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

The result was merge to Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A.M. Cunningham School[edit]

A.M. Cunningham School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. Article is about a school that doesn't appear to be notable. No relevant hits on Google outside of the school's website, a Facebook page, and the article. No hits in news.  AcroX  23:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — AcroX  23:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - there are some Ghits, but not really relevant ones, with stray mentions of this school. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree to a merge. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the school district, Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board. – Eastmain (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NewFoundSpecFic[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NOTE, does not appear to have received significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There seems to be enough coverage of the article in third party sources to at least maintain a stub. Both the Scope and The Evening Telegram are reliability sources to prove the magazine's notability in it's province. There is lots of evidence to support them, and their website provides lots of information to showcase their notability. It is also listed and mentioned in numerous databases on the Internet, such as libraries and writers markets. There seems to be a lot of other science fiction magazines that have less notable sources yet still are online, and seems this article has only been nominated for deletion after a bit of vandalism earlier this week. --Newfiechick88 (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC) — Newfiechick88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Scope fails WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a independent print newspaper that serves an equal purpose as the Evening Telegram. Therefore does not fail WP:RS--Newfiechick88 (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source to back up this claim? Does it have independent editorial review? Cirt (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that it states this on the about section of their website? They have worked with numerous reputable businesses and have had worked with different music venues, challenges and charities. What more would you need to claim this? Meanwhile, what is an independent editorial review? --Newfiechick88 (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say that on their About page. Have independent reliable secondary sources written about it? Cirt (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says they are a newspaper that has over 500 distribution points in cities in Newfoundland. As well, a google search reveals numerous pages about them including them acting as a regional hub for the RPM challenge. I don't see how you can get the idea that they are not an important print newspaper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfiechick88 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That did not answer my question. Cirt (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of clarity: an independent editorial review is an OP/ED piece in which the journalist / collumnist gives a review of the publication. What appears to be being said here is that this is part of the desired requirements for notability. It's not enough to simply have its existance mentioned, it needs to have been actually extensively looked at. Sadly, a search online finds a few blog / facebook references to review, but no reliable secondary sources on them as of yet. I believe this in what Cirt is looking for. Feel free to correct me, Cirt. Yourbasis101 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non notable publication which has failed to be reviewed by any WP:RS. Statements in article are supported only by blogs, a student newspaper, a list of expected attendees at SciFi on the Rock IV in 2010, a blog on a free listings newspaper in St Johns (no indication of any editorial control), a passing mention of a presence at SciFi on the Rock III on a book shop website and the St John's Evening Telegram which may or may not satisfy Wikipedia:RS#News organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezhotwells (talk • contribs)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support the deletion of this article for the above / below criteria. Not notable by wikipedia standards, as least not as of yet. Whomseemsxxtxx (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails notability. Whether you call it a magazine or a book (librarians would simply refer to it as a "periodical publication"), it doesn't make the significant coverage test. If Scope had reviewed it, rather than simply announcing its release, that might be a different matter (and yes, publications in the field such as Locus do review magazines), even though Scope is a pretty weak reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Worldcat shows only 3 libraries: Harvard, and the Universities of Newfoundland and Manitoba. The Canada Union Catalog adds their National library. the conclusion is that it is not notable even in the region where it is published. It is also not listed in Ulrichs, which is a minimum criterion. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm sorry, everyone, I see you are all saying delete, and I am aware some of you have significant experience, and way more than me. I just think it's a keeper. Sure it's relatively new and not a lot of libraries stock it, but give it a chance. I see your notability point, but there's also the ignore all rules rule. What we have here is a good faith effort to get people to write and read certain fiction. That effort may not be terribly notable right now, but it is new and growing. A Wikipedia entry will certainly help it along--no, not in promoting a commercial magazine, but in the laudable goal of getting people to write and read fiction. Wikipedia itself relies on people having writing and reading skills. So I would like to see Wikipedia rules not be so strictly applied that they delete the page of an up and coming literary magazine. Yes, if the magazine goes nowhere in a few years, then it's not notable. But I say give it a chance now. Give writing and reading fiction a chance too. Mushy? Yes, but I'd like to keep the page for now. "We are mainly looking for undeveloped and aspiring writers who need a stepping stone in the writing world." Let's not delete this page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you fail to get the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia with articles about notable subjects. Deciding to keep articles because we like them is not an argument, it is an abdication. Wikipedia is not here to help worthy causes or promote anything. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A Wikipedia entry will certainly help it along--" is essentially the definition of a promotional article for something that is not yet notable. The rule you;re suggesting we ignore is the fundamental distinction of an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know and understand completely what both of you are saying. But doesn't the thing's distribution throughout its home province prove notability? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socks seeking deletion

Are socks seeking deletion? Let me spell out what I'm observing, and I'm asking others with more wiki knowledge to address whether there is a problem, then what to do about it.

I see several editors have striking similarities. They started editing at substantially similar times, they principally edit NewFoundSpecFic, they seek deletion, and they talk like they are well beyond being Wiki newbies. Please consider if Whomseemsxxtxx, Yourbasis101, and Takenabbyrocksdailyabove are socks.

Further evidence is provided here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Yourbasis101. Further, Takenabbyrocksdailyabove has already been blocked permanently after a single edit!

If indeed the socks are socks, do the sock comments get removed or struckout or something?

Thank you for your consideration. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: None of the people who have so far commented "delete" on this AFD page, are linked to your above sock analysis. Cirt (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's one: I support the deletion of this article for the above / below criteria. Not notable by wikipedia standards, as least not as of yet. Whomseemsxxtxx (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another: Sadly, a search online finds a few blog / facebook references to review, but no reliable secondary sources on them as of yet. I believe this in what Cirt is looking for. Feel free to correct me, Cirt. Yourbasis101 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third one. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closing admin will likely weigh comments of established editors like Jezhotwells, Orangemike, and DGG, over and above those other accounts. Cirt (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. Still, it's curious why someone is working so hard to see that the page is deleted. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No idea. But that now having been dealt with at WP:SPI, this now appears to be a side issue and a distraction from the valid comments of Jezhotwells, Orangemike, and DGG. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you why I am trying to remove it. Our coverage of notable publications is compromised if we include ones quite so non-notable as this. Regulars here know I sometimes tend to want to keep borderline articles in this topic area, but this is not borderline. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree that it needs some work, but since it was being developed when the socks started causing problems I think it should be revisited at a later time. These requirements are more confusing than you might think, nor as cut and dry. I personally would like the opportunity to learn how to improve the article properly before having to fight regulations I haven't even had a chance to find. I wasn't even sure how to vote in this until other people did. It is fairly well known in the province, I just need to learn how to explain it. Gwen (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale does not say why it should be kept. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, please, you can see "Gwen" is a newbie. Please, we can see you are dead set against this article, but please explain to the newbie a little more, given what she (?) said. Provide her with some guidance, like you did with me. Perhaps even tell her about her sandbox where she can work, if this article is deleted, to build the article, then bring it back in the future. Tell her to contact you on your Talk page if she needs help. I am certain you will support her efforts at the point where her work indicates pretty good adherence with wiki policy. These are just general suggestions; I'm not telling you what to do. We were all newbies once and we all got guidance from others. I'll help her too if she asks. Frankly, the other editors here are more experience than me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, "It is fairly well known in the province, I just need to learn how to explain it." Please go and find evidence that it is "fairly well known in the province." Just paste the links on the Talk page, or here, and ask the other editors to help, and I'm sure they will, or I will.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of existing information backed up by reliable sources. It is not for giving exposure to something new that is not otherwise notable in terms of Wikipedia. Sometimes it's simply a matter of waiting for media to discuss it, and the page may be notable in the future. I'm not saying it is not now, I'm just talking generally. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As expected, I vote to keep the article. It is listed in the Writers Alliance of NL's newsletter constantly and linked on their website, mentioned in many market listings online, and appears to have another coverage to at least be left online - compared to the other magazine articles, it has a lot more notability than some. --Newfiechick88 (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails to give a rationale why this should be kept per WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"a lot more notability than some"? Sounds like you're trying to make the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, which is not historically a winner. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that guidance says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails notability. No evidence to support it is well known enough to be deemed notable enough for wiki atricle, nor even notable within it's own area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highdozen316 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC) — Highdozen316 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Tkazyik[edit]

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

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

I can't find significant coverage for this mayor. Joe Chill (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's mayor of Poughkeepsie, New York, a major Hudson Valley municipality, and as such has received voluminous local coverage, mainly the Poughkeepsie Journal and other local newspapers and news organizations that are not in the Google News orbit. Thus he easily meets WP:POLITICIAN, which explicitly states that mayors tend to fall into the inclusion criteria. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does him getting coverage in a city that he is a mayor in make him notable? Joe Chill (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe WP:POLITICIAN requires coverage in out-of-town or non-regioonal newspapers. If it does, and I don't read it that way, you'd be correct that this mayor, like most mayors of even fairly large cities, would not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone read it that way, every politician would have an article. Joe Chill (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, unelected politicians are excluded, but every person elected mayor in a city with a media outlet? Possibly, and I don't think that's the worst thing in the world. I get the impression that every video game and rap musician and every TV character gets a Wiki article. More adult subject matter, if reasonably justified, is not a bad thing necessarily. In this case, let's not forget that Poughkeepsie is a city of high regional importance. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:POLITICIAN number 2. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per WP:POLITICIAN number 2, but needs more outside coverage. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Mayor of a fairly major city; likely passes WP:POLITICIAN, though I agree that coverage in outside sources is light. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weindel hypersponge[edit]

