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 Theosophy. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chain, Planetary (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 terminology apparently invented by Blavatsky. If it is of any value it can be a simple mention on Blavatsky's lengthy biographical page rather than its own article. It is not necessary to turn every fanciful concept, model or theory from Blavatsky's books into articles unless there are significant third party sources that make them notable. In this case they do not. Ash (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Theosophy. Article asserts that it is relevant to this, so it seems like the most logical place to put it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Theosophy. The article refers to a concept that Helen Blavatsky called a "planetary chain", with the theory that there are seven Earths, the one we live on and six others in six other dimensional planes, or something like that. Until someone can explain it a little better, no need to spin out into a separate page. Appropriately, after a merger and redirect, this article will continue to exist in something similar to another dimension, one that can be accessed by crossing over into the history of the redirect term. Mandsford (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry to pile on, but Merge and Redirect to Theosophy seems logical to me. There does not seem to be independent notability for this sub-topic, as opposed to, say, chakras. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Α (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 without explanation. Term suggested by one author. No hint about how the suggestion was received, or whether or not it was received at all. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unless additional citations are added showing this as a term in use by more than one author. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - CRYSTAL. (Please note, I am not the author, I just kicked it out of Generation Z (which is also an OR SYN mess)) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 13:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Othen (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 fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO. This is one Part of a history of Spam and self promotion by this author on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Christopher_Othen_spam. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I'm not certain this was intended as deliberate product placement, although the author has posted a lot of new articles from people associated with Reportage Press that makes me wonder. However, it doesn't really matter. Out of the two sources, one is his agent's site, which isn't independent. The other is a review from the Irish Times, and if there were more articles like this, I'd keep it. However, a quick glance at GNews suggests this is the only article. If this article does stay, this article and the article on the book need merging into one. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not that important a book that it should have its own article. Personally, I regard the 2 book review requirement for books as rather weak for serious non fiction, and would argue that the WP:N rule that being notable does not require that there be a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- A one book author. The subject of his book is notable, but the book itself (also subject to AFD here) is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 18 September 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. Black Kite 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franco's International Brigades: Foreign Volunteers and Fascist Dictators in the Spanish Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Recently published book, no evidence of notability. This is one Part of a history of Spam and self promotion by this author on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Christopher_Othen_spam Hu12 (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even setting the spam issue aside. The book is simply not notable, and it is not a very plausible redirect. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It helped me considerably expand the article on the Irish Brigade in April. Unbiased, indexed and annotated, it is "notable" in that it covers unmentioned aspects of that conflict. It can be criticised for being untrendy, but that is not an intellectual crime.Red Hurley (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • No one is criticizing its trendiness or lack thereof. If you can find some decent reviews of it, or proof of its being cited (other than in WP articles), please present that--that would be good grounds for reconsidering. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's listed with some public libraries and see this review. You can try Google and check out the 1,600+ entries, many of which are plugs, but with some more reviews. Maybe it hasn't been reviewed in the USA; please forgive those of us who live elsewhere.Red Hurley (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but it is the subject that is notable, not a book about it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication that this book qhs any particular notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Is WP the right forum for book reviews, for that is what this is? What we need is an article on the subject, not an article on the book. I would suggest that the article should be merged with articles on the Irish Brigade (Spanish Civil War), and whatever other flanagist interational brigades there may have been. The book will be a WP:RS for those articles, but I doubt we need an article on the book itself. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request by subject because it fails as a biography and is doing more harm than good. Fails wp:PROF and wp:AUTHOR, tho see talk page for editors who disagree. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-16t22:19z 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Article would normally survive AfD as subject's works have been given full-length reviews in major publications (LA Times, The Guardian), and the subject has received a reasonable amount of note. No view on the competing tensions between what (despite coverage) is relatively minor notability and privacy considerations. ^Bongo_matic 22:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unquestionably meets three criteria: WP:PROF--Distinguished professor at CUNY; WP:CREATIVE, NYT SIgnificant book of the year and another award WP:BIO: Sufficient sourcing about him in to meet GNG. How that makes for minor notability I do not know. What his privacy requirements may be I do not know either, since the article seem exceptionally matter of fact. the only remotely personal information is taken from a published interview he gave. Let's face it, if the NYT gives you an article, and multiple major papers give you reviews of your books, and people give you significant awards, you'll be in Wikipedia. What the OTRS request is about is something I have no access to. If there is some factor I do not understand , anyone who does know what it is invited to email me in confidence. Its time we removed the rule that subjects preferences can be accepted, if it produces nonsense like this. A public career, and nothing to be ashamed of in the least. An assertion of privacy is absurd: those who want to be unknown usually don't try to publish their memoirs. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Distinguished Professor" was added but the ref doesn't mention it. I don't see what's being referred to in WP:CREATIVE/wp:AUTHOR; or wp:bio since the only major wp:rs is an unlinked NYT mention (not a biographical article) of a minor award (there are however NYT refs mentioned in the talk page tho no information is sourced to them yet). The worldcat source also doesn't mention the information it's referencing. The OTRS ticket is about unsourced and incorrect information not being noticed and removed. Encyclopedically notable articles would probably have had the incorrect information deleted without the person having to try to delete it themselves several times (and having their edits reverted despite wp:burden), and eventually having to email the foundation to get rid of it. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-17t11:53z

    what information in the article is is asserted to be incorrect? DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Subject; influences; influenced; family; photo; incorrect, poor, or no sources. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-17t21:47z

    the source for distinguished professor is his official bio at the university, a suitable source for the purpose. [1] DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The reference was pointing elsewhere - I've fixed it, but I haven't touched the 850 bit. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-17t21:47z

• Keep. I agree completely with DGG, including the puzzlement about what was so offending here. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree with DGG. The sourcing that is in the article right now does not demonstrate that Aciman meets the GNG. Remember the requirement that sources must be independent of the subject: the CUNY profile, the "meet the author" piece, the Wesleyan article based on interviewing the subject, and Aciman's memoir itself don't count. Likewise, the NY Times opinion pieces written by, not about, Aciman, which got Shamwow so excited on the article's talk page, are useless here. As Jeandre suggests, DGG is also wrong when he says the New York Times "gave" Aciman an article. I am looking at that reference now, and it is a list of Whiting award winners that says nothing about Aciman beyond that. No doubt the award is a fine achievement, but notability is not achievement. Finally, book reviews would help to write a Wikipedia article about the respective books, not necessarily about Aciman.

  The bottom line is that without independent sources that are actually about Aciman, it is not possible to write a neutral article here. Indeed, the article essentially amounts to a resume for Aciman hosted on Wikipedia, subject to original-research embellishments like "his novel is in over 850 Worldcat libraries". A list of books he wrote and a recounting of his career path and achievements is the stuff of resumes, not encyclopedia articles. Drmies, perhaps that is what offends Aciman. Let Aciman decide on his own what to put on his CV. Let CUNY host a webpage highlighting his achievements. But a Wikipedia article requires significant, independent coverage of him.

  I recommend that participants in this afd read Nil Einne's well-researched, thoughtful comment on the article's talk page. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it possible that DGG meant to refer to this, Aciman, Andre (2004-06-16). "Sailing to Byzantium by Way of Ithaca". The New York Sun. p. 1., a 2000+ word lecture by Aciman on James Joyce, Bloomsday 2004? Drmies (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I see it now; it's this--Aciman, André (2009-06-08). "The Exodus Obama Forgot to Mention". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-09-21.. An op-ed piece in the New York Times. Sounds notable. I've been adding stuff to the article and cleaning up the references but I'm going to stop (after adding a review from the NYT of Call Me By Your Name): there is a huge amount of reliable sources for anyone who is willing to look. The MLA database actually lists four articles in literary journals about his work, and that, for a living author, is not bad. I mean, this discussion is getting ridiculous. Any editor who looks at the article will see that with a couple of books, published by major presses and reviewed in major papers, this subject as notable at least as an author. To the IP who spent so much time throwing nit-picked policy at DGG: enough already, it's not convincing. A resounding keep for this article that even in its history, as far as I have seen, has nothing that disparages the subject. I can't believe we've spent so much time on this. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added the four hits from the MLA to the talk page, for future reference. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that it is in over 850 worldcat libraries is specifically sourced, and not OR. The official web page at a university is a proper source for noncontroversial bio. WP:CREATIVE is an alternate to WP:BIO. so is WP:PROF. Further sources than those that demonstrate the achievements are not required. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The worldcat source doesn't mention 850. Until someone specifically challenges the University sources, I think they're okay. How does he qualify for anything in wp:CREATIVE or wp:PROF? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-17t21:47z

WorldCat Identities is the source for holdings of all his books "Out of Egypt : a memoir by André Aciman( Book )

