlady that hasn't recieved the attention in reliable, third-party sources needed to meet our general notability guideline and WP:BIO. Them From Space 06:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Them From Space 06:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You know, I was hoping to work on these articles I've created sometime in the near future, and try to determine notability for looking for third-party sources. However, I do admit that a couple of these are likely to be non-notable. Please check for third-party sources in this and other articles as well; many of these weathercasters are linked from The Weather Network and my userpage. ~A H1^(TCU) 19:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced and non-notable. لenna vecia 16:54, 16 June 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) 00:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reference is her employer's web-site, I don't see notability per WP:ENTERTAINER in the article, and I don't find any on a quick search. JohnCD (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just having a job that happens to be on camera doesn't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet inclusion criteria by having significant coverage in reliable sources. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was a unanimous delete on the basis that the subject does not meet guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP (Integrated Project)

[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable high-school project. High number of reverts from XLinkBot (talk · contribs). Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is a shame that no CSD category can be applied to hopeless cases like this. Cunard (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:34, 10 June 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) 00:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's on the border of WP:MADEUP. tedder (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ohms law (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to merge and no verifiable notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what's discussed here is thoroughly nn; the idea of an integrated project is probably notable in the sense of Dissertation and perhaps Integrated project should be a dab, but this page as titled should be deleted. JJL (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. لenna vecia 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kai James

[edit]

I declined the speedy, he's been in enough films for that, but the roles haven't been prominent, and if reliable sources don't materialize, he fails WP:ENT, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is very difficult to find anything on Kai James on the internet, because of his lack of starring roles,... 'Nuff said. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reluctantly - tried to save but just can't find anything about him, and the supposed 2009 series actually looks like it was a pilot in 2007 which never was renewed per [79]. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 04:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, subject to re-creation when he gets a bigger role. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe userfy to author. I gave the article a bit of cleanup and looked for sources. Nothing that shows this youngster has yet found Wikipedia-type notability. In a few years... perhaps. As of now? Nope. Sorry Kai. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muckety

[edit]

Website without sufficient notability Passportguy (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very interesting. Doesn't seem to be a very active website and based purely on policy I would have to lean towards weak delete based on lack of notability. But it might be nice to include at least a mention somewhere. It's an interesting (radical? impractical?) approach to news coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:18, 10 June 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 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the NYTimes and Economist refs are good enough. JohnCD (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kaiman

[edit]

Non-notable local town supervisor, page created by spa - seems to be vanity Passportguy (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supervisor Jon Kaiman represents 7th largest municipality out of approximately 1500 Towns, cities and villages in the State of New York. His record serving the 260,000+ people in North Hempstead is long and distinguished, as CNN Money Magazine recently confirmed, ranking the North Hempstead number 46 out of the top 100 Best Places to Live in America. This post believes the catalyst for creating a page for Supervisor Kaiman was the amount of innovative environmental initiatives he has spearheaded (including a Town-Wide School Recycling Partnership Program, the likes of which have not been seen anywhere in the State and is up for consideration for the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Excellence Award, a Pharmaceutical Collection Event, which received national recognition through AP recently, plans in the works to build the states 3rd platinum leed certified municipal building in New Cassel complete with Solar paneled roof and hybrid carport) innovative government programs (including a 311 constituent response system, Project Independence – a rapidly expanding senior assistance program aimed to allow seniors stay in their homes longer) sound finances (incredibly, in this current climate, Moody’s has affirmed the Town’s highest-in-history Aa2 bond rating, with a positive outlook and a phenomenal .36% rate on the one-year bond anticipation notes issues).

While this post can go on, it seems due diligence to have Supervisor Kaiman on Wikipedia similar to Supervisor Kate Murray, who currently enjoys her own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Murray