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

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

Prod contested by author. The article seems to be some sort of joke or hoax: it is about a trivial and uninteresting variation of the Menger sponge, and there seem to be no verifiable sources (or google hits) confirming that anyone names it after Weindel. r.e.b. (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not sure that it's a hoax, but certainly a 20 year old article in a local newspaper does not qualify as evidence of notability, especially for a technical subject where there is no guarantee that anything was ever evaluated by an expert in the subject. Delete per WP:N.
• Delete. I can't find any evidence either for the object or its author. Materialscientist (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bizarre, I can't find enough good sources 137.73.68.56 (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This must be some kind of first: no ghits at all! Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Probable hoax. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Obvious. No reliable sources, not notable, possibly hoax. — æk^Talk 07:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Saturdays. Most of the keep arguments are skirting policy at best and there is clear consensus that standalone articles are not justified in this case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• per This sockpuppet report I have decided to void this AFD and relist the debate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Una Healy[edit]

Una Healy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vanessa White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

• Delete - these three singers have no notability outside of The Saturdays, therefore failing WP:BIO GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the band article per WP:MUSIC: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article". This is a non-issue. De728631 (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per User:De728631, not notable for these individuals. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Not notable outside of the band. ^Chillum 22:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The three are notable as individuals as they have many things done outside the band. Facha93 (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Such as...? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Facha93 somewhat. Una Healy was a relatively famous singer/songwriter before joining The Saturdays and wrote a number of songs. However, the same may not apply to Mollie King, who has only appeared on the X Factor outside The Saturdays and Vanessa White who was practically unknown before joining the band. ebygum (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "Una Healy was a relatively famous singer/songwriter before joining The Saturdays and wrote a number of songs". Hrm, that's funny; her article doesn't say so. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Singer has been notable as a singer-songwriter prior to the group. Article needs to be worked on, not deleted. In fact, I'd opt for keeping the article of each of the girls. Orane (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The Saturdays are just starting out and will only become more notable. All the other four have their own pages. It makes no sense to delete. After all Ringo Starr is not notable outside of The Beatles but I'm sure he has his own page.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 18:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC) (I'm a bit confused as clicking on Mollie King's AfD brought me here and this is Una Healy's page but anyway I vote to keep all three pages on Mollie King, Una Healy and Vanessa White for the reasons stated above.)[reply]
  • Comment: "just starting out and will only become more notable" is irrelevant. We don't care how notable they might be in the future—Wikipedia is not a crystal ball—but how notable they are now. — Gwalla | Talk 22:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • response - the use of a WP:UPANDCOMING argument makes me wonder if the band really qualifies as notable, since that kind of phrasing is symptomatic of a fear that the subject actually isn't notable yet. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Not that I'm advocating your WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS violation, but Ringo Starr is also a solo artist, MBE and actor. There is a clear sense of WP:ILIKEIT through these "keep" !votes. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the band page. WP:MUSIC violation. The girls aren't notable alone. Bravedog (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks as notable as (or more so than) many of the pop artistes we get on here. This one does seem to have done something. I've not heard of The Saturdays before (but then again you've probably never heard of Korpiklaani which is more my scene) so my like or dislike is not a question. Peridon (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above refers to Una. Mollie seems to have a certain claim to a place here, but I'm not quite so sure about Vanessa outside the band. (Have decided The Saturdays are definitely not my scene - but then I recognise the notability and talent of Stevie Wonder even though I can't stand his music.) Peridon (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all, clearly pass WP:ENT and WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 15:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the group article. Three non-notable individuals. No evidence of this "singer-songwriter" thing either. Dale 23:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of indepenent notability. NBeale (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Delete per above. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there may be no independence of notability outsdie the group but keep them anayway. Mollie King auditioned for the X Factor before she was in the Saturdays as well. 666ph666 (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of actual notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brittinea Campbell[edit]

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

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

A "myspace celebrity" who does not meet our basic criteria for notability at this time. While there are obviously a lot of Ghits on social network sites for this individual, there are also zero Google news hits, and I'm just not seeing any WP:RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral vote leaning towards weak deleteThis is a well constructed stub with references and a claim of notability. However, a search for "Brittinea Campbell" at Bing returns a whopping total of 49 pages. I have friends that have more returns at Bing. I'm generally an inclusionist, but there's little chance that an article about someone with so little coverage is going to be kept due to WP:V and WP:RS. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clear example of where sources don't indicate notability. Shadowjams (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with Shadowjams. The references included in the article provide the appearance of notability, but they do not actually bolster the individual's notability to a level that merits inclusion. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bixel[edit]

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

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

Prod was removed due to previous AFD in 2006, rationale was: Unreferenced BLP on an unnotable actor; fails WP:PORNBIO Hekerui (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - He has won a Grabby award which is a criteria for notability but there doesn't seem to be much coverage of him outside of this. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Danny Rhymes, his gay porn persona. He was a well known model and performer and as he's retired from porn altogether that seems to be where the notability lies. If he becomes notable for something else the issue can be revisited. -- Banjeboi 23:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Merge: It might be more appropriate to merge here. While he is perhaps most notable under the pseudonym, he performed (and continues to perform) under his actual name (and others for that matter), and so it may be less problematic. (And maybe more respectful.) For example, unless the article will be devoid of all mention of his other work, it would be awkward to describe "Rhymes's" work in straight porn, etc. when that pseudonym would not be responsible. Perhaps "Danny Rhymes" should be the notable 'character', and "Matt Bixel" would be the individual. - BalthCat (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Reopened and relisted. It seems that I misread BalthCat (talk · contribs)'s comment in my previous close. Tim Song (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Pookeo9 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Matt Bixel and Danny Rhymes are basically the same article, and he fails WP:PORNBIO. He has no other claims to fame either, no hits on Google outside of pornstar profiles and the article.  AcroX  21:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both NO evidence of notability at all. NBeale (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. There's no reliable sources on either of his Wikipedia biographies, and I can find none. Fences&Windows 00:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No clear consensus to delete or merge, so defaulting to keep. tedder (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J.R. Hughes Young Investigator Award[edit]

Thomas J.R. Hughes Young Investigator Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This award is given by the Applied Mechanics Division of American Society of Mechanical Engineers. According to the article, previously it was known as the Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. It seems, perhaps due to the specificity of this award, that it has escaped the notice of any secondary sources and is not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Organization is sufficiently notable that awards given under its auspices are presumptively notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In other words, notability is inherited. Presumptively, then, this steak cookout in 1963 by the Toledo chapter is more notable, since the steak dinner, unlike this award, at least has a mention in a newspaper. Abductive (reasoning) 18:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. You really should read WP:NOTINHERITED, which actually says that notability can be inherited, but isn't always. I believe that the more notable an organization is, the more likely the awards it gives are to be notable. Awards are, by consensus here, recognized as a class of potentially notable subjects. Cookouts aren't. I have no idea why you're so intense about deleting perfectly reasonable subjects that you feel it appropriate to attempt to ridicule people who disagree with you, but it's not very civil and it hardly contributes to consensus decisionmaking. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only Wikipedia article with the words young investigator award in the title. However, there are thousands of Google hits for young investigator award even when restricted to the title alone. Articles on young investigator awards are not "perfectly reasonable", because the awards are so common. All I want is the consensus on notability followed in this case. Abductive (reasoning) 23:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge to Applied Mechanics Division. Useful and verifiable information, but no need for a standalone article. -Atmoz (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MissbrauchsOpfer Gegen InternetSperren[edit]

MissbrauchsOpfer Gegen InternetSperren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet the notability requirements of the project for organizations due to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The organization is not really relevant in German and was deleted there so why should it be in the english Wikipedia? Tzzzzz (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This project is not the German Wikipedia. We have different guidelines and policies to apply and things that are not notable enough for inclusion in the German Wikipedia can and are included on this project. If you claim that it does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), please use an argument that does not consist of either "not notable for de.wikipedia" or "just not notable". The article lists half a dozen sources explicitly talking about the subject and crediting them with having a major impact on the movement against internet censorship in Germany, which imho meets the requirement of our notability guidelines. And of course the aforementioned deletion on de.wikipedia added quite a bit of coverage that also referenced the subject multiple times. Regards SoWhy 19:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above.--Pookeo9 ^{Say What you Want} 20:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Judging from the references, there is also sufficient national media coverage. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:ORG. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article had sufficient media coverage before it was deleted on German wiki and created more after it was deleted (interesting precendent, BTW). Another issue is more important - no decision on other wiki should be treated as a guide for en.wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It has been suggested that borderline AfDs which result in a "no consensus" closure may be deleted by default, but I don't think that's appropriate here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Francis Ridsdale[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia already has plenty of articles on notorious clerical child abusers like this one. See for example Oliver O'Grady, Sean Fortune and John Geoghan. It makes perfect to keep this one if we can keep all the other ones, since it would at least be more logically consistent than not keeping it. ADM (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Perhaps those articles ought to be deleted as well. NW (Talk) 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reason given above. jamesgibbon 20:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that the most recent event in the article is a conviction from 2006, how is WP:NOT#NEWS involved?