17 editions published between 1994 and 2007 in English and held by 863 libraries worldwide " and "Call me by your name by André Aciman( Book ) 5 editions published between 2007 and 2009 in English and held by 961 libraries worldwide " absolutely solid evidence (my 850 figure did not include all the possible editions). DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • (@ DGG) My concern is not with verifiability but neutrality. NPOV requires "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." So where are the disinterested sources on Aciman? Without those, a neutral article is not possible. Using CUNY's webpage as a source already makes the article resume-like, and the over-850 factoid only exacerbates the problem (it is a Wikipedia editor's own observation of Aciman's achievement, which should go on his CV--if he wants it there). Wp:prof's criteria are quite malleable (Jeandre seems to doubt they apply here) and in any event are a poor proxy for the gold standard at wp:n. Disregard the gold standard if you want in other cases, but in a BLP, especially where the subject has requested deletion, Wikipedia should meet that standard. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not marginal notability at all, easily passes GNG. If subject has concerns, he is welcome to make them clear on the talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of the sources qualify per wp:GNG? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t10:43z
    • Many of the 312 results from the GNews search linked above would work just fine. Sure, for some of those he is the author, but for many he is not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lots of sources out there, hundreds of gnews, gbooks hits. Among other points, reviews of his books qualify him under WP:AUTHOR, and are perfectly acceptable as sources for an article on him. As the most famous book is a memoir, biographical detail (from reviews) is not lacking and privacy concerns are thus minimal.John Z (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does he qualify for anything in WP:AUTHOR? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t10:43z
    • WP:Author #3 - "... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Answering 160..., although neutral sourcing is not necessary, as we work all the time to present non-neutral sources and views neutrally, these reviews are reasonably neutral sources.John Z (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, looks OK to me. Is there no process for asking the complainant on the OTRS ticket whether he/she now withdraws the objection? - Pointillist (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject again asked for it to be deleted on 2009-09-17 after the prod was undone. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t10:43z
• Keep -- I believe the precedent for considering requests by the subject of the article to have the article deleted is that the request is only considered when the individual in question is on the boundary of notability. My understanding is that when a person is clearly a public figure, worthy of coverage, a request from the principal to have their article removed is politely declined. Achman is clearly notable, so this request we are told he made should be politely declined. Geo Swan (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to ask whether those who deal with OTRS tickets shouldn't feel free to use their own judgment on requests for the deletion of articles by clearly notable individuals, and skip the step of initiating an ((afd)), and simply tell them, "sorry, we only consider requests for the deletion of articles from individuals who haven't chosen to become public figures." They could leave a note on the article's talk page however. Geo Swan (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the time we do, and then point to policies why it can/can't be deleted; but no sources support keeping the article per WP:CREATIVE/wp:AUTHOR, wp:bio, or wp:GNG. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t10:43z

      the prizes don't support it? DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Geo Swan: as per Jeandré, we do not always make an automatic AFD for these. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is good to know. I started an article about an author who was an expert on counter-terrorism, a law professor at the Coast Guard Academy -- and and also an active NCIS agent. A month or so later I found the article had been silently deleted. The administrator who deleted it told me he or she did so in response to an OTRS ticket from the subject of the article. The subject of the article had told him or her that he didn't have any problems with the article being inaccurate -- he just didn't want to be covered by the wikipedia. The administrator told me that their interpretation of the mandate of those who process OTRS tickets is that they were authorized to delete articles, on sight, and without informing those who had worked on the article, in response to an OTRS ticket -- when they thought the subject of the article was of marginal notability. So, was this administrator misinterpreting the OTRS rules? Geo Swan (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Aciman is not really notable for his professorial career but as a novelist/writer. His memoir Out of Egypt was reviewed in The New York Times[2][3] as well as his novel Call Me by Your Name[4]. Additionally, see his recent op-ed published in the Times[5]. This alone shows that this individual is QUITE notable.ShamWow (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See 160's comment above. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t10:43z
• Keep. Subject is too distinguished a public figure not to have an entry in WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. Please remove the WorldCat count ("850 WorldCat libraries") from the article. Inclusion of bibliometrics (WorldCat counts, citation counts of research articles, etc.) is bad form for a whole bunch of reasons, including giving the perception that proponents are "trying too hard" to establish notability and that these numbers constantly change, requiring some amount of vigilance in manually checking/updating them at perhaps very frequent intervals. In short, you might say that bibliometrics are not particularly "encyclopedic" and it is arguably a bad precedent to start making them a regular part of articles. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • I've removed the WorldCat count - Pointillist (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That said, it would seem the subject is notable. Others have already found that there are plentiful sources, but his title/position at the CUNY satisfies WP:PROF #5 – person holds ... "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education, and would alone be sufficient. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • I was wrong, he does qualify per the wp:PROF guideline. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t20:21z
    • Heartfelt congratulations, Jeandré du Toit, for jumping that hurdle. Can the AfD now be closed on that basis? - Pointillist (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • /raises hand, offers objection./ Wp:prof is a collection of purely formal (as opposed to functional) criteria. They have nothing to say about whether a neutral article can actually be written here. The latter question is dispositive.

        So, getting back to discussing that more relevant question: you said above the article "looks OK" even now. Would you like to elaborate on why you think an article based on non-neutral sources is appropriate for Wikipedia? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • AFAIK both the New York Times and http://www.marinij.com/ are reliable sources, aren't they? The dispositive question was addressed to Jeandré du Toit on the basis that s/he was the AfD nominator and I thought there was a process for the nom to close. If I'm in error in either respect please do explain: I have no axe to grind. - Pointillist (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't think you had an ax to grind. I genuinely wanted you to clarify your earlier comment. To respond on that issue: No New York Times article has yet been produced, here, that is actually about Aciman. And the Marin piece is an interview and thus not independent. I already discussed these and other purported sources in my comment above. As for the procedural issue, an afd can only be closed early if the nom has changed his mind and no one else is arguing to delete. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for explaining. Well, right now there are 12 !votes to keep and apparently no !votes to delete (unless you intend yours of 16:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC) to be a !vote—you might want to clarify that). I haven't !voted but I expect he will turn out to be sufficiently notable under Wikipedia:Notability (academics) anyway. That seems to be the conclusion the nominator reached, too. - Pointillist (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Aciman is a major American writer. The hundreds of reviews of his books contain ample information to produce a neutral article, even if no further material is available....While privacy concerns *may* be a legitimate basis for removing an article on a marginally notable figure, Aciman--who willfully holds himself out to the public in numerous books, articles, essays, etc--isn't remotely a close call. (And if we accede here, what do we do when Thomas Pynchon or JD Salinger demand deletion for privacy concerns?) Vartanza (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Prominent gay writer.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. major author from major publisher. 9000 google hits for his IMAGE. (i dont like to use google hits as a gauge, but for an author and academic thats significant). Whoever is privy to subjects request for article deletion can hopefully coordinate with him on removing any controversial material thats not properly sourced. And a reminder, we are not voting, but presenting material for a decision to be made. there is some argument that sources are not neutral. lets get real: there are no truly neutral sources anywhere, for anything other than fully established math, physics, chemistry, astronomy (and even there, instititional bias towards established science...). the new york times reports on what it wants to print, with some subtle bias. book reviewers want to sell copies of their publication containing the reviews. interviewers have feelings about their subjects, and often choose people they want to interview, who they like (and sometimes hate). we are striving for relative neutrality, and trying to find the most neutral sources, or balance different pov's. i had a friend who invented an engine using shape memory alloy. to get a particular grant, it needed to be reviewed and evaluated by experts. ALL the experts in the field were his competitors, so he had great difficulty getting a neutral evaluation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you that no source is truly neutral in that sense. But I would like to see independent sources as per wp:independent sources. And I agree with you that a neutral article comes from balancing different pov's. My point is that without independent sources, it is not possible to accomplish this. The problem here is that there we have only the pov of Aciman and his employer, so how is it possible to balance different pov's? I should perhaps clarify that (in my view) the interview fails the independence criterion, not because the interviewer is biased, but because the source of the facts presented in the interview is, of course, Aciman himself--obviously not an independent source. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:GNG. Notable people have articles; if problems arise with them, you fix the article, rather than deleting it. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to fill in the blanks: "Passes wp:gng because _____." "Fix the article by doing the following things: A.____, B.____, and C._____."