The comment previous to this says, non-notable and vanity. That statement unfortunately is inaccurate, most probably made by an individual unaware of New York State Politics. In New York, past and current senators, state senators and past-previous attorney generals have all appeared with Supervisor Kaiman to partner on government initiatives. Wikipedia is a quality source of information, designed to allow web users to have quick and accurate information on individuals, places, events etc. Wikipedia should only highlight those that are noteworthy. Supervisor Kaiman is indeed a noteworthy leader of the 7th largest municipality out of the 1,500 in NYS, and he was a noteworthy district court judge, receiving the high possible rating from the Bar Association, and web browsers ought to be able to discern who those noteworthy leaders are. This post strongly recommends Supervisor Kaiman’s page stay as is. 12:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.18.130 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor position in a small town = very narrow scope of notability. Corpx (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. لenna vecia 23:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's the equivalent of mayor, not a minor position. And North Hempstead, New York has over 220,000 people-- so that makes the area equivalent to a city by any reasonable standard. DGG (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Were you able to find multiple reliable sources independent of the subject from which to write an article? لenna vecia 15:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up Per WP:POLITICIAN, he passes the second point fer DGGs comment. Yes the article needs to be cleaned up for WP:NPOV, but that would fall under WP:ATD. Any of the information in the article that cannot be backed up by reliable secondary sources, needs to be removed from the article. Click23 (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Raines

[edit]

Fails WP:PORNBIO - has not won any significant awards. Not covered in any reliable third party sources. No references, broken links, and no assertion of notability. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no assertion of notability. - 2 ... says you, says me 18:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominated for awards, but no win + lack of notability Corpx (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:PORNBIO. لenna vecia 23:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If her nominations can be verified, then it would satisfy WP:PORNBIO. I am behind a firewall and can't verify this myself. It also doesn't help that the nominations do not list the categories and may be a hoax. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Searched the AVN nominations and she was not nominated in those years 2003 and 2009. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of PORNBIO being met at all, and I did my own search of the AVN awards nomination I have, which are from 2000 forward. Not one person named "Harley" was nominated in any of those years. Tabercil (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of the MRT's Production History

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of the MRT's Production History

Exhaustive list of productions from non-notable local theatre. Perhaps deserves an article for the theatre itself, but not this level of detail / cast+credits. Oscarthecat (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as amdramcruft WP:VSCA. Pah! Eddie.willers (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Drawn Some (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator that the Merrimack Repertory Theatre should have an article, and it does. I agree with the nominator that a detailed list of all its productions in a separate article is inappropriate for Wikipedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This type of information belongs on the theater's website, not on wikipedia Corpx (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Flowerparty^☀ 00:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sekou Odinga

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This one is a bit complex. I'm inclined to offer WP:ONEEVENT as reasoning, as the only thing he seems notable for is his conviction for the Brinks Armored Truck robbery in the early 1980s. What came up in a Google News search on Mr. Odinga offered only stories on this and an arrest in the late 1960s (where he was arrested along with about 20 other Black Panthers in connection with a bombing plot); no indication was ever offered as to whether he was actually indicted in connection with this, though at the same time most newspaper stories from this time are locked behind pay-to-view archives.

The other problem is the lack of sources that offer anything even vaguely resembling impartial coverage. Other than scant, brief, tangential mentions in a few sources (such as The Nation), from what I can tell every post-1990 hit is surrounding a decidedly non-notable campaign to free him as a "political prisoner" (which, from what I can tell, is absolutely non-notable on its own).