Strong delete. It doesn't matter if he was arrested for abusing children, once, twice, or thrice. This is still a completely negative hatchet job of a BLP where the only sources that we could use for a biography center on his child abuse. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." NW (Talk) 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a matter of interpretation, but while that passage would clearly rule out, say, the teenager who briefly became notorious for holding a house party that wrecked his parents house, it is possible that if interpreted widely enough, the passage could cover any convicted criminal whose actions cover one crime or series of crimes (as in this case). For instance, Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman, Fred West and Rosemary West and Steve Wright (serial killer) might be deleted if that passage is intepreted broadly enough. I'm trying to figure out how to interpret that passage.Autarch (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also: we shouldn't delete a biography just because it depicts its subject in a negative light, if all the available sources do the same. It should be little surprise that biographies of people convicted of sexual offences against children tend to be highly negative. However, due to the infamy of such cases, such people also tend to be pretty notable - as is the case here. Robofish (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - Per NW and Ironholds. This is a marginal BLP, and fails WP:BLP1E. Nuke plz. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The story appears to have continued beyond the 2006 conviction: [1] and [2], plus he was cited in the recent book "Dangerous to Know: An Australasian Crime Compendium," by James Morton and Susanna Lobez [3]. Warrah (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All three of those articles are still connected to the underlying sexual assault; therefore the article still fails WP:BLP1E, as "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of [this] event". NW (Talk) 00:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As NW said, all of the citations about this man, are in the context of one event. This is a pretty easy call on BLP1E. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article now covers the 1994 conviction as well as the 2006 one - there were 46 charges of abuse of 21 victims in the first case, with 35 charges of abuse of ten victims in the second. Also police were sufficiently concerned about his behaviour to investigate his bishops' knowledge in Operation Arcadia.Autarch (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable criminal, has received extensive media coverage for multi-year child-raping escapade. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Normally I'd cite BLP1E and argue for deletion but in this case, since there are multiple convictions, and his bishop got investigated, I can see how this might be more than just one event. I'm convincable the other way but that's my thinking at the moment. ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
• Keep - highly notable as a criminal, and not a case of WP:BLP1E as he's notable for several offences over an extended period of time. The news coverage of him stretched from the early 90s up to 2008, which suggests to me this isn't a case of a transient news story, but genuine notability. Robofish (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and NW. WP shouldn't become a sex-offender register. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources do not need to be in English Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luka nervo[edit]

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

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

no credible claim of notability whatsoever WuhWuzDat 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under CSD A7. Speedy was proposed and declined. I cannot think why it was declined, especially since at the time when it was declined the full text of the article was "Luka Nervo is a Croatian professional motorcycle racer that currently competes in the ST6 class as of the end of 2009.He rides a Yamaha R6". Where is the claim of significance? Since then we have had the additional information that he "started second but crashed" in a race. Well, starting second but not finishing is not a great claim to fame. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I declined the speedy per wp:athlete "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" as I took "professional motorcycle racer" as a claim that he is a professional in the sport of motorcycle racing. I don't know that sport or understand the languages that most of his google hits are in so am not sure whether the AFD should end in delete or keep.But I do think that the article's author should be informed of the AFD. (Twinkle anomaly, now resolved) ϢereSpielChequers 19:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no indication of real notability. A7 inappropriate since there is an indication of notability. The borderline between professional and semi-professional can be grey in some sports and it's better to err on the side of caution. PROD might've been a good way to go here but it's too late for that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Comment Insufficient data with only 1 English source and a not very clear understanding of what constitutes professional vs. semi-pro in this sport, but leaning to delete without prejudice for re-creation. Hopefully by the end of the AfD the article will clearly show notability and I can say keep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I do not particularly like this person's entry on Wiki and could care less if it is deleted or not, but he is notable per WP:GNG and WP:Athlete. Here is a few more sources I found; [4], [5], [6]... all reliable sources with in depth significant coverage of person, and there are many more, you just have to look. One of the ones I provided here is in English. The source that was provided in the article is actually IOEM, International Austrian Motor bike racing organization. This kid races international professional bike races. That passes WP:Athlete with flying colors. The source in the article listed under external links is actually another source, Cro-Moto.com.

Word of advice to editors above; actually do a search please. Also, if you do not understand the language of the sources, ask others for help. It comes off as ignorant that when you do not understand something you simply delete it... Turqoise127 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No assertion of notability. This one should have been speedied. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can we please try to keep this on track as a discussion about the notability of the subject rather than about speedy deletion. It has been clearly explained above why this does not qualify for speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per the sources found by Turqoise127 and these which have significant coverage of the subject: [7][8]. The language in which sources are written has no bearing on notability. I can't understand most of the sources that are used in articles about molecular biology, but that doesn't stop the subjects of those articles from being notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The language is Croatian, and it is important that you be able to at least passingly understand what's being said before you point to an article as a WP:RS. Translation engines are your friend, however, and searching Google for the name plus translation gives a lot of motorsports articles talking about the rider at high level competitions. Shadowjams (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would also point out that it's important to be able to at least passingly understand what's being said before dismissing an article presented as a WP:RS in good faith. I do happen to have an (albeit passing) understanding of Croatian. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability at all. NBeale (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Why don't you consider the sources linked above to be evidence of notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joeball[edit]

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

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

Non notable sport, Delete, per WP:MADEUP WuhWuzDat 18:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I am even having trouble finding references on unreputable sites via google. Fails WP:NOR WP:Notability, probably WP:MADEUP as above as well. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hoax, stuff made up. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This could have been speedied, could have been PROD'ed, but we're here now. Why people want to invent a Wikipedia entry for something they just dreamed up is beyond me, because that's all this "sport" is. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied? under what criteria? As for PROD'ing, it's not my style (far too "wishy washy" in my opinion). WuhWuzDat 20:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as quickly as possible - I'd have speedied it as something someone made up to be honest. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sorry, but games you make in your backyard with your friends are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:MADEUP. Warrah (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete made up sport Gmantonz (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication that this is notable. Can't find any reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mormon[edit]

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

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

The article seems entirely descriptive of a non-notable slang term, and despite how many statements it contains overrall, I have found little that actually supports the content of the article which largely consists of irrelevant facts, stories, useless trivia and opinion attributed without fact. Plus, despite being "categorised" as a religious subculture, the article holds little foundation or structure on even actually defining the exsistence, notability and even purpose of the subject. It is very much a useless, unencylopedic mess with little resource to turn it around. As I doubt after looking on google, the name of a coffee company, a few random mentions of it and an urban dictionary definition is enough to supportit. Routerone (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, no. Strong Keep. This term is well established in literature and in all culture in frequent contact with Mormons. EVERY Mormon knows what a Jack Mormon is. If we want to start culling Mormon articles, I can pick a few better ones, but this wouldn't be one of them. The LDS church even acknowledges and defines the term on its website here, offering as a source a reprint of a 1974 article in one of its own publications. Since you are Mormon as you clearly indicate on your user page, this smacks of being disruptive to make a point, as I think you know better. (BTW, I am not Mormon) Reswobslc (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This article addresses a historic description of a religious sub-category, based on 19th century media and public perception. As such it is analogous to abolitionist or populist, similar sub-categories used in the US at the time. Given the fact that the term's meaning has evolved over time and developed slightly different meanings in the 20th and now the 21st Century, it is important that the article address the progressive change in social perception. This term is found in modern histories, based on contemporary newspaper accounts, diaries and journals. User:Routerone's concerns seem to be based on web searches, a very unreliable source for 19th century history. The web does not contain all the history of the world as modern techs generally have little interest in anything that far back. So...... articles like this are why we are trying to write Wikipedia! And, for the record, I am a Mormon. WBardwin (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Reswoblc. Numerous Google Books hits indicate that this term is still in use. My main concern would be that this article could tend to be perceived as a dictionary article, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Although "Jack Mormon" is more than just a "slang term" as the nom describes it, this article is really about the term "Jack Mormon" rather than, well, being about Jack Mormons. (And for the record, I'm not a Mormon.) -Glenfarclas (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Appears notable. The article itself has multiple issues. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep poor article quality is not grounds for deletion. Article could be, potentially, merged elsewhere, but I'd like to give it a chance to improve, like maybe three to six months, before proposing it for merger. John Carter (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy A5, text that is already on Wikisource DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel One, Book One[edit]

Samuel One, Book One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

article consisting only of quotes (or paraphrasing) from the bible WuhWuzDat 18:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Speedy delete The text is already on wikisource, and there is literally no other content at all. It therefore can be speedied as CSD:A5, and I am going to do just that. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Lurie[edit]

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

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

not apparently notable; no sources to verify content identified Scoop100 (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I found six titles (some apparently differnt editions of the same book) written, edited or translated by him at Worldcat using this search. I also added an interesting quotation about him from a book by John David Garcia: "Henry Lurié was not perfect in his ethics, but he was the most committed man I ever met; he was dedicated totally to ethical principles."[9] I think he might be notable, but I am not certain of it. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, I can't see any basis for notability -- unless as a translator, and I'm unsure about how to assess that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think we have to go with WP:GNG on this one rather than WP:PROF, I don't think Garcia's encomium can be used as a reliable source for anything factual about him, and there are no other sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by default as evidence of notability has not emerged. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I think David Eppstein pegs this spot-on. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - Blatant hoax ϢereSpielChequers 20:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Smith[edit]

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

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

Procedural nomination. ((Hoax)) tag has been added to article and concern expressed on talk page. Cursory search turned up a lot of hits, none of which corroborate this story. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - given that 1962–63_in_English_football#Second_Division tells us that Stoke conceded 50 goals in their Div 2 winning season this is a clear and obvious hoax. Should be a speedy really: obvious hoax. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was '. edit conflict - inadvertent duplicate Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Saints[edit]