    Just a suggestion. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • And you may stop badgering those who disagree with you. Also just a suggestion. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Folks, this line debate is superfluous. It's clear that he passes on WP:PROF #5 alone because of his "Distinguished Professor" title at CUNY. Continue debating if you like, but the closing admin will give a "keep" verdict on this one. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:32, 22 September 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! 16:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game mascots (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 is mainly original research based upon personal opinions of what makes a mascot. The ones that can be sourced are very few in number. TTN (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete _ I might say keep if it was referenced but right now this article is in violation with WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:N and maybe WP:HOAX. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Probationary keep. I plan on working on this a bit, referencing the list with examples of reliable sources (ideally sources from the developers themselves). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete/Categorize-ify - totally unworkable as a list. Delete it and make it into a category.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete upon further inspection, I am convinced that this information gives no value to the encyclopedia as category either. Delete.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem is there is a category: Category:Video game mascots. If we axe the list should the cat take a dive too?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand your jive talking, but yes, the category should be sent on the midnight train to Georgia. "Video game mascot" is way too nebulous of an idea.--Blargh29 (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As per my vote below, yes, the category should go too. "Video game mascot" is an undefined term and therefore a list (or category) that purports to state what is or is not a video game mascot is unhelpful and innately unverifiable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if Retro Hippie can source most of it. or Merge it to List of mascots#Computer and video game mascots. We do need to better define what a "Video game mascot" is though. Does Charizard count as a mascot? "Charizard is also the version mascot of Pokémon Red and FireRed versions, and makes an appearance on the boxarts of Pokémon Stadium, Pokémon Ranger, Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Red Rescue Team, and Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Sky." _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A legitimate spinoff from List of mascots, easily sourced as described by Blake, and well-organized table. Articles about video games and characters on video games are also of "no value to the encyclopedia" in my opinion, but if we have to have such things, then we have to have a means of finding them as well. Some people rely on categories to locate garbage, most people prefer lists to do so, but we usually have both WP:CLN. The table is a legitimate navigational aid that does things that a category cannot. Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, video games do not have mascots; these are characters or brands. Abductive (reasoning) 05:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even for someone interested in researching video game characters, I'm not sure what value this brings. "Video game mascot" is a highly debatable undefined term. The article is a sublist of the total list of videogame characters which doesn't make it easier to understand the topic in any meaningful way. There's no defined criteria for whether things belong on this list or not - there is, for example, no Videogame Mascots Authority to derive a list from, no "total sales achieved" number for characters to pass, no survey that ranks characters on how far they've penetrated the public awareness. The current list often confuses the ideas of "furry anthropomorphic star of an unsuccessful mid 90s platforming game" with "main character of a popular game" and "main character of an ongoing franchise whose image is heavily used in promotional media". It's just meaningless. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The problem is not that the topic is indiscriminant or trivial but rather that it is undefined in reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CLN: "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems"
  --Tothwolf (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CLN is an editing guideline, and does not trump the WP:V policy, which this article fails. We cannot even verify that these are mascots, nor what mascots might mean in terms of video games. Abductive (reasoning) 09:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am sure that if this article stays, someone could dig around some places and find sources for each character saying they are a mascot. I just think the term needs to be defined. For example, Pikachu and Jigglypuff are mascots of the series, while Charizard is a mascot of 2 games and is on boxart of many many games and products. So, does Charizard qualify? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 13:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Testing for echo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete. Fails wp:music. only sources is a myspace page Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, one of a million bands with an EP and a MySpace page and nothing to satisfy WP:MUSIC. --Stormie (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 13:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H.E. Waheed Waheedullah (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 claims made about this person in the article sound impressive, but they are not supported by sources that meet WP:RS, and I don't see that such sources exist to write the article properly: there are no news hits, and an author search in GS doesn't produce anything to establish notability as an academic. The article is written by the same person trying to flog The World Water Organization, which I have also nominated for deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The provided annexed references support this person's notability Rirunmot (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.
  • Comment RE: Rirunmot. Did you click on those references? Because I did click on them and the ONLY thing I saw in those websites are his name in a list of names of people who attended a conference or being part of something. I did not see much relevant information about the person itself to justify his notabiliy...only his name... If the creator does not provide more 3rd party sources that talks about him and not the conferences he attended, I suggest to delete. It does not mean that having his name written in a 50+ page document makes him notable. These are just my thoughts , not here to offend anyone ;)Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 21:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless better sources can be found to support a clearer claim of notability. I'm puzzled by this entry. It says "Ambassador" 10 times, without once mentioning what country he's an ambassador for, and to where. Careful digging through the sources show that he was once head of the UN liaison office in Albania, which I guess made him the chief UN staffer in Albania, but arguably does not make him an ambassador. He does not even seem to hold that post anymore, so there's even less reason to perseverate on calling him "Ambassador" over and over. Also, an earlier version of the entry credited him with a doctoral degree from Kennedy-Western University, a school that was never accredited, changed names once and has since shut down. That's hardly his fault, but it strains credibility and makes it that much more important to get good confirmation of the other claims made in the entry. However, the current crop of sources establish only his existence, and the fact that he's held diplomatic posts. No press coverage or anything looking like an unambiguously third party source. Hairhorn (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unable to find any mention in news articles, unlikely for an ambassador of any kind. The refs support a mid-level rank, not that of a diplomat. Finally, if someone manages to find sources and this turns to be a keep, the article has to be moved to Waheed Waheedullah as he clearly wasn't born with the title of His Excellency. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the use of H.E. and commented on the talkpage just before reading your valid point per Wikipedia:NAMEPEOPLE. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To Nominator, Nomoskedasticity, if you have AfD this article and the World Water Organisation article, perhaps you can also AfD Harold HyunSuk Oh and Dr. Elaine Valdov? If Waheed Waheedullah is not "notable" than they too are not notable as they are both part of WWO and those two articles are created by the same user (Shannon.barnes) and their references are not that useful too... Thanks. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 23:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see only hot air. A multitude of grandiose but vague statements; any kind of notability is not supported by reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Joelenine. I think your comment about removing all is unjust. Please notice updates being made to each bio and the WWO page each day as I get the web based references to justify their notability. Shannon.barnes (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in view of revelations above. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Alternatively, nominate for the Nobel Peace Prize. --Crusio (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is no evidence of notability. No sources writing about him. Having his name mentioned in documents and listed as a conference speaker is not sufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 21 September 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. close to being an A7/A1 candidate JForget 13:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wzebra (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 software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no assertion of notability, Google turns up nothing but listings. --Stormie (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it isn't completely devoid of any notice as it gets a mention in this Computimes Malaysia article but it is not the main subject of the article and the coverage consists of 4 sentences. This is not enough to establish notability for this software. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 21 September 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.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  01:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems like a great guy and all, but how is he notable? I'm not seeing it. This isn't even a matter of BLP1E. It's a matter of BLP0E. Joke doesn't work when there's a death date. My bad. Guy fails WP:GNG. Lara 20:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He got an obituary in The Times [6], . Brown had a huge presence online.-Dhodges (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Also got an obit in The Boston Globe [7]. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 00:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As mentioned by Dhodges and Moxfyre above, had major obits in major newspapers in two countries. A google books search shows that he has been mentioned in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Bike Maintenance and Repair and in Bicycling magazine at least 3 times. J04n(talk page) 01:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This man is almost a deity in the cycling community, and his informational pages and editorials on http://www.sheldonbrown.com/ from the Harris Cyclery are the starting point for any research on bicycle mechanics.

• Keep: He was an important part of the on-line cycling scene, outspoken and well known. His cycle mechanics articles were used by many as reference, and he is a published author. As said above, obituaries in major papers demonstrate that he was notable. Thaf (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - apparently very notable within the cycling community. It would be good to find some reliable sources about him during his life though - an article sourced purely from obituaries looks a bit like a memorial. Robofish (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG Keep - Very prominent authority in fixed gear bicycles, especially messengers in any metro area, his current website is somewhat of a bible to anyone entering the field. Plus awesome beard.

• Strong Keep - As noted by Dhodges and Moxfyre, Brown rated obits in major newspapers -- one in Boston, the other in London. His encyclopedic bicycle-repair information site is still the best starting point (and often ending point) for do-it-yourself bike mechanics. Moreover, as The Times put it, "because of the selfless use to which he put the internet, regret at his death has been felt across the world....The website he built, sheldonbrown.com, has attracted millions." Indeed, I came to this discussion by way of his site; I was looking up derailleur adjustment, got to wandering about the site, and soon wanted to know more about this guy who knew so much and had such interesting opinions, and my next stop was Wikipedia. If I hadn't found this article on WP, I would have felt compelled to write it myself. (Jmkelly)