In sum, I sincerely doubt that an article can be made on Mr. Odinga that would touch on anything other than the Brinks robbery and the arrest in the late 60s, and which would have access to impartial sources. Tyrenon (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It goes against our standards to include articles which lack a good number of unbiased sources. Shii (tock) 22:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brief footnote: the reason two nominations are listed is that I filed for a deletion earlier in the day and the first one didn't go through (either in being listed on the main page or on the article page). Minor error there, but...it happens.Tyrenon (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has been covered in court records, the NYT and numerous books. If the article needs work then this may be done by normal editing. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of impartial and reliable sources Rirunmot (talk) 11:27, 17 June 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, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement I have done a little cleanup and had no difficulty finding a source which seems quite adequate for our purpose. Editors who criticise the sources for this topic need to be more specific as their complaint seems too general, given the large number of sources available. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add proper sources from the many news articles in the NYT and elsewhere. [80] That the nom rejects the NYT as a RS seems extremely eccentric, but I suppose that can be best treated as an argument that only the free part of the NYT is a RS, which is still a direct contradiction to WP:RS. The fact that sources are not immediately free on the web is not relevant to their reliability or usefulness here. In any case, almost every library in the US and I suppose most large or academic libraries elsewhere offer free access to the complete NYT file, most of them remotely. The other papers too are available in many libraries, in various formats. What was notable in the 60s remained notable--and in fact this remains notable today, as there is still active discussion of the case. The Nation , though a source of definite political leanings, is none the less a RS for the continuing protests. DGG (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:N/CA. I don't see the persistent coverage shown under that standard. Later coverage wasn't about the crime, but more about people trying to free him. The most notable thing he did was commit a crime....and it doesn't qualify him. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Books are fairly persistent, and there are a fair few more biographical details about this person available in books. ISBN 9780415927833 has a few, for example. (They are listed in its index, under "Odinga, Sekou".) ISBN 9780933121966 corroborates some of that information. ISBN 9780742520271 mentions this person in several places, and even has a potted biography, of Sekou Mgobogi Abdullah Odinga, on page 137, that almost exactly parallels ours (and which, indeed, is accompanied by its own source citations). ISBN 9781604860351 even documents which prisons this person has been incarcerated in and when, on page 194, in an article written by this person, who obviously has an interest in preserving a good reputation for academic rigour. And that's only from the first page of my Google Books results. "lack of sources" is really quite false here. Uncle G (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still comes back to most of the coverage being about his single event crime. That's where the attempt at notability originates. So I'm unconvinced. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N/CA, he fails all three of the Perpetrators clauses of the "Criteria for inclusion of articles on participants" section. We already have Brinks robbery (1981), nothing else is needed. Click23 (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parque Ambue Ari

[edit]

LouriePieterse (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much too ad like, the notability is questionable. Triplestop (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not placing a rationale. It looks like an ad and the layout and references are poor. LouriePieterse (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:35, 10 June 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, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody can find coverage for this Corpx (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. I see no point in relisting this again. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough discussion to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Issue

[edit]

Non-notable —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have minnow-slapped the nominator for the deletion rationale. And as with For the World, there are sources in Korean covering this release, e.g. [81][82][83][84][85][86]. Fences and windows (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Fences and windows (talk) 22:36, 11 June 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, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PCH Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. RRG

[edit]

Non-notable company. All references are primary source except one (the Demotech link), which merely proves that the company exists. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable insurance company serving a very limited client base; such a business needs to have somehow come to the notice of the general public to be notable: a mutual insurance company owned by its policyholders who consist of owner/operators of assisted living facilities and personal care homes that serve senior citizens. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a notable company being the ONLY company that offers insurance to personal care homes and assisted living facilities. It is unique and known to the public and public-insureds. It sounds to me that this article is very informative and gives proof of a unique INSURANCE company where insureds can make decisions on how the company is run. Also, it only looks like to me that there are more than 1 secondary sources. Risk Retention Services is a database of many risk retention groups for example. The only one that is directly related to PCH Mutual it appears is Personal Care & Assisted Living Insurance Center that appears to be a partner with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.179.13 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 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, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, being unique does not make it notable in light of any significant coverage Corpx (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even in this particular niche, cannot verify importance. Claims 1000 clients, but there are many more such facilities. The Risk Services ref is not independent--it's basically from an Insurance broker with whom they & other specialty firms have a business relationship. DGG (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Liste for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I'm going to interpret Dekkappai's comment as a "weak keep" (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the World

[edit]

Non-notable —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Keep. I'd expect a better deletion rationale. Why isn't it notable? Did you try searching for sources? Big Bang are a very popular hip-hop group in Korea, so their first release in the Japanese market might well be notable. Big Bang in Korean is "빅뱅은" and For the World is "포 더 월드". It did receive coverage in the Korean press: [87]. The rest of the sources are in Korean:[88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98], some focus on it, some mention it in passing. It might well have got coverage in Japan too. Fences and windows (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Fences and windows (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "빅뱅" in Korean, "ビッグバン" in Japanese, as in this Google news search, and this-- an article from the Japanese version of the JoongAng Ilbo. A good wallop with some form of sealife would seem to be in order... Dekkappai (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sealife walloping already done. Fences and windows (talk) 00:15, 12 June 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, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cantora records

[edit]

NN company, started by User:Cantorarecords. (After this user was banned, newly registered SPA User:Caillouettec removed the COI tag and prod under the pretense "edited page to correct title of MGMT recordings") Google news has few hits. Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:39, 10 June 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, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a very small label with two marginally notable artists, and some NN ones. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ [99]