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

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

I declined the speedy on this because there's a weak claim of importance (reached playoffs in a league of unclear notability). However, notability isn't obvious, so I think this would benefit from more eyes. On the keep side, we have the argument that this is a team participating in a national league. On the delete side, we have a lack of reliable sources showing notability. In the middle, we could merge to University_of_Durham#Sport of British Universities American Football League. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Saints[edit]

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

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

Football club with little or no claim of notability WuhWuzDat 17:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wuhwuzdat and I were both taking this to AfD at the same time; WWD beat me to the punch. Here's the rationale from my duplicate AfD "I declined the speedy on this because there's a weak claim of importance (reached playoffs in a league of unclear notability). However, notability isn't obvious, so I think this would benefit from more eyes. On the keep side, we have the argument that this is a team participating in a national league. On the delete side, we have a lack of reliable sources showing notability. In the middle, we could merge to University_of_Durham#Sport or British Universities American Football League. "--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of Durham, sport section. The same should be done with all other British American footabll university teams. The university football and rugby teams dont have pages and they are far greater in terms of participation and interest at UK universities. Notability should not be assumed on the basis that US college teams would have pages, as college football is far more significant than any form of University sport (except perhaps for the boat race?) in the UK. Petepetepetepete (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per User:Petepetepetepete.. American football is not widely followed in the UK. The national league (if there is one), is probably only just notably enough to be included. University teams in the UK are completely un-notable in the way US teams would are. Martin451 (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - pretty much every other club in the BUAFL has a page, there is no reason why Durham Saints should be any different! Especially as they have been more successful than some of the others, including having one of the top TD scorers in the entire league last year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.155.217 (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • So other stuff exists. I think we should be merging or deleting all of them. Pfainuk talk 19:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Delete - The UK does not have the college sports culture that the US has. Most university sports teams and leagues are very little followed by anyone who isn't actually involved. Coupled with the fact that American Football is distinctly a minority sport in the UK (and even the American Football fans we do have tend to follow the NFL), we can't reasonably assume notability. This article - along with those of most other BUAFL teams - does not demonstrate any kind of notability. Unless there is clear evidence of notability in the normal way (and generally there is not) they should all be deleted. Pfainuk talk 19:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd add: this may be a national league, it's true, but that does not, in and of itself, make the team notable, particularly when there are no reliable sources. Bear in mind that it is not the national league - that's the British American Football League - rather it's a league that happens to play nationally. Pfainuk talk 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless anyone can find a suitable merge or redirect target. No university sports team is Durham in professional, BUAFL is not the highest level of amateur sport, and they don't have independent coverage in third party sources. And yes, if the other clubs in BUAFL are like this page, they should be deleted too. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The precedent for these pages has been set by the existence of others, for example Newcastle Raiders and UT Cougars. The argument that the team is not professional is invalid, no American college team is, therefore, are their pages invalid? Affiliation with BUAFL is the highest rank of recognition of University American Football in the UK, a requisite link proving the affiliation can be added. Questioning the validity of the league is absurd, as BUAFL has a page on Wiki, and has been running alongside BAFA under its various guises for over 25 years. Also, proposing to delete a site an hour after it is created surely does not allow any progression that would allow it to be improved? Rjboro790 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, match reports of the team are reported in the Durham Student Paper, The Palatinate, and links to these can be provided to verify scores or statements on the website. The claim that no other Durham student sports team has a Wiki page is also untrue, see: Durham University Centre of Cricketing Excellence, Durham University Boat Club. Rjboro790 (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)— Rjboro790 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WuhWuzDat 19:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The precedent for notability is not set by which other articles exist on Wikipedia - it is set by guidelines for notability that were discussed at length and consensus reached, which in the case of sportspeople is WP:ATHLETE. The highest level of amateur sports usually means the level of the Olympics or World Championships. (These guidelines are for individuals and not team so they can be relaxed a little for teams, but not that much, in my opinion.) Substantial coverage from independent third-party reliable sources can count towards notability instead, but it needs to be a lot lot more than match reports in a student newspaper. So, like it or not, the majority of university-level sports teams do not qualify for individual articles on Wikipedia. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I propose that all the other University American Football team pages be afd and treated on a case-by-case basis following the result of this. I find it hard to see how any of them satisfy WP:GNG. Petepetepetepete (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing the notability criteria. Nothing in the 220 or so unique GHits comes close to non trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Nuttah (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article about a minority sport, participating in a minority sector. American Football has a microscopic following in the UK. Similarly university/college sports teams in the UK have next to no following beyond those actively involved in participating in the teams. Isn't the precedent of this articles such as Wales University Lampeter Darts Club? Pit-yacker (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability at all. NBeale (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of significance or importance JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeedigunta sriteja[edit]

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

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

Tagged with PROD tag, but tag removed with no reason given. Cannot find any sources to prove notability of the artist. Fails WP:BAND ^N_P^e_e^e_r^b_v^s_e^s_z (Push) 17:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: As a violation of A7. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 17:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Naphsj[edit]

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

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

Article about a martial art whose secrets are "known by only five people in the world." No independent sources cited, and I find none. Contested PROD. Fails WP:V and WP:N. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe it's not a WP:NFT, though it manages to look a decent bit like one. I'll call it a WP:CB and would delete it as unverifiable- as almost all "secret knowledge" would be. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Many reasons: 1.) Probably a hoax. 2.) If only 5 people know it (and it's a "secret"), it's quite unverifiable. 3.) Only 4 Google hits, all pertaining to Wikipedia, makes me pretty confident that it is not significant enough to confer notability (or, as previously mentioned, a hoax). Cocytus [»talk«] 20:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as being completely unverifiable and non-notable. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Hoax or made up. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not verifiable. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clann Credo - The Social Investment Fund[edit]

Clann Credo - The Social Investment Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

1. Make article that contains no hits on Google News.
2. Write like an advertisement and stick a unreviewed template on the back of it.
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!! ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 17:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete Seems to be a candidate for A7 speedy to me. Completely non-notable company, bordering on spam. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy Delete - spam. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Striking per new information and some apparent improvements. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Nominated as A7 speedy. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve - I've removed the good-faith speedy, as I believe the article clearly asserts notability. I'm also seeing significant hits on this group from Google News archive[10], including an endorsement from the President of Ireland. I'll try to get to work on improving this with references tonight. MuffledThud (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: If this article was mainly about Clann Credo then you might would have saved this article. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is mainly about Clann Credo. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there's another good idea: rename it to Clann Credo. MuffledThud (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and rename - I've cleaned the article up, re-worded it to remove advertising tone and added detail demonstrating notability, with references from reliable sources. In its present state, it's worth keeping and further improving. MuffledThud (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is definitely not A7 or G11, it is a seemingly notable article jsut created by a new user who has yet to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policy and article structure. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. MuffledThud (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Marcus and Muffledthud. It should be noted that the XfD activities of the nominator are currently the subject of discussion at WP:ANI. Crafty (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note also that the AFD nominator actually tried to remove the article rescue tag in this edit (note the helpful edit summary). This, along with odd AFD activities noted by Craftyminion at WP:ANI#Five-year-old deletion discussion reopened, plus the unusual incivility of this AFD nomination, cast doubt on whether this was a good-faith AFD nomination. MuffledThud (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even more worrying is that two editors weighed in with "speedy delete" comments with obviously no effort to check for themselves whether the subject is notable. In the past I wouldn't have been so worried about that, because the closing admin would have discounted such comments, but I have noticed in the last couple of months that a few of the admins who have been the most prolific AfD closers have been basing decisions on vote-counts rather than arguments, so these unsubstantiated opinions are dangerous. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Note that the nominator has now been blocked indefinitely for joke AFDs and other unpleasantness. MuffledThud (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, I goofed. Marcusmax is right, and I was wrong. My apologies. Keep and hit me with a WP:TROUT Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - improved article seems to meet standards, there are other news sources in Portuguese and Italian which could be useful (my knowledge of these languages is sketchy at best).  pablo_hablo. 13:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator has been permanently blocked for disruptive editing, and there have been references found. Dream Focus 11:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live Today Magazine[edit]

Live Today Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Obvious attempt at advertising. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 17:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't think the article is advertising, but I can't find evidence that the magazine is notable. – Eastmain (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Status as "advertising agency" leads me to wonder if this is genuine magazine anyway. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Here is an obvious consensus to delete. However, if they send at least one athlete to Olympics, this can be brought back with a click, let me know. Tone 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albania at the 2010 Winter Olympics[edit]

Albania at the 2010 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was created (presumably) because of the CTV website for "Nations Competing In Vancouver" shows Albania, but also note the disclaimer on that page that says "NOTE: the nations featured in this section were the competing nations from the Turin 2006 Olympic Winter Games, and may not qualify athletes for the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games." In this case, Erjon Tola was the lone competitor for Albania in 2006, in alpine skiing. The current NOC quota for skiing does not include Albania, and the FIS biography page for Tola shows that he doesn't have enough points to qualify for 2010. If something changes by January 25, 2010 (when entries are finalized) we can re-create the article but for now, this Wikipedia page is showing up on web searches as a statement of fact that Albania will participate. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Andrwsc. Reywas92^Talk 17:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wp:CRYSTAL. It can be recreated if Albania do take part in Vancouver. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no announcement by IOC. Thus WP:CRYSTAL. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as premature. Once Albania actually enters the Olympics this article can be re-created. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Morrell[edit]

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

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

Nonnotable candidate who finished third in a three-way race for California state assembly in 2004. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, and seems like spam for future runs at office. Angryapathy (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nomination. Searched google news and there appears to be insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Rovea (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resource room[edit]

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

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

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Resource Room. The information is too short to be its own article. User:Jimsteele9999 did not follow instructions from Articles of creation. They told him to add information about resource rooms in special schools. Rovea (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this nomination. Stupid AfC. Rovea (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is your rationale that the artilce is too short or that it belongs in seperate school? You should exercise some restraint (e.g. discussing in talk page) before deleting pages, but that is not surprising with someone lacking in creativity. Still, if it is too short then suggest what could be added. And if you review what "they" told me to do it was to create a page outside of special schools for resource rooms because in fact according to special education law, specifically a Least Restrictive Environment, a resource room is a program placement MUCH different then a special school. For one, a resource room is in a general education setting and a special school is outside.