• Keep - He was hugely influential in the bike world during his life. We have also referenced him on many wikipedia bicycle articles, enough that readers who are not familiar with him may find the existence of an article about him helpful. --Keithonearth (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I know this article wont be deleted, but he seems to be non notable --NotedGrant Talk 08:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Brown was an authority widely respected in the bicycle community (not just fixed-gear afficianados), and a pioneer internet publisher, with an extensive amount of material that will be consulted for years. As noted by others here, obits appeared in multiple major newspapers, not just in his hometown Boston Globe. Articles about him had appeared in other publications during his life, including a profile in Bicycling magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCavilia (talk • contribs) 14:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable in the serious cycling fraternity. His online articles and technical reference manual are very helpful for those who want to know a bit more about bicylce components etc. Murray Langton (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 13:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TERM: PANTHER-ED (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 is an unsourced neologism; Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang, and is not for words made up one day. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What JohnCD said. This belongs on Urban Dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quick. Snow. Please. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:WINAD, WP:NEO, WP:SNOW. Even if Wikipedia accepted dictionary definitions for words that someone made up just now, we would want them to actually be coherent definitions, which this one is not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - complete nonsense, and original reserach besides. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 13:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M.U.G.E.N (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 program doesn't assert notability and it is full of original research. It is currently supported by primary sources and a fansite, and any mentions in actual sources are likely to be very trivial. TTN (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's cropped up in some sources but mostly as a trivial "Hey check out this YouTube video" (Kotaku, Wired, Washington Post). There's a slightly better article at Cinema Blend, but reading it now is kind of laughable. Not enough to substantiate an article, IMO. Nifboy (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are a huge number of Google hits for this game... so it seems to be very popular. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 76.66.196.139. Coverage is broad enough, and whether it's "Check out this YouTube video" coverage or not, major gaming news sites have covered the game. The article needs a major overhaul, not a deletion. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but which major gaming sites? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Kotaku, Wired, Washington Post). There's a slightly better article at Cinema Blend --a few posts above --Teancum (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Teancum. More than enough coverage to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Search before trying to delete something instead of having us do all the work as usual. Vodello (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Those can't actually be used for anything. "Sometimes people post videos of fights on Youtube.[1][2][3]" doesn't really do much in the area of significant coverage. TTN (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The last two sources are more than just posting YouTube videos; they give significant coverage. That coupled with the fact that the other sources mention the game helps it satisfy WP:N and WP:V. --Teancum (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't just satisfy WP:N by throwing sources out there. If they cannot be used within the article to actually show that the topic has signifcant coverage, they're useless. How can the other two be used to do anything besides say that videos are posted on Youtube or the fact that it was updated after a long period of inactivity? They're rather useless. TTN (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Here are two sites that independently review MUGEN. http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=7485169&publicUserId=5532875 and http://pcgamereview.net/freegames/mugen/mugen_review.html. I hope this article gets kept because someone has taken the time to write an article. And we should help contribute to it, not remove it instantly. Kendric Apple (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um...both of those sources are kinda bad. The first is a random blog, and the second is talking out of its rear: "Mugen has an online mode against other players, which is the main mode that most people pick when playing Mugen." <- This is flat out false: Mugen has no online capabilities, which has been one of the biggest issues people have had with it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope this article gets kept because someone has taken the time to write an article. -- that's about the least valid 'keep' reason ever. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or redirect - Games Radar has 3 paragraphs on why it is one of the wierdest fighting games ever. As this is the only significant coverage I've found so far, I have no objection to a redirect to a broader article such as List of fighting games. Marasmusine (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seriously? MUGEN? Not notable? ffs just delete every god damn article that isn't GA/FA and be done with it. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep MUGEN is well known in fighting game circles. --Pichu0102 (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is a joke. Put it on some other wiki that doesn't care about legitimacy. 90% of the sources are youtube videos of fan-content for crying out loud. AirPhforce (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You can't take the Mugen down without also taking down every other video game. And every movie and book and poem and play while you're at it. It's literature just like any other video game or movie or book and deserves its own article. The proof of it is in the very existence of the article. People have constructed it and people read it. It's useful and people want this article. Deleting this article goes against the very purpose of Wikipedia. 206.225.143.51 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstaining, but the logic that MUGEN is not to be deleted unless every work of fiction is deleted as well is absurd. Not all works of fiction are created equal, especially fan-made ones. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What NARH said. You're making an absurd all or nothing statement. Not that I don't disagree that it should probably be kept, though, but there are better reasons to use than that. MuZemike 22:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Teancum's findings. I think there's more than sufficient notability established here. MuZemike 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain I feel I've had too much involvement with the subject itself to really say anything one way or another here, but I will say that the article needs the reset button hit on it and to be rebuilt from the ground up. Whether or not notability is sufficient is one thing, but the article is for the most part unsalvageable in this incarnation.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I also support starting the article from scratch, and may even have the time to help with this. Marasmusine (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag for cleanup The various sources found in this AFD more than adequately demonstrate noteability. Jtrainor (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redo the page from scratch The whole article shouldn't be deleted but there are some links that aren't useful to the topic itself. Vyx's link to his brokenmugenhr is just.....stupid and need to be deleted. And the whole page should be rewritten so it would be easier to read. Blackgaia02 (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag for cleanup per Teancum and Jtrainor. I myself have also been hounding and working on this article for a long while, but have only had real time to sort out petty discussions about the article such as links and what-not. Looking at it as a whole again, it does deserve either a clean up or a re-write, but the argument of notability has been brought up in the past and it was agreed upon that it is notable enough to warrant an article. The qualifications of such might have changed, but unlike some users here I don't spend all my free time on Wikipedia anymore. Blacklist (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable game; has Washington Post article [8] about it. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

First-time future event, notability not evident, no WP:GHITS for {+nomcon +ireland +anime}. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And that I was why I already had a speedy tag on it ;) De728631 (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I replied to you offline, you evidently got the speedy tag in there while I was in the middle of filing for Afd! —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 13:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Killers (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 originally deproded this because I thought there was WP:RS for this, anime, but after a more extensive search, there indeed doesn't seem to be any WP:RS for this anime, nor any info on what happened to the project (according to the unreliable sources, it seems it was planned to have been made over 2 years ago). Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 17:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a few mentions in anime sites in addition to the official site, but these are trivial at best. Not enough to write a proper article.--Patton123 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely looks like it never actually happened. Doceirias (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As original PROD'er. Non-notable anime series that never got off the ground. TNXMan 21:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 00:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Lacks basic verification. —Farix (t | c) 01:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just one news then nothing. All was show is a pilot. Even unlikely after 2 years, whatever it will eventually make it into a full series can't constitute an argument for keep. --KrebMarkt 19:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Nothing more to add. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:37, 21 September 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. If you're going to create a list based on a premise, and that premise isn't reliably defined or sourced, then the article can never be anything more than original research. Having said that, this information may be useful in the creation of a different article - some ideas have been floated below - so please contact me if userfication is required. Black Kite 21:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. and Canadian box office bombs (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 List of U.S. and Canadian box office bombs is a pointless and stupid article. This list is just a list of films that have failed in comparison to the budget in the DOMESTIC market(US and Canada). US FILMS are made for and with the INTERNATIONAL MARKET in mind. Frequently films do not break even just by the US market, but subsequently break even, and then make profit as they get distributed throughout the world. Its like having a list of musicians who have failed in the domestic market. This article is completely pointless, because films are sold throughout the world and the goal is to make a profit after international release. Thus this article merely says what films failed in the US market, when the budget of these films are budgeted with all markets in mind. I see no point to this article what so ever, i am not contesting the research of this article to which previous people have nominated it up for deletion for, but the mere irrelevance and unnotability of the article. Can someone please help me with nominated this article for deletion.

This article is like saying that the 3rd pirates of Caribbean film only just managed to avoid being a failure in the domestic market, because it costed 300 million, and only made back 309 million in the US/CANADA(domestic market), thus the film only just managed to succeed. NO. WRONG!!!!!! The film did amazingly well in the domestic market. AMAZINGLY WELL. IT BEAT THE BUDGET AND THE INTERNATIONAL MONEY HASN'T EVEN BEEN COUNTED!!!!!!!! thats an amazing feat. once international money is counted in, 960 million dollars total gross of the film.[9]. Hence, I hope you can now see that the film didn't 'just succeed' in the us domestic market, but actually did really well, because the studio new it would make money overseas, and budgeted the film accordingly. This article just takes a stupid 'USA is the entire world' view.

delete. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the explanation paragraph needs a little re-write, but it's sourced and if any film makes less than 100% of its budget at the US box office then it usually will be seen as a failure, even if that figure is 99%. But the scope is for the US box office, so I have no problem. I would suggest that IAmTheCoinMan turns off his caps lock and rations his use of exclamation points. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Darrenhusted. Sourcing was noted as an issue in a previous AfD, and this one certainly could do with better sourcing--from more, different sources, for starters--but that's a matter of editing. Box office bomb is a defined term in our 'pedia, so an article that would list them makes sense. I don't understand this stuff about At World's End--is that a hypothetical like example? Darrenhusted had some advice for the nominator, to which I would add that calling things "stupid" is not likely to sway many editors your way. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was also confused by that example, as The Golden Compass is the highest budget on the list and if POTC:AWE made $309m off a budget of $300m then it would have made 103% of its budget, and couldn't be a flop. However if any film had a budget of $300m and made only $294m then it could be seen as a failure because the budgets leave out P&A, which is usually about 10% on top of the budget. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! You're using our own article on Box office bomb as the source of the definition?! I looked at that article, and there's no source for the definition, so I've stuck "citation needed" all over the lead. Fences&Windows 23:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "if any film makes less than 100% of its budget at the US box office then it usually will be seen as a failure, even if that figure is 99%." No. That is your merely your opinion, International markets play a massive role in grosses, and if you look at the gross distribution, most of the higher films get at least 40% of their money from overseas markets.

Read 'Fences and windows' comment below. He has a good strong argument explaing the reason this needs to be deleted. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Totally irredeemable. The decision of Wikipedia editors to define a box-office bomb as they do is based entirely on a single source, Box-Office Mojo, which isn't a reliable source. Another source used as an external link, the Boston Globe, defines box-office bombs by their international takings. The decision to only include US and Canadian films and define their success only by their US and Canadian box-office sales is horribly parochial, and the definition of a box-office bomb is very subjective. Is a film that is successful like the Golden Compass but which had a huge budget and made most of its money outside the US really a "bomb"? If a film with a stupidly big budget fails to make a profit but tops the box office list, is that a bomb or just a reason to fire the producers? Is a bomb defined by not breaking even, or is it defined by nobody wanting to see it? Zyzzyx Road is supposed to be the top bomb of all time, but it was deliberately only shown on one screen for six days. Fences&Windows 23:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per 'fences and windows'. if the definition of box office bomb given was multiply, reliably sourced, and if the article name was more precise (list of north american film releases with theatrical revenue less than production costs), maybe. but it appears that the definition of box office bomb may be irredeemable. I favor deleting lists with subjective inclusion criteria, and thought this may be one of those. the inclusion criteria, however, are precise (thank you for that), but the problem is greater than that. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this list as written because it gives excessively undue weight to one marginal source's definition, which appears to be highly questionable. It would be possible to have a similar list where each film was cited to a reliable source calling it a box office bomb or financial failure or something similar. The external links section of this article would be a good place to start. *** Crotalus *** 15:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep There is a need for a sortable table of films where the total expenses exceeded the total revenue. However, I agree with CoinMan and Fencewindows that there are problems with the entries on the list, particularly in comparing the total expense against domestic revenue (U.S. and Canada) rather than total revenue. And I see no reason to include "foreign films", where we're comparing Euros spent "over there" to dollars earned "over here", since the point is that this purports to be about films made in North America. Finally, although I have no problem with defining a bomb, what's a "Canadian film"? Does that include something filmed in Vancouver or Toronto for mass marketing far beyond Canada, such as Superman II? Why do the U.S. and Canada need to be merged for a film list? Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The U.S. and Canada are merged because the headline "domestic" box office receipts (in both Box Office Mojo and the daily papers) are the combined U.S.-Canadian total for the film. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Precisely. For decades, the Americans have included Canadian receipts in their "domestic" revenues, much to the annoyance of Canadians, who then have this predominantly-US box office ranking shoved back in our faces, as though it has some sort of relevance for us. Varlaam (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It might seem like this article would would work but there is an insurmountable problem with it in that there is no commonly accepted definition of box office bomb. An attempt to create such a definition for the purposes of the article would constitute original research. The de facto standard currently being used, that domestic box office is less than 60% of production budget, is an arbitrary cutoff with no bases in a reliable source. Even accepting a definition that might seem reasonable is fought with difficulty. Finances in the film industry are enormously complex and are often not completely above board. In addition to production costs, marketing and and distribution costs account for a large percentage of the actual investment in a movie. In addition to domestic box office, foreign markets, DVD sales, merchandising etc. are significant revenue streams. The article only lists production cost and domestic box office and as Mandsford pointed out this seems arbitrary, but there is a good reason for it in that these numbers are often all that are available publicly; studios tend to hide the remaining numbers. So the actual profit or loss for a given movie is impossible to determine here. Given all this, the determination of whether a movie is a 'bomb' ultimately comes down to a matter of of opinion. This isn't necessarily fatal though, opinions can be obtained from notable sources or by reliable poling then they may used in an article (e.g. Films considered the greatest ever). In this case however, notable sources such was well known movie critics rarely go on the record to call a movie a bomb or equivalent term, and sites such as Box Office Mojo give financial data only, leaving the interpretation to user. There are many lists of worst movies that may be quoted, but there don't seem to be many lists of biggest bombs out there and what there is comes from dubious sources. (I think the reason for this is that reliable sources come up against the problems listed above.) In short, while the topic may be interesting or deserving of coverage, there is simply no objective way to make the determination for inclusion on the list that's implied by the article name. This may not seem very important but keep in mind that many movies are subject to POV based attacks (e.g. political documentaries), so inclusion of exclusion of a movie on this list could be politically motivated and lead to accusations of Wikipedia being politically biased. Given the actual criteria for inclusion and the fact that no further conclusions can be drawn, the name of the article should really be "List of movies whose domestic box office does not exceed 60% of its estimated production budget". This exactly describes the article but with this title it's obvious that it's an arbitrarily defined list that does not pass WP:IINFO. There are few notable bombs, but these are already represented in Box office bomb. I know this comment is very long, but this article has already gone through two AfD's and I'm trying to anticipate the arguments that were given then. This is not a simple issue and I believe that the reason the AfD's did not result in deletion before is that the people participating in those debates did not fully understand or appreciate the problems inherent in this article. I've have been an active editor of this page recently, but only to bring it to the standard of not being an embarrassment to Wikipedia by removing blatant OR and unwarranted conclusions.--RDBury (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Fences&Windows and RDBury. Sourcing and scope are both deal-breakers, and while sourcing could conceivably be improved, the inappropriate scope is insurmountable. Horologium (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite and move to List of worldwide box office bombs and only do films that failed to outgross their budget worldwide. Matty-chan (talk)
• Weak keep Box office bombs are certainly notable enough even in the context of US/Canada takings alone. However I would take out all the rows of non-yellow or red coloured movies to increase the relevance. 203.31.52.137 (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, precedent of significant discussion of lists of box office bombs in independent reliable secondary sources, including books [10], news, [11] [12], scholarly sources [13]. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some problems with your cites. Most of them don't have lists, since you only searched for "box office bombs". Secondly, the criteria are not consistent; most of the Google News archive searches discuss how movies which don't do well in theaters do very well in the home video market, which begs the question of whether or not they are bombs. There is also the age issue to consider; some of those references date back to the 1980s or earlier, which limits their usefulness in a list more than 20 years after the fact. Also, three of the five citations in Google News discuss Asian movies in Asia, which are explicitly excluded from the criteria for this list; the two remaining ones use the term without discussing it, although one of them actually links to the Wikipedia article box office bomb as a reference. Some widely known bombs such as Fantasia, Tora, Tora, Tora, Bringing Up Baby, and Leonard Part 6 are missing from the list, which indicates that it is incomplete, and there are other issues with the criteria for the list that cannot be solved simply by adding more references. (See the talk page for the on-again, off-again history of Waterworld on this list; it did exceptionally well outside the U.S. and Canada. The scope of the article is probably inappropriate for a global project.) There's nothing word with an article on the concept, but this list is a different animal altogether. Horologium (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Horologium above. The problem is any definition precise enough to support a well sourced list is not widely used. Thus either the criteria for inclusion or the list members must be original research. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted w/ a pinch 'o salt (with no prejudice to unsalting in a few years if they do meet WP:N) per G7. Skier Dude (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Kingdoms (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This band and its album were speedy-deleted a few days ago, having been input as part of a promotional campaign by their "artist management label", see WP:COIN#User:Mcarter13, Artery Foundation and their clients, but here they are back again, and as the author is arguing against speedy deletion on the talk page I bring them here. The band have released this one album, which "never charted on the Billboard 200, or any of Billboard's charts, but is popular among reviewers". They are currently on tour as a supporting act. This does not meet the notability standard of WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "delete" fails WP:music. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Fails to demonstrate notability per WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt both – This seems a pretty clear-cut case. Rees11 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The label is continuing to use Wikipedia to promote the band in order to make it notable, which is backward. The band shouldn't be on Wikipedia until it is already notable. -- Atama頭 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both and salt: per nom. Joe Chill (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't believe I'm saying this (as the author), but after noticing everything I did wrong with creating this article so soon before they got notable, I have to go with delete both. I really think this should be deleted after noticing all of the faults. I apologize, for I didn't notice the amount of previous deletions from both articles. I'll be sure to check more thoroughly next time, especially for lack of notability.Krazycev13 (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 13:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Wu (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 person does not seem to be notable. The most notable thing is that she was a reality TV contestant but I don't think we need an article on every single one of these and looking at the show's article shows that only one other person has an article. The page was likely created as a WP:AUTO and seems rather like a vanity article. See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Youtea_and_related_articles Smartse (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article clearly fails to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – not notable as far as I can tell. Rees11 (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Agree with the above comments. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with the above, and I'd also like to note that the assertions of notability in the article are weak. Reality show contestant, mentioned among 200 people in a Time Magazine article (which is unverified so far), co-founder of 2 non-notable organizations (one charity, one for-profit), and membership in a student medical association. -- Atama頭 05:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 13:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Frontera (Shakira Album) (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 sources support this as an album release. "La Frontera" is the name of a Shakira song that has already been released, so Google searching is a bit tricky. However, it seems highly unlikely that a new album would come out next year named after a song released last year. WP:CRYSTAL at best, hoax at worst. —Kww(talk) 16:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete...a definite hoax. Break the Ice? Give me a break, like Shakira would rip off Britney Spears. Or collab with Jay-Z, on that note. In all seriousness, she's already releasing She Wolf in October. Another album would be ridiculous, and when uncited, is particularly crystalballeryish. talkingbirds 01:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above: no reliable sources to verify what's here, and it's premature even if it is real. Cliff smith ^talk 16:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 13:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Blind Date (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another unremarkable on-line dating site. Not exactly a new idea or a ground-breaking service. I feel it fails all Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment. Twinkle only completed part II of the nomination process. I have completed it. ascidian | talk-to-me 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:WEB. See this article from ABC, this article from the Boston Globe, this article from Columbia News Service, and this article from Xconomy. Notability is fully established. I added these references to the article in July 2009, after the article was tagged for speedy deletion, so I don't understand why the nominator brought this article to AfD in August. Cunard (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It hardly set the world on fire, but it got significant coverage in multiple reliable source, thus it is notable. Fences&Windows 23:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unreferenced for nearly three years, fails WP:V. Another user removed the PROD without making any attempt to improve the article. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's clearly sourceable and a key college term Keep Secret ^account 16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Not sure that it needs a reference, one of those 'common knowlege' type subjects. Would be nice to have a statement like "For example, the University of [X] places a student on academic probation when their GPA falls below 2.0." and then cite the University's web page. There would be a stronger case for Keep if there were more material, as it is it could might just as well be moved to Wiktionary. There seem to be several links to this page and probably may more that could link to it, e.g. Wilson Homer Elkins.--RDBury (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve - Vartanza (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The subject is clearly verifiable, however, the article in its current state does not meet WP:V. Location (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. No reason for deleting Rirunmot (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 16:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment. Twinkle only completed part II of the nomination process. I have completed it. ascidian | talk-to-me 16:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I just Googled the term and found lots of references that could back up the information here. Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - a term used by every college and university for which I was a student or employee. This can be sourced easily. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the subject is more than a dictionary definition. As this book source shows, the topic is the subject of scholarly analysis. For example, what is the fate of students put on probation? Do differing policies help or harm the student? Are transfer students more screwed than native students when put on probation? This could be a FA-class article. Abductive (reasoning) 11:32, 18 September 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. It seems to me that those who argue that this article fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS have a better argument in this case, though DGG does have a valid point in saying "Which events then are appropriate for separate articles? I think we need to return to the basic principle that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a collection of fragments, and therefore we shouldn't write in a fragmentary manner. Therefore, we should be relatively limited here, including only those that are known very widely as separate events." Overall, I felt that these arguments were stronger than the keep arguments, which were mainly that the article met the general notability guideline, and that was enough for inclusion. NW (Talk) 20:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush pretzel incident (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 clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Excessive coverage of a trivial, but embarrassing, incident that happened to a living person is in violation of the spirit of WP:BLP. Yes, it was reported in newspapers at the time, but there is no evidence of any long-term notability. If this article continues to remain, it opens the door for a million different "incident" articles that blow aspects of someone's life way out of proportion. *** Crotalus *** 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Make it a blurb under Bush. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not really an event notable enough to have an article of its own. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the article on dubya. Notable incident, but doesn't deserve its own article as much as say, the Jimmy Carter Rabbit incident, or whatever thats called. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nobody could argue that this has "historical notability" (see WP:NOT#NEWS) - it's trivia, not even worth a mention in the main article. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many people, myself included, believe that this incident was a stroke, and that the excuse of choking on a pretzel was a cover-up. Does this count as a conspiracy cover-up? Does this count as very serious medical issue that folks really don't want to deal with? photographs and description of his portable defibrilator he wore, some questions from dailyKOS, similar questions. After watching his performance during the debates with Ann Richards for governor of TX, his performance was darn good. But his later debates and speechs show a steady decline in cognitive ability and speech. Tangurena (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What you just posted here is original research. Your beliefs about the pretzel incident or about Bush in general are not relevant here, and political blogs are not reliable sources. For what it's worth, I voted the straight Democratic ticket in every election from 2004 onward. *** Crotalus *** 19:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge Clearly notable, the 7 good references already in the article demonstrate that, in addition to the many hits it gets in google. Coverage in reliable secondary sources is how we judge notability, and this recieved a lot of coverage.--Patton123 (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons above. — Mike :  tlk  18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per non-notable, not-news, and it's trivia. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No hope for this; this is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google news archive shows continuing coverage of this incident of loss of consciousness by a U.S president in the White House, with 4,400 news hits. The coverage did not stop right up to the present, and it was considered an important incident in his presidency, even by writers in the international press in 2009, also [14], [15] and [16]m randomly selected from many. Edison (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This "news" is so old that I don't remember it. Yoninah (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the deleters: Why shouldn't we have an article on this? We have plenty of sources to make a well referenced article.--Patton123 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think about the mountain of material that has been and will be written about George W. Bush. This event will occupy a very small fraction of that mountain. To have a separate article about it seems to violate WP:UNDUE (I wouldn't mind a few lines in the main article).  JUJUTACULAR  00:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards "delete" on this one myself, but this is a misinterpretation of WP:UNDUE, which discusses the amount of weight an ancillary topic should be given in a main article, not the appropriateness of having articles devoted solely to ancillary topics: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views". cab (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as to "Why shouldn't we have an article on this?", see WP:NOHARM. In reply to the claims of lots of news hits, there is a guideline or essay somewhere, but I can't find it, which explains that a trivial matter can catch the attention of the press but the mere number of press-cuttings does not necessarily make it notable, and I think that applies here. JohnCD (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, I agree with what you're saying (re: WP:NOHARM and WP:NOTNEWS), but I just don't see how WP:UNDUE comes into the picture --- WP:UNDUE can be an argument against a merge, but it's not really an argument for either keeping or deleting an article. cab (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read your own link. That says it's a bad argument if it isn't sourced. This is perfectly cited with a multitude of reliable secondary sources. Also what wikipedia is not basically says don't make ana article about someone for winning the village lottery, this is a famous event.--Patton123 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Famous" is not the same as "historically notable". JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that is mentioned in so many newspapers makes it notable. There is no policy that contrdicts that.--Patton123 (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:109PAPERS. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No encyclopaedic value. If we have an article on every time some famous chocks on a pretzel or stumbles, it will be of too much space and little values New seeker (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even at the time that it happened, this was "presidential trivia", in the same category as Gerald Ford falling down a set of stairs, or Jimmy Carter having hemorrhoids, or Bill Clinton's extended guffawing at a press conference with Boris Yeltsin. Worth a mention somewhere, but not its own article. Mandsford (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's worth a mention somewhere why are you saying it delete it and not merge it?--Patton123 (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support merging it to wherever you want to merge it. Mandsford (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge as argued by Patton123. Autarch (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The 'keep' side may say, it is embarrassing, therefore it is notable, and the delete side may say, it is embarrassing, therefore it is trivial. These are both mistakes. The nature of the incident does not affect its notability in these ways. The extensive coverage of a US president, does. 'Pretzel''s See Also section includes, correctly, imo, Jimmy Carter rabbit incident and George H.W. Bush vomiting incident. I will add also Shoe throwing incident