Jim Steele (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what I just said? I said the artilce belongs in special school. Then why did AfC told you to add the info about resource room to special school? Rovea (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you aren't reading closely. Did you read any of the verfiable sources I added on the page when I created it? No. Did you read what Least Restrictive Environment is before you started this process? No. You're wrong, because a special school is a school whereupon special education services are delivered in a special education setting. A resource room is where special education services are delivered in a regular education setting. Of course, there's more to it, but I thought it besto keep the explanation for you at the minimum.

Jim Steele (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep A standard part of many schools at all levels, at least in the US--needs expansion of course.There are certainly sources for it: The Google books search right above shows 4 books with exactly that in the title.-- a hundreds with clearly significant discussion. The google scholar search above shows thousands--and [11] shows 407 with that phrase in the title of the article. We normally accept subjects where the depth of the significant references is indicated by actual books with that title. It certainly meets GNG. Did anyone think to look? I commend the author for going ahead despite an incorrect judgment at AfC. I wonder how many other good topics get discouraged there. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crime structure in Grand Theft Auto series[edit]

Crime structure in Grand Theft Auto series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No reliable sources to support the notability of this subject. Any sourceable content should be merged into Grand Theft Auto (series). Eeekster (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as per nom and WP:NOR JohnBlackburne (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete better covered in List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research. Any verifiable information can be included at List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series if it isn't already there. Reach Out to the Truth 17:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pure fancruft, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Tarc (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• merge into the List of gangs. Some of this is mergeable, particularly the way of listing the gang members. The nomination was improper, because it did not even suggest deletion, but merge. That does not need coming here. It's not even a disputed merge, since I see no evidence of any attempt to suggest a merge, at least for 2007+. As for verifiability, fiction can be verified from the original source, which should cover everything but the initial paragraph. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary fancruft from which nothing needs to be salvaged. Brief mentions can be made on each game's article. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR, fancruft. Kick it to the curb. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fancruft. The articles he has created on different crime families should be added to this AfD. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Discuss centrally - Need a "centralized" discussion so all editors who edit Grand Theft Auto topics can decide where to put this content as well as other newly-added GTA content in other articles. Recommend either keep or redirect-and-lock to force a merger, but do not delete the material until the GTA editors are done merging it to where they want it or deciding they don't want it. I don't mean WP:CENT by the way, just someplace that all the GTA editors will see it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Abhorrently crufty. This information is useless to individuals outside of the GTA fandom and consists of a large amount of info that doesn't need to exist anywhere, let alone in its own article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – It looks like, from a quick look, that nearly all the verifiable information is already in the gangs list. Otherwise, you got nothing but original research here. MuZemike 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Cantonese Slang[edit]

Hong Kong Cantonese Slang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unencyclopedic opinion piece, unsourced. Eeekster (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unreferenced essay per WP:NOR, though it would be good to see a real article on this subject. MuffledThud (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Blatant WP:OR violation. Absolutely no reason to keep this on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per G3 It should also be noted that the creator of this article has been blocked indefinately for vandalism, and the only contributions to WP were on this article. Speedy delete criteria G3 met. Angryapathy (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per MuffledThud. No prejudice to recreation at a proper title based on real sources. cab (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree that this is opinion piece, needs significant improvement 137.73.68.56 (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in present form. May be basis for a serious article, and I have a hunch there probably is. But this version is unsalvageable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a meaningless stub. Tavatar (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Akhyar Farrukh[edit]

Muhammad Akhyar Farrukh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An overly promotional biography on a non-notable assistant professor of chemistry. No real evidence that he passes WP:PROF. Total claimed publication count is 26, and highest citation count (according to Web of Science) is 4, 2, 1. Other main claims to notability would be "represented in Pakistan in first UNESCO-affiliated World Association of Young Scientists (WAYS) in 2004" and "Young Chemist Award by International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)". The former doesn't really demonstrate notability to me, and the latter is given for one's Ph.D., so I'm not sure that qualifies either. Perhaps will be notable eventually, but this can be recreated then (with a less promotional tone). Bfigura ^(talk) 15:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Zero cites on GS. Does not pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment the unsourced statement that "Member of The Science Advisory Board, United States, since June 3, 2008." would make him unquestionably notable, if it were true--this is an extremely select group. I can find no such evidence. (but I have had considerable difficulty finding an actual current list of members on the Web.) There is nothing relevant on G News archive. I suspect something else must have been intended. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Scopus --not all the inclusive for non-western publications but very much more so than Google Scholar-- finds 8 papers. highest citation count 4. But he may conceivably be notable in the future--his two most recent papers are in major American Chemical Society journals, & it might be that they will be cited more when there is time DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At best, the stats gathered by Xxanthippe and DGG indicate this page is premature. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telacasters[edit]

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

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

Article written by one of its members about an unsigned band which has just self-released its first album on the internet. No independent references, and I have not found anything but Myspace, Twitter, Last.fm etc and listing-type mentions. The article was deleted WP:CSD#A7, but the author has argued persistently for it to be restored and thinks he can show that his band meets WP:BAND so I bring it here to get more eyes on it. JohnCD (talk) 15:09, 25 November 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 Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 15:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article does not contain a claim to notability per WP:BAND, and I can not find any independent coverage. Even if a band meets one of the requirements for notability, the article must contain information from outside sources to be verifiable. None of the information in this article can be verified without sources, thus it should be deleted unless independent coverage of the subject can be used to back up the claims made in the article. Also, I would suggest that editors with a conflict of interest refrain from approaching this article if the name of the editor is truly his name in real life. Mrathel (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A7/band. If the author really thinks they have some additional notability that isn't apparent from the article, then let's hear it, but the article as it stands is clearly completely non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, arguably a small assertion of notability in touring with notable bands, but overall, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:BAND. Warrah (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The page just needs a little more time to be edited and finished. We are working hard to make sure it meets the Wikipedia requirements. Justinbivona (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I've seen Wikipedia pages with a whole lot less. I'm in the process of helping this page, linking the musicians to other notable bands they've played in. It may take a few days, but this entry already meets at least one of the WP:BAND requirements. Dailybasis3 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh Eating Ants Records[edit]

Flesh Eating Ants Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines of either WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC PKT(alk) 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm but the thing is this article is not any less notable than many of the other bands/record labels we have articles on. I know the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but if we must delete such articles I think we'd be better off deleting the rest of the similar level bands/labels as if often seems like double standards. Himalayan 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's why I prod them or set them up for AfD. PKT(alk) 18:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Well... Download, Ka-Spel, LPD and PlatEAU are all notable artists. It looks like FEA co-released with cEvin Key's Subconscious label, and I see a review on brainwashed.org which is an appropriate (but admittedly not great) source. Looks like they were short lived. - BalthCat (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is Download really notable though? The article is unreferenced, and the discography section does not mention Flesh Eating Ants Records as the being their label. Edward Ka-Spel has likewise been tagged as unreferenced for more than 2 years, and PlatEAU again has no references. The Legendary Pink Dots look like they actually might be notable, but their article is not well referenced. So, I don't think that the label is notable based on the notability of the artists. DigitalC (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without question all those artists are notable. This new fad where common sense notability is "invisible" if there's no JSTOR article is new and ultimately delitirious to Wikipedia as far as I'm concerned. The label is likely not notable, because of the limited number of releases and that it appears to have not been the exclusive label fo those releases. However the potential for those four artists to transfer notability to that label would have been significant if the label had been home to those artists for a period of time and was exclusive. - BalthCat (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Balthcat - what do you mean by "common sense notability is "invisible" if there's no JSTOR article"? Other than that, I think we agree, although perhaps IMO labels are generally far less notable than the bands they release recordings for. WP:NOTINHERITED is important. IF Flesh Eating Ants records had been around longer and done more, then this AfD wouldn't have been created. But they weren't, and didn't. PKT(alk) 18:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd caution some people in this discussion to keep in mind that "unreferenced" is not necessarily the same thing as "not notable"; an article can be poorly referenced but still about a topic that's unquestionably notable enough for inclusion. All of the artists mentioned above fall into that camp; I've even heard of them all and I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the genre. That said, past AFD consensus has established that the notability of a musical artist doesn't automatically confer notability upon the record label that puts out their albums; WP:MUSIC doesn't address the notability of record labels at all (though it probably should). A label with a roster of notable artists is certainly likely to be notable enough, but the roster doesn't confer notability in isolation — reliable sources do still need to be present in the article. Keep if additional sources can be found; delete, without prejudice against future recreation, if they can't. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it does not appear sources can be found. Quantpole (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Discogs, which credits them with all of 6 releases in their whole history, all but one of which are Canadian vinyl releases of material otherwise available from other labels. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reagrdless of the suspect notability of the people on the label, this company shows no independant signs of notability from secondary sources. Angryapathy (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Connell[edit]