Undue weight is the Living Persons Protectors' last line of defense; I have seen it many times, and I have come to despise it and those who use it. It has absolutely nothing to do the inclusion within WP of articles about minor events in the lives of living persons. Read it, and you will see; it is concerned with the viewpoints of minorities within articles on larger subjects. "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Is anyone here of the opinion that George W. Bush did not say he choked on a pretzel? Well, then. Anarchangel (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Slightly embarrassing, but not a trivial event. The event is also frequently a touchstone for humor and other references in popular culture, which shows its enduring notability. E.g., a joke in a liberal column in SMU student paper this week about the Bush library ("Pretzels and cocaine will be flowing freely in the visitor center for all to enjoy.")[17], a conservative blog today bemoaning the lack of MSM coverage of ACORN [18]. --Milowent (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Minor trival event that does not even warrant a mention in the main article on President Bush. Mathieas (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should be at least linked then! (It is mentioned in Choking). The shoe incident isn't in there either. .--Milowent (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Prior nominations: This article is 2.5 years old -- Hey! I see it has been nominated for deletion twice already under a related name see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2002_George_W._Bush_pretzel_incident_(2nd_nomination) (July, 2007 nomination, result was "no consensus") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush's pretzel (March 18, 2007 nomination, result was KEEP). Can someone who knows how add the infobox to the top for the prior AFDs?--Milowent (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivia Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete It's trivia, but there is an astonishingly large number of links, probably due to the relative recentness of the article. (Of course, there are 5.5 million hits for "Barack Obama" fly, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama fly swatting incident.) Conspiracy theorists aside, this is not a major incident in Bush's presidency. Horologium (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt (pun intended). I had never even heard of this? Will there be an article on John Adams nude swimming incident, Abraham Lincoln sleeping with other men incident, and the ever popular John F. Kennedy sleeping with other women incidents? All of these "incidents" were written about a century+ later (in two cases) ... I doubt we will be seeing any books/articles on "Bush chokes on pretzel" in 2100 (perhaps regionally in Texas, but I will figure likely not in the rest of the world). I know an argument to avoid in deletion debates is "other stuff exists" ... but can I argue "other stuff doesn't exist"? Just in case, I will argue delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but "I've never heard of it" is not a reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing I included a comment, and then some reasoning ... because just because it happened to someone famous isn't a good reason to keep it. By this reasoning, virtually anything that happens to an American president would qualify for a separate article ... Ronald Reagan stops at a McDonalds incident, Michael Dukakis riding in a tank incident, Howard Dean yelling YEEAAH! incident, Gerald Ford tripping down the stairs of Air Force One incidents, Ronald Reagan threatens to nuke the USSR on radio incident ... the list goes on ... these incidents all got temporary coverage in major media ... some of these events may have actually had electoral impact .. and in a few cases live on in the collective unconsciousness of the 40 and over crowd. They still are footnotes to history, not the stuff of entire encyclopedia articles. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the presence of sources allow the creation of a page but don't mean that we have to have one. In this case, we have a trivial incident with no significant consequences. Mention of the incident can be added to the main article if the editors there consider that this is merited. TerriersFan (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Using my argument from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George H.W. Bush vomiting incident, our actual rules are not of much assistance. As Terriers Fan says, a separate article is certainly justified according the the GNG rules; but, as the WP:N rules say, a separate article is not required for everything justified there.. Not News doesn't apply--very little a president does in public or private will actually qualify for not news, as it will all find its way into history books and biographies, and it all will thus have historical notability. We could technically justify in this manner at least one article for essentially every working day for the executive of each major country. Which events then are appropriate for separate articles? I think we need to return to the basic principle that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a collection of fragments, and therefore we shouldn't write in a fragmentary manner. Therefore, we should be relatively limited here, including only those that are known very widely as separate events. I do not think this event has been shown to be such, --certainly not on an international basis, in contrast with the George H.W. Bush vomiting incident which has much more widespread coverage, & much more actual importance on world opinion. I'm not sure about the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident, whjch would be justified if at all by its role in the re-election campaign. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The way I see it, this is notable due to the fact that it may be interpreted as a particularly bad cover-up story. Not necessarily spawned out of any major necessity, but nonetheless interesting. --Martinor (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First for formal reasons, there have been 2 nomination and the reason for another nomination is unclear. Second the incident was widely reported in foreign media, including Germany. [19] 83.254.210.47 (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Utterly trivial. Arguments that it is notable because it might be a bad coverup seem to misunderstand the WP meaning of notability. Phiwum (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I believe this is exactly the kind of article WP:NOTNEWS perfectly encapsulates. Yes there are plenty of sources, but that's not the only consideration here. Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Very notable incident that was covered very substantially in reliable independent sources and remains significant and relevant in popular culture where it is has been discussed and satirized or years. There is no possible way the encyclopedia is improve by deleting it. A merge, maybe. But why? Need I remind everyone that every Olympic athlete and professional athlete is considered inherently notable? This is so far and away more important, interesting and informative than those articles that it's not even in the same galaxy for comparison. Not every article has to be on an "important" and "serious" subject. They just have to be on notable subjects which this clearly is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - With due respect, that does not follow. U.S. Presidents, like Olympic athletes are inherently notable and worthy of an article. Should the individual accomplishments of Olympic athletes be worthy of an article? .... that is, should there be Usain Bolt wins the Olympic 100 meters, Sergei Bubka pole vaults 20 feet, Jesse Owens wins 4 Olympic gold medals? The people are certainly notable ... no question ... but not every event of their lives, no matter the coverage is notable .... because each of those athletic events would certainly meet the needed coverage for an article .... but we don't write them because while the person is notable, they are smaller in the context of the entire career. I would easily argue that Jesse Owens' four gold medals in 1936 has much greater coverage and historic resonance than Mr. Bush's illness .... yet it is only part of the articles on Mr. Owens and the 1936 Summer Olympics. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Those bits don't need articles because they are already covered and exactly what the articles coverign those subjects are about. But certainly it would be wacko to delete content related to Jesse Owens winning 4 Olympic medals. If it were covered in a stand-alonse article (instead of the biography) we would definitely need to keep it. And it is just as silly to delete this very notable incident since it's not covered elsewhere. If you find a good merge target that's worth discussing, but deleting notable feats and events damages the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if it had happened to a celebrity and made headlines, it would fail WP:NOTNEWS. As it happened to the US President, it transcends into history Vartanza (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG. I'm impressed with David's reasoning in this and the parallel AfD on the Bush 41 barfing incident. Although they might seem on the surface to be similar kinds of incidents, throwing up on the Japanese Prime Minister in 1992 created an international and widely reported diplomatic incident and therefore should be kept (and I voted to keep there). But this pretzel incident was in private, did not have any serious repercussions and is therefore basically a footnote for Bush 43. Even if they both had the same news coverage, this one isn't sufficiently notable to have a separate article. Adding a mention to the main article on dubya would be sufficient, IMO. Note that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution apparently referred to it as "... a mere hiccup." If sufficient credible and reliable sources arise that make this significantly more notable and verifiable (ie - a stroke, TIA, or something else) than it seems now, then write a new article. But for now, delete per the thrust of the various delete arguments. We don't do WP:OR. — Becksguy (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is so beneath the definition of notable or news that it's absurd. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not amassing a journal of every temporal time slice that's ever been documented. There is still the wider web for that. The only reason this could possibly be notable is if a significant line of notable thought emerges that this was a coverup for something else, which is credible given what seem to be unanswered questions, but so far as I know pure speculation. (In that event, we would re-create an article with the new information, not keep this one until some imagined conspiracy theory congeals.) Choking on one's food while watching a game is simply not notable enough to deserve its own encyclopedia article, no matter who does it and no matter how many snarky hacks decide to recall the incident as if it were meaningful. The DeeDee Meyers quote is hilarious but "it's funny" isn't reason for an article. It does give some perspective though. Would this be an article if it were Prince Charles pretzel incident? How about Britney Spears pretzel incident? Achmadinejad pretzel incident? What about George Washington pretzel incident? Do I understand the justification to be that he is the president and it happened to him and people wrote about it and so it deserves an article? Nnnno. One of the most offensive arguments at Wikipedia is "If I can find something that just might squeak by as WP:RS—I get to make an article!" which is akin to "It's a meme! Jay Leno just quipped about it! Put it in an article!" This is topped only by the martyr-ish "I read it in a blog, sourced to an Op/Ed, so I'm adding it to/making an article even though I know it'll get deleted/AfDed, because now it's forever linked to the subject at Wikipedia through the article history/talk page archive". Increasingly for the last twenty or thirty years, people write about everything the president does, not because it's informing the public about what they need to know to carry out their own civic responsibilities in a democracy but because they have to fill time or come up with a scoop or just want to poke until they can deflate somebody; most of this does not deserve its own encyclopedia article. As to the other incidents to which it is compared, it seems the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident happened during a private moment, similar to the pretzel incident but without the bodily trauma or conspiracy theory, and would be notable only insofar as it would illustrate how the press distorts a story to fit their own larger storyline [Strong Delete or expansion for context]; the George H.W. Bush vomiting incident is somewhat similar although perhaps more notable because it happened in an international forum (again, people vomit when they have a virus; they generally don't vomit at the dinner table or on heads of state, but then, most other people are free to decline a dinner invitation when they're ill) [Weak Delete]; and the Shoe-throwing incident is notable as Bush was in that room to deliver a speech to the press and the thrower was a member of the press who went to jail for the incident—which was intended and not merely inferred to be representative, Bush brought a war and poorly-run military occupation upon the country and expected them to throw flowers, but instead they threw shoes [Strong Keep]. This has nothing to do with whether it's embarrassing, and I am not being partisan here. I have seen people want to delete mentions of legislation passed by a president. There are guidelines on limiting the chartings included in a musical artist discography. We need to maintain certain thresholds for what an encyclopedia shines a spotlight on by giving something its own article, and whether there are two reliable sources or two hundred, this article is neither encyclopedically notable nor useful. Abrazame (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the George Washington pretzel incident, it is a matter of unverifiable and unreliable record that he splintered his dentures while trying to eat a pretzel in 1793. Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh. Delete. I compare this (or I guess, contrast it) to George H.W. Bush vomiting incident (which I see is at AfD), an eminently notable incident with enough coverage to demand that it be spun out from the main article and enough breadth of coverage to do so without endangering our POV on the subject. Not so this particular incident. Protonk (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Undoubtedly trivia. Of course noteworthy people such as presidents are going to get coverage on many incidents, but it's not the job of an encyclopedia to document every possible incident that's been covered by the media. Textbook example of WP:NOT#NEWS. Spellcast (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG - not every presidential incident or footnote is worthy of a separate article, but the long-term effects are a good standard. Compare that to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George H.W. Bush vomiting incident, for which I have argued is notable. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Also, it is an interesting and noteworthy example and should be expanded to include an analysis and commentary from secondary sources on the White House Medical Unit in action responding to a notable medical patient. Cirt (talk) 14:00, 23 September 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 - however, following a request, I have no problem with a re-nomination here, as I was very close to deleting this for lack of reliable sources.Black Kite 21:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Should be deleted per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:V. The only evidence of mainstream attention for this website is a handful of news articles which cites Samuel Browning's work in debunking David "Race" Bannon. This incident is already mentioned in the Bannon article. My attempts to merge/redirect have been reverted. This article should be deleted and then a protected redirect to David "Race" Bannon created in its place.