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

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

Non-notable per WP:NSPORT, unreferenced. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod removed by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-notable, fails WP:ATHLETE. Angryapathy (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:ATHLETE. Warrah (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. By the level of detail and the "We anticipate his arrival on the adult international scene with excitement", it looks like an attempt to promote someone the author knows/is, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn Tikiwont (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Liaison Committee for International Students in Australia[edit]

National Liaison Committee for International Students in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This organisation is no longer recognised by the International Education Association of Australia, the NUS, the University of NSW or the Group of Eight as a legitimate representative body - see articles here and here. This entire article is now entirely factually inaccurate and the current body is no longer notable as a representative organisation. Australian Matt (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed position to Keep after comprehensive article changes. Australian Matt (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Australian Matt (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Australian Matt (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The rationale that a group "is no longer recognized" is not helpful. Once notable, always notable. In this case, though, the actions of the current leadership are attracting media attention, enough to establish notability for the organization as it now exists. If the Sydney Morning Herald writes about the group, it's notable. The fact that various other associations don't consider it representative does not detract from its notability. – Eastmain (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The main rationale is that the article should be deleted as it is because, in its current form, the organisation is a very different one to the one written about in the article. I disagree with the "Once notable, always notable" mantra in this case, because we're actually talking about an organisation that is fundamentally different to the one described in the article. I don't believe any of the info in the article is now notable. Australian Matt (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also - the Sydney Morning Herald writes about lots of non-notable things - should Ella Rose Corby have a wiki page? As said in the intro, this group's notability rested with its representative status, but it is now a different group, none of the individuals on the page were members of the organisation in its current form. Australian Matt (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issue. Organisations face a different notability criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick keep: DEST / DEEWR republishing their submissions as an element of Federal Inquiries establishes multiple points of Notability in HQRS. Multiple newspaper articles. If you're worried about this being inaccurate, then simply add some major =Sections= =1986 to 2009 in NUS= =Post 2009 NUS expulsion Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The changes are comprehensive enough for the article to remain. Australian Matt (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing in the article, or in the references provided by an IP during the discussion, shows the significant coverage from independent sources required to demonstrate notability. JohnCD (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Education charter international[edit]

Education charter international (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The notability and referencing of this organization is lacking.

The references supplied with the article are either from ECI themselves, or links to statements by famous people who don't mention ECI. Every reference I have found so far with a Google search is either from a press release issued by ECI or CCLP Worldwide (its parent organization), website and press releases by the fictional country "Antarcticland", or from other organizations with similar provenance (Humanity Without Frontiers, etc.) ECI website has a lot of references implying endorsement by the UN and UNESCO, but they've only applied, and the UN hasn't responded. Their "Education Charter" is based on the publications and resolutions of many worthy organizations, but endorsed or recognized by none of them.

Nearly all the significant edits to the article since its creation at the beginning of the year have been made by User:Cclpw and User:Antarcticland -- apparent COI accounts from the parent organization and the fictional country.

This appears to be a non-notable organization which concentrates on self-promotion. ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, little to add to this model, readable nomination. The article tries to ride too many coattails. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Civil Society CCLP Worldwide is notable and progressive advocacy organisation which advocates and promotes the principle of Higher Education for sustainable better livelihood through its charter Education Charter International A total of over 20000 Organisational and individuals has endorsed the charter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.167.59 (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the link for name and details of endorsers of education charter here [12]

Global Civil Society is registered with UN Global Compact From Four Countries

India [13]

Germany [14]

Ghana [15]

Nigeria [16]

CCLP Worldwide is full member of UN Global Compact Society of India [17]

CCLP Worldwide is associate member of CONGO [18]

CCLP Worldwide has managed huge media coverage including the latest article being published on The Hindu daily New paper of India [19] and Indian Express at [20]

The Indian News Site Meri News has covered the organisation [21]

All the events and news are covered under the site at [22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.167.59 (talk • contribs)

• The list of endorsers is largely a list of nonnotable private citizens.
• The PDFs associated with UN Global Compact are form letters from ECI saying they agree with the Global Compact -- nothing from Global Compact itself
• CCLP Worldwide, ECI's parent organization, has joined other organizations, but being a member of something doesnt necessarily mean notability or importance
• The Meri News story is a reprint of a press release
• There's no importance, significance, or notability demonstarted by any of the links and references above. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Qin's Moon characters. Already merged. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shao Yu[edit]

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

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

New user started the article without citing references, probably an unreferenced article and fails WP:N. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 13:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --J04n(talk page) 13:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added references and plan to add more. PLease don't delete492star (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't a game of find a mention on the web somewhere, there has got to be a demonstration of significant, non-trivial coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. That's not here. RadioFan (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If u looked at the external links section, and read more patiently downwards, you'd see Shao Yu's full biography. AND THAT is a non-trivial coverage by the CHINESE people. 492star (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• so is it okay now?492star (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear if this is a reliable source or not. Assuming it is, this article still does not meet guidelines for inclusion as there is not significant coverage in 3rd party sources. --RadioFan (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Qin's Moon. Edward321 (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a simpler way?492star (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, I provided a reference that is a translation of the entire first season synopsis.

Note: The synopsis was made by the Chinese creators. It provides SIGNIFICANT coverage. Is it okay now? Also, the name in the translation for Shao Yu is Siu Yu492star (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately this reference doesn't help establish notability as it is a primary source. Sources written by the creator of these characters are fine as references but they dont tell us anything about how notable the subject is. Other people writing about the subject does establish notability.--RadioFan (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A translation of an online synopsis does not count toward meeting the requirement in WP:N, as far as I can tell. Given that the character exists, and that Wikipedia wouldn't be Wikipedia if it didn't have at least a redirect for every minor fictional character, I'll go with merge (to Qin's Moon). Drmies (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but... He appears to be one of the main characters in an animated series. However, rather than have his own article, this should be merged into List of Qin's Moon characters or directly into Qin's Moon. —C.Fred (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it worked. I think.. since I've never merged before..492star (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, List of Characters of Qin's moon's page is done. Go to the main page and then there's a link. all the character's short bios and links to their own articles are there.492star (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do you think its okay now?492star (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Text and/or other creative content from [[Shao Yu]] was copied or moved into [[List of Qin's Moon characters]] with [permanent diff this edit]. The former page's [ history] now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrapop[edit]

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

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

contested prod, unremarkable game. Usage claims in the article are not backed up by references, does not meet general notability guidelines. A Google News search is not showing significant coverage, only passing mentions. RadioFan (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this application. Joe Chill (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete: there are sources for this information in the article and this article is set as stub so letąs wait if someone will add more info to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.88.249.199 (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC) — 78.88.249.199 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - Fails both WP:N and WP:RS. Couldn't enough sources to back this one up. I have no issue with the two sources listed in the article, but that's all I could find that's actually worth anything. --Teancum (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Wife (Internet video-project)[edit]

Virtual Wife (Internet video-project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence that this web project is in any way notable. Google search reveals lots of "virtual wife" hits but nothing relevant. Fails WP:N, WP:VER and I suspect WP:SPAM andy (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom, fails WP:N and is very likely to be WP:SPAM as a PR move for publicity. Angryapathy (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blog "founded in November 2009" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable project, smells badly of spam. If there was some coverage outside of this article, and it were notable, maybe, but there's nothing in either of those departments. SMC (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree, bit spammy 137.73.68.56 (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No notability, couple of low grade possible self promoted hits, seems to be brand new website trying to generate traffic.--ClubOranje^T 09:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes[edit]

List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A list of passing mentions of homosexuality for a set of TV shows that is unusually specific. (I can understand the argument behind the post-Ellen part, but to couple that with the American restriction makes the list unnecessary. (oddly enough Queer as Folk isn't mentioned either... ) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On the fence/Neutral for now, because it's comparably well-sourced and well-written, but the incredibly long title of the article is very unusual. One might as well create a spin-off that's called "List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes where the characters wear green pants and a dog is running around in the background". Or whatnot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the coming out episode of "Ellen" may have been an LGBT milestone, TV shows with LGBT-related episodes had already been around for years. Furthermore, the vast majority of the program cited in the article have no notability in their own right. Warrah (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Until LGBTIQ, etc. people are treated with the same rights and are no longer a lower class in their own countries ... LGBT issues as mirrored back in popular culture, such as television series, like this lists encompasses, will continue to be studied and analyzed. As such, we have many sources discussing LGBT issues in modern culture, and we will continue to have these. Looking at the nature of lists on Wikipedia, they not only help organize information, they provide context of an overall theme, in this case how have LGBT themes in American television changes since the infamous Ellen coming out episode. Each item does not need to represent a stand alone article as much as show the progression of the topic discussed providing clues to navigation and development. This list is reasonably well-written, is certainly source-able and maintainable. What remains is regular editing which remains not a deletion issue. The nom may build similar lists for other countries or frankly all non-U.S. television as this list seems quite large and anything non-US would likely be split off anyway. -- Banjeboi 17:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely unreferenced, often conjectural, weirdly indiscriminate. Inconsistent inclusion criteria -- ignores shows where major/running characters are gay, ignores soap operas, ignores SNL and other comedy shows. Most of the "themes" cited are actually minor plot elements; if made comprehensive at the level of detail it currently cites, the article will be outlandishly long, exceptionally unwieldy, and completely useless. The subject is encyclopedic -- but this lst isn't. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The claim that the list is "completely unreferenced" is patently false as the article currently has a dozen footnotes and several books listed as references. The episodes themselves serve as primary sources for their content and a review of those episodes would put the lie to the claim about these being mostly "minor plot elements". The complaints about sorts of shows that the list "ignores" indicates that you are not paying attention to what the list is designed to cover. It is for episodes of series that do not regularly feature LGBT themes or characters. Otto4711 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The list itself is obviously completely unreferenced, as anyone can see by looking at it. Some of the descriptive material in the lede is footnoted, but nothing in the list itself. Using the articles as primary sources for an article like this amounts to original research and interpretation. From WP:PSTS: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. It is also rather odd to claim I am not "paying attention" to a point when I set out in detail the results of adherng to that point. The inclusions and exclusions are made using arbitrary and subjective criteria, and end up "gerrymandering" the list to reflect a particular point of view, a conspicuous NPOV violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea that upon watching an episode of, say, Law & Order in which Jack McCoy tries to have same-sex marriage invalidated in New York to compel testimony from one member of a couple, one may not enter on this list "McCoy tries to have same-sex marriage declared illegal in New York in order to compel testimony from one half of a couple" without a secondary source is ludicrous on its face. What's on-screen serves as a source for what's on-screen and a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge is completely capable of verifying the contents of the episode by watching it. Are there entries on this list which you feel are making something other than descriptive claims? Which ones specifically, and why can they not be fixed through normal editing? Regardless, your reading of PSTS is prohibitively narrow and would wreak havoc on our ability to write about fiction. As for your fundamental misunderstanding of the scope of the list, it has been noted repeatedly the list was never designed to capture series with regular gay characters, which would include soap operas. These series are captured on various other lists which are linked elsewhere in the debate. If one knows of episodes of SNL which feature gay characters then there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from listing them, although given the nature of sketch comedy shows they would IMHO probably fit better on the series list. Otto4711 (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop saying I misunderstand the scope of the list. I understand how you've gerrymandered the article. I said that the criteria are so arbitrary and subject as to cross the line on policies like NPOV and NOR, and render the list unencyclopedic. The idea that "Go watch it yourself" satisfies the principles of WP:V is ludicrous. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tell you what: you stop throwing around bad-faith accusatory words like "gerrymandering" and I won't start throwing around words like "butchering zealot" and "pedantic bloviator". The parameters of the list are perfectly reasonable since the goal of the list is to examine those episodes that are distinct from the norm in their series. Complaining about omitting series which episodes all deal with LGBT issues is like complaining about a list of novelty ice cream flavors because it excludes chocolate and vanilla. And "go watch it yourself" fulfills perfectly the requirements of WP:V, specifically WP:SPS which reinforces WP:PSTS regarding the use of the episodes as sources for themselves. I am not making any claim about the episodes that cannot be verified by a reasonable person by watching the episodes. It may not be easy to watch the episodes, but availability of the sources to others is not the responsibility of the encyclopedia. Otto4711 (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Gerrymandering" as "bad faith accusatory"? That's utterly ridiculous. And given the utterly wretched job that's been done in classifying shows, the only person who could possible by insulted by using the term in this context is Elbridge Gerry, and I doubt he'll notice. NYPD Blue shouldn't be on this list; it regularly featured gay characters, including two squad commanders and the PAA played by Bill Brochtup (who appeared in 156 episodes over eleven seasons, feature-billed for half the length of the series). Neither should Homicide, which featured a plotline running over seven years involving a regular character who eventually "came out." The article is infested with arbitrary choices and classifications like these, and is unsavageable. As for your interpretation of WP:V, it amounts to "Do all the research yourself." That's not meaningful verifiability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Haw haw haw, it's funny to pretend that words don't mean what they mean. I'm not suggesting that anyone do any research, although if they choose to that is certainly welcomed and encouraged. What I am suggesting is that the possible unavailability of a particular source to a particular editor doesn't make the source unreliable not does that unavailability or the difficulty a particular editor may have in locating the source implicate WP:V. Verifiability demands that information be published in a reliable source. In the case of a TV episode, filming and/or broadcasting constitutes publication and the individual episodes are reliable sources for their own content. "Go watch it yourself" is no less reasonable that "go read the book yourself" or "go listen to the speech yourself". Otto4711 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Benjiboi. Key sources like the Debra Kaufman article talk about how the "historic" Ellen event revolutionised the "American cultural landscape" and "how gay people are portrayed on TV, and [now they are] treated like all other characters as opposed to being marginalized." Much as I love our articles to offer a global perspective, in this case we'd be reaching beyond the soruces if we tried to do so. Its all about US TV. Useful list on a subject the sources show is highly noteable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't know about that title, or the formatting, but there's an FA/FL possible subject hiding in there. This article could provide a lot of background on the phenomenon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perfectly acceptable list article. How many things on the list got mentioned in the news, for the LGBT themes? Dream Focus 02:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reading this article, one might think that a show like Will & Grace never portrayed any gay themes, because none of its episodes are listed here. Seriously, though, I can understand the existence of articles such as List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes, because such themes were rare on American television in that era. But in 2009, it is not considered unusual for LGBT people to be portrayed in an American television episode. Counting and listing such episodes is meaningful as applied to earlier eras, but when such episodes become common it seems less meaningful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It forms the end of the series of lists (List of pre-Stonewall American television episodes with LGBT themes, List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes, List of 1980s American television episodes with LGBT themes, List of American television episodes with LGBT themes, 1990-1997), but seems to be approaching indiscriminate levels. I think restricting inclusion-criteria, or a restricted time-span, might help it regain focus. There were many Category:LGBT-related television channels that launched post-2000 (both internationally and in the US), so tracking "all" episodes quickly becomes impossible. I have no specific suggestions for restrictions, though limiting it to pre-2000 might work. Or merging those 1997-2000 entries into the current "1990-1997" list in a separate section, perhaps. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding was these lists might mention in the lede LGBT-focussed items, like Will & Grace, but was more to encompass episodes in series that were not known for LGBT themes, like M*A*S*H. That may have been removed or reworked at some point but made sense to me, of course then we would also have an article that listed series that were known for LGBT themes. -- Banjeboi 21:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See List of television shows with LGBT characters, which includes the series like QAF, Will and Grace and the like and those shows which exist on LGBT-specific networks, along with the soap operas and comedy shows, along with its spin-off lists List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters and List of made for television films with LGBT characters. Otto4711 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear-cut and obvious keep - as creator and primary author. The nominator offers no rationale for deletion and the statement "list of passing mentions of homosexuality" indicates a fundamental failure to grasp the function of the list. The list is capturing episodes of television series which do not regularly deal with homosexuality or LGBT issues that do on one occasion or another substantively deal with such issues. That is why QAF is not included, because no episode of that series meets the criteria. LGBT representation on American television is the subject of any number of books, articles and scholarly works so the topic is clearly notable. Whether each individual episode listed meets notability requirements on its own is not relevant. The list is named as it is and restricted to American series because "The Puppy Episode" -- in which Ellen Morgan came out concomitant with Ellen DeGeneres also coming out -- is recognized in the literature as a major turning point in the representation of LGBT people on American television. I am unaware of any similar shift in the representation of any other cultural minority group in any country that is directly attributed to a single episode of a single television series and such shifts are not discussed in any of the sources I have seen. If such sources exist then please feel free to write another list. As noted, this is part of a series of Lists of American television episodes with LGBT themes and there is no justification for deleting part of that series. At some point this list will need to be split for size reasons. My plan was to start a new list in 2010, which corresponds with the basic scope of the 1970s and 1980s lists and roughly with the pre-Ellen 1990s list. Otto4711 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe creating a template that links all the relevant lists so readers can more easily find the one they are looking for would make sense? -- Banjeboi 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep While there is a meaningful list to be created, the one we have amounts to a rambling list of trivia listing episodes that have any LGBT content whatsoever, no matter how trivial. There is no definition of what "LGBT themes" means, there is no definable cutoff for just how LGBT an episode needs to be and hardly any of the entries in this laundry list have any sources. This is a poorly-written and documented list that would have been deleted long ago if it had covered virtually any other grouping of TV episodes (why is there no List of post-Brown v. Board of Education American television episodes with African-American themes?. I would shift to delete in future nominations should this one result in its retention, if the critical issues with this article are not met. Alansohn (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this business about the list capturing "trivia" and episodes whose LGBT content is "trivial" is being bandied about very freely here. I would be interested in finding out specifically which episodes included on this list contain only a "trivial" amount of LGBT content and the basis for this conclusion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question must be asked the opposite way: What is the standard by which "LGBT themes" is measured to justify inclusion? As of now, the only standard appears to be IKIWISI. Alansohn (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. So despite insisting that this is a "list of trivia" you are unable to supply a single example of a trivial inclusion. Otto4711 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The name of this list is simply atrocious. Secondly, I think the criteria for inclusion is overly broad. Right now it seems to only include primetime shows, though there is no indication in the title to limit e list this way. Daytime television has numerous gay characters on various shows with LGBT themes. Secondly, this list would seem to exclude shows that are primarily about LGBT characters. I'd say that every episode of The L Word, Queer As Folk, Will and Grace should be included in this list, since they are post-Ellen American television shows with episodes that deal with LGBT themes. This list also seems to exclude every single show on here! and Logo. There are also a large number of reality shows, ie Big_Brother_(U.S.) and Survivor (U.S. TV series) that have episodes that in some part deal with LGBT themes. AniMate 22:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this should be moved to List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes on primetime shows that do not regularly deal with LGBT themes. AniMate 23:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lists should not be encumbered with, IMHO, ridiculous names to appease every quibbly issue no matter the reasoning. The lede can eloquently and efficiently explain, for instance, the criteria of the present list. What AfD is to answer is can a good article on the subject be written and it's quite clear it can. What remains is clean-up through regular editing including ensuring the lede spells out issues for our readers. We do this all the time and we don't need to re-tweak the title until it is illogical. Shoot to serve our readers' best interest and go for a more general title and narrowly focus the lists in the lede if needed. -- Banjeboi 02:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Otto4711 and Benjiboi. Otto's response to the deletion argument "list of passing mentions of homosexuality" in which he says that the list includes entries for those series "which do not regularly deal with homosexuality or LGBT issues" highlights the rationale for the list. Benjiboi's phrase "they provide context of an overall theme" and the phrase "show the progression of the topic discussed" are important to understanding this article's notability. The deletion argument "completely unreferenced" is incorrect, as references are very obviously provided. The article is clearly notable and anything that needs cleanup or additional sourcing should be done via normal editing. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL. — Becksguy (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If references are "very obviously provided," why is there not a single footnote in the list itself? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Likely as they're not needed. It would be nice to have them there just to confirm we aren't making anything up. Is there actually any content that you dispute is true? Perhaps mentioning on the list talkpage alerting which plot summary you dispute would be more constructive. -- Banjeboi 16:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Secondary source references are needed, per WP:NOR, for all "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." The assertion that a "theme" is present in any creative work, TV episode, novel, song, whatever, is plainly such a claim. This is a clearcut policy issue, not a question of what individual users find self-evident or not. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, you likely mean well but your interpretation that the rather innocuous synopsis are somehow interpreting something thus violating OR seems misplaced. IMHO they are too short but I accept this is done exactly to avoid Undue and OR. -- Banjeboi 21:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:PSTS, a television episode serves as a reliable source for its own contents. The episode may be viewed by any independent editor to verify its contents. There is no need for a separate secondary source for each individual episode. The only time such sourcing would be necessary would be in the event of there being additional information about the episode beyond plot information, e.g. on the 1970s list there are comments about episodes of All in the Family, Barney Miller, Marcus Welby and others that are beyond the plot summary and are footnoted. There are no such instances of non-plot information in the post-Ellen list. There is one such example on this list and it is footnoted. Otto4711 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Dead wrong. WP:PSTS allows only purely descriptive claims; the assertion that a particular "theme" is present and significant in an episode falls into the category of "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" which require secondary sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh my god, by that logic we could never have any information about the genre of any work of fiction. Do we really need a secondary source that Star Wars is science fiction or that Shane is a Western? Otto4711 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That's tendentious nonsense, and it certainly doesn't reflect consensus practice or the principles behind WP:RS and WP:V. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you can't cite a song genre to the song. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete whats next? A list of post-Godfather television episodes with Italian-American themes? This is a poorly defined, ridiculously long list (that would be twice as long with more research) that serves no encyclopedia purpose. - Schrandit (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:WAX is not a compelling argument. If there are multiple reliable sources that discuss how the representation of Italian Americans on television changed and was influenced by The Godfather then by all means let's have a list. The length of a list has no bearing on whether it should exist. The "encyclopedia [sic] purpose" of the list is to aid people who are interested in when and how American television series that do not usually deal with homosexuality address the subject. Several books have been published on the subject so clearly there is interest. Otto4711 (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: In the article there is a section titled "References" that list six books used as references, and another section titled "Notes" that contain twelve citations used as references, some from the New York Times, Time magazine, and other reliable sources. Having inline citations—or footnote summary—may be a preferred style vs. general reference summary, but inline cites are not mandatory and both are acceptable, per WP:CITE. — Becksguy (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The footnotes never go to episode content; all but two do exclusively to the lede, the other two support references to external events, not episode content. The books generally listed as references are not claimed to support the assertions regarding episode content; as the article's principal editor asserted, the episodes themselves are used as primary sources -- as is clear from his tendentious argument, above, that characterizing a "theme" of an episode and determining the theme's importance involves no analysis, synthesis, interpretation or evaluation. Besides, given the publication dates of the books, it's utterly foolish to suggest they support the full set of episode descriptions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. It is not original research to watch an episode of television that centers around a character's coming out and characterize it as having a gay theme. That's like demanding a secondary source calling We Wish You a Merry Christmas a Christmas song before identifying it as such. It's self-evidently a Christmas song based on its content and the episodes on this list are self-evidently gay themed based on theirs. Otto4711 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your quarrel is with the policy itself, which is pretty explicit on this point; there's no exception for "self-evident" commentary (which would lead to interminable tendentious debates on what is self-evident, of course). But how is it "self-evident" that "a gay couple's valuable dogs are kidnapped" is a significant theme rather than a minor plot device? "A time travel back to a Nazi prison camp shows a brief scene in which a prisoner is wearing the pink triangle"? "RuPaul guest stars as 'Bob'"? "One of the victims is a gay woman"? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My quarrel is with your interpretation of the policy, which I find both incorrect and heavy-handed. If you question particular entries on the list then resolve the situation through normal editing. Otto4711 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, the irony. A short piece of plainly stated English text requires interpretation although what it says is quite "self-evident," but determining the themes of creative works and the relative importance of the themes doesn't?

• Delete because the title is WP:OR. On whose authority did Ellen Degeneres become such a critical dividing line? Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the lede - Described as "the most hyped, anticipated, and possibly influential gay moment on television",[6] Ellen Morgan's coming out has been credited for spawning a boom in programming featuring LGBT characters.[7] -- Banjeboi 21:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is an issue with the title (and I don't agree there is, per Benjiboi), that would be a reason to fix it, with talk page discussion, not to delete the article. Per WP:DEL, which says: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. — Becksguy (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poorly defined, and utterly ridiculous. What next, then? "List of post-Friends American television episode with shit themes"? :P Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatant OR. no evidence of notability at all. NBeale (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:N requires reliable sources independent of the subject that substantively discusses the subject. There are several books that are about how LGBT people are portrayed in non-LGBT television episodes, so clearly the subject is notable. You have offered nothing to back up the claim that this is OR, blatant or otherwise. The prose is thoroughly sourced and the episodes serve as sources for their own content. Otto4711 (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research, mostly per mangoe. Also I don't see what all of these episodes have to do with each other. "LGBT themes" is vague and indiscriminate. I don't doubt that the topic of how homosexuality has been portrayed on television is notable, but this isn't the proper way to present that information. ThemFromSpace 04:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mangoe's OR claim is based on the use of "The Puppy Episode" as a dividing line. There are already two sources in the article that explain the cultural significance of the episode and the event. There are plenty more. What the episodes have to do with each other is that they are episodes of television series that do not usually deal with LGBT issues, but have done so in a particular episode. The information is useful for those interested in tracking how such series dealt with the material in general and is also useful for tracking trends in LGBT representation and for comparing how episodes of various series aired in a similar timeframe handled the issues. Otto4711 (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion - the sticking point for some of the deleters is the use of the phrase "LGBT themes". While I of course strongly disagree that the phrase is problematic, I believe the issues can be resolved by renaming the list to something like "...episodes with LGBT story lines" or "LGBT plots" and restricting the list to episodes of series that do not generally deal with LGBT issues but have a primary or secondary story line that is LGBT in nature. Certainly even those who have trouble identifying a gay theme will have no problem identifying a gay story line. Otto4711 (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Dangerous misunderstanding of Policy by delete voters

Its important to understand that Wikipedia:No original research in no way prohibits editors from relaying self evident facts without support from secondary sources! If it was prohibited, literally tens of thousands of articles with synopsises of important primary works would be in violation of policy! While most of those articles dont analyse or evaluate the work as such, they do advise on the theme in a deeper sense than merely saying "this chapter deals with homosexual love". And rightly so. If we enforced policy the way some delete voters are arguing, wed have to rip a huge chunk out of the heart of this project – a good encyclopaedia gives summaries of self evident truths about a topic so the reader doesn't have to digest the whole primary source - but secondary sources by their nature rarely waste time advising on the self evident, so the effort needed to find all the required sources for a "Hullaballo" interpretation of policy would be totally prohibitive for a volunteer project. Its great to see collaborative editors like Otto trying to find a middle ground with the deletion camp, but in this case it would be damaging to the encyclopaedia to compromise with them at all. IMO our clear message should be that policy and consensus are 100% behind keeping this article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The problem here is WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS on multiple levels. The list is indisciminate/synthesis since it does not demonstrate that each member of the list got its inspiration (or that its producers got the courage) from the Ellen show. The list is indiscriminate in that many of the members are not themes. For example; on CSI: NYs episode "Trapped", the killer is a lesbian. Seriously? Ellen's show made that happen? And how is that a theme? Abductive (reasoning) 02:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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