The rest of the "citations" are crap, either primary sources to Bullshido itself, or references to other self-published, unreliable websites.

Note: If this discussion is overwhelmed by non-policy-compliant "votes" from Bullshido cultists, I will take it to Deletion Review. It's time to stop allowing policy to be outvoted by small, unrepresentative cliques. *** Crotalus *** 15:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This discussion was started after an undiscussed redirect without merge here and here --Nate^t/_c 08:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with a side-note that the nominator may wish to tone down the unnecessarily-strong wording of the nomination. Let's at least start off by assuming good faith on behalf of the participants. But I agree Wikipedia doesn't need this content.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bullshido is quite a notable organization within the martial arts community.Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is just another in a series of pointy nominations and other questionable behavior from the nom. bullshido is a big deal. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's such a big deal then how come there are no reliable secondary sources specifically focusing on it? The only reliable sources we have are a few newspaper articles highlighting Samuel Browning's role in debunking David Race Bannon. That rates a mention in the Bannon article — but why does it need its own article? *** Crotalus *** 14:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable sources are present and several other supporting sources that are acceptable but no as good, additional sourcing would be an improvement, but AfD is not for articles that need to be improved. The redirect suggested is a poor choice as the article includes minimal if any information on the site. --Nate^t/_c 08:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate^t/_c 08:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Nate^t/_c 08:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Could this possibly be merged with similar articles (Bullshido, McDojo, anything else?) to a new summary article? I'm thinking criticism of martial arts, although that title is a little misleading since it often isn't criticism of martial arts as a whole. Any better ideas? the wub "?!" 09:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see the benefit to merging Bullshido & McDojo under another title, I think merging Bullshido.net however would not be as useful, as while it investigates those areas and helped popularise the terms, it would imply they were the only people who did this kind of thing and tie the terms to the site too closely. --Nate^t/_c 11:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, as far as I can tell, this kind of talk is pretty much limited to the Bullshido cult. No reliable sources seem to have deemed any of this worthy of discussion. *** Crotalus *** 15:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you refering to the article or the editors? --Nate^t/_c 08:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• what is the bullshido cult? that sounds like a negative POV. is that why you are trying to get this deleted? because you think it's a cult and you dislike it? Theserialcomma (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep one of the most notable martial arts web sites, and has had a broader impact through fostering discussions on Ashida Kim, traditional martial arts training methods, etc. Once again, another nom. that feels like a WP:POINT violation. JJL (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The nominator is correct when s/he said that the references in the article are not nontrivial, independent reliable sources that specifically discuss Bullshido.net. I have analyzed and listed the sources in the article as of this revision:
  1. This article from Rocky Mountain News mentions Bullshido.net in passing. The only time this website is referenced in this article is: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years. He dismisses Bannon's story as tortured fiction." This does gives no context about Bullshido.net, save that it is a website and a man named Browning has posted on it to debunk another man's story.
  2. http://realbullshido.blogspot.com/ – Blogspot is not a reliable source. It is a collection of blogs that can be written by anyone who signs up.
  3. http://www.themartialist.com/bullshidofaq.htm is written by Phil Elmore, a man who has been attacked by Bullshido; Elmore writes "The Bullshido.com FAQ incorrectly describes Pax Baculum (and, I suppose, The Martialist and me) as somehow other than "up front about the evidence that exists today."" This is not an neutral article about Bullshido.net. Having read through the article, I have concluded that it is a attack on Bullshido.net. Furthermore and most importantly though, it has not been given the editorial oversight and fact-checking that reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, and journals) are given.
  4. http://web.petabox.bibalex.org/web/20060504091905/http://www.ashidakim.com/shitlist.html is the same as the fourth source. It was written by someone who has been attacked by Bullshido.net. It is a personal website by an individual called Ashida Kim (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)) has also not been given the editorial oversight and fact-checking that reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, and journals) are given.
  5. The reference that states that Bullshido.net is the "[s]eventh in Alexia category on last view" points to http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category. This link does not lead to anything about Bullshido.net.
  6. This article from Rocky Mountain News does not even mention Bullshido.net.
  7. This article from Interpol.com is the same as #6. It does not even mention Bullshido.net.
  8. http://ashidakim.com/10k.html is from the same source as #4. Not only is it an unreliable source, but it also doesn't even mention Bullshido.net.
  9. This article from The Believer (magazine) does not even mention Bullshido.net.
  10. http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=28Ashida – a link from Bullshido.net cannnot be a neutral, independent reliable source about itself.
  11. http://www.bullshido.org/Ashida_Kim – this is the same as #8.
  12. http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=160 – this is the same as #8.
  13. http://dojopress.com/catalogms2.html – This unreliable source is a catalogue for selling memberships. Even if it were reliable, it would not be a sufficient source because it doesn't mention Bullshido.net.

  I have done much research about this website and have been unable to find any sufficient reliable sources about it. My searches included trawling through several pages of Google results, Google News Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Yahoo!. If this site were truly notable as the above "keep" voters suggest, there should be sufficient sources about it. However, I have been unable to find any.

  I am opposed to the merge suggested above by the wub (talk · contribs). There are absolutely no reliable sources that discuss Bullshido.net. Even the passing mentions from reliable sources (see #1) do not provide enough context to justify a stub.

  I am also opposed to a redirect to David "Race" Bannon. A member of Bullshido.net may have posted information about Bannon, but that does not guarantee that the website should be mentioned in Bannon's article. Having searched through results (using the search term "Banno bullshido.net"), I have been unable to locate any reliable sources that indicate that Bullshido.net played major role in debunking Bannon's claims. The best source about Bullshido.net and Banno that I could find was this article from Rocky Mountain News. The article states: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years." This passing mention that provides little context does not justify a redirect or a merge.

  The above "keep" votes state that "Bullshido is quite a notable organization within the martial arts community" and "one of the most notable martial arts web sites", but I have been unable to uncover anything to substantiate their claims. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Samuel Browning is an admin of BS.net & put the information up there, the investigation supported and discussed in the supporting members forum. --Nate^t/_c 08:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be true, but I have been unable to uncover any reliable sources to substantiate the claim that Bullshido.net played a major role in the investigation of David "Race" Bannon. In fact, there are very few sources that discuss Samuel Browning and Bullshido.net in connection with David "Race" Bannon. Even if there were a valid source, Bullshido.net should not be merged or redirected to David "Race" Bannon. The article about Banning should be about himself; it should not discuss a website that is only tangential to his life. Thus, I believe that this article should be deleted because there are absolutely no reliable sources that provide nontrivial discussion about it. Cunard (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 13:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability. Stumbled here from torrentfreak on a recent news story.. This guy appears to have only ever done one thing. Resonanttoe (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a google search for "Austin Meyer" -"X-plane" finds no independent coverage about him (although there are lots of other Austin Meyers), showing a lack of independent notability. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Judo112 (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is questionable. Not much info about him related to what he developed. We know more about his personal life than his accomplishment... Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 16 September 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 Batgirl. No sure how it should be organized, but feel free to transfer necessary content at Batgirl. I will leave the sub-article with the merge tag on top and whether the merging is complet change the sub-article to a redirect JForget 13:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Batgirl (comic book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

No reason for separate sub-article. Already sufficiently covered in the (excellent) article: Batgirl. New page adds nothing - not sourced - not categorized. Just no reason for it to stay. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in the Batgirl article it only shows info on Cassandra Cain and practicaly has three sentances talking about Stephanie Brown. So how does it cover this new paragraph? --Schmeater (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I overstated it, but I think (in my view, anyhow) it follows from that the the information in the AfD article can easily be included within the primary article rather than its own sub-article. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Batgirl. I have raised concerns at Talk: Batgirl (comic book)#Needed? and more generally here, the emerging feel is that this seems unwise. I think the best bet is to collapse it back into the relevant section. Work on it there and if it seems to demonstrate independent notability then feel free to split it out. Bear in mind that this is the third Batgirl series and you can't just have an article on the most recent so you'll need to assemble resources for all three. Feel free to work on this on your sandbox if you want. (Emperor (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to batgirl Seems like a harmless article created by an editor who didn't know that we had a main article. Protonk (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like all the info in here added to the Batgirl article under Stephanie Brown if we are going to merge.--Schmeater (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made this article because I wanted there to be an article about everything in the aftermath of Battle for the Cowl, so if you do delete this article and merge it into Batgirl I would wan't everything at the bottom of the article. I have nothing to say about this article staying. --Schmeater (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information about the previous series and well I hope I've added enough.--Schmeater (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reason for the article to stay it is covered properly at the Batgirl article but that focus's too much on the person and not the comic. I wan't this article to focus on the series and not the person as much. --Schmeater (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Batgirl after a good sift. At least one section, "Oracle: The Cure", is not a comic book series titled "Batgirl" and is very out of place here. As for the rest... This almost feels like it wants to be an issue by issue plot summary dumping ground, some thing we don't need. As for porting all of this to Stephanie Brown (comics), I'd say "no". Almost all of it have zero to do with that character. - J Greb (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Batgirl--Amadscientist (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge: to Batgirl - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have my attention Merge To Batgirl so get on with it delete the article! --Schmeater (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 13:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner with Schmucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. Movie in pre-production, no cast set in concrete yet. Principal photography has not yet begun, obviously, so now is not the right time for creating this article. Delete without prejudice.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It'll just have to be created again. Airplaneman ^talk 19:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:NFF, we cannot keep an article for that reason alone. The rationale here is that we can't be sure the movie will ever get past the pre-production stage, as there are many seemingly major projects that don't. Such failures rarely become notable, and besides, we can't build an article on rumors as this one is. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice, once the cameras start rolling then it gets an article. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Darrenhusted. Lugnuts (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to soon for an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 13:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discryptor (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 notable software - article created purely to promote this commercial software product. Previously nominated via afd and deleted as spam. Further, this article is also confusingly named, as it's practically identical to DiskCryptor - a legitimate article with information on an open source program. Cupids wings (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I cannot find any notability, and it is unlikely that it has become notable since its last deletion. While there are plenty of Google hits, they are all for generic download sites. Haakon (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -not notable. The article has whole sections on different cyphers, which would be best moved (if they actually had any useful content not already present) to the relevant block cypher page - which would have the effect of reducing the Discryptor page to practically nothing. Nuwewsco (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Spam article with no actual content that couldn't be moved to a more appropriate place XFireRaidX (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 13:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Elise Avellan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm mainly nominating as per WP:NOTINHERITED. most coverage relates to the fact she is the niece of Robert Rodriguez [20]. I doubt she would have received this third party coverage if she wasn't a niece. so ignoring the fact that she is a niece of someone famous she fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Also nominating twin sister Elise Avellan. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both one role makes her a WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore, her bio on es.wiki has recently been deleted Ohconfucius (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both - Numerous 3rd party – independent – verifiable – creditable sources, as shown here [21], for the young ladies, independent of their Uncle. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

• Delete both - a single nameless role does not satisfy WP:ENT. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:09, 19 September 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 03:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Both with option to recreate once greater notability is established. Featured extra work on a single studio film doesn't qualify. Couldn't find much information on future roles to verify size or importance. Whitespider23 (talk) 04:52, 23 September 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 and salt. This article borders on being eligible for both A7 and G11, as the band makes no credible case for notability or significance, and couples it with some blatant promotion. ~ mazca ^talk 19:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User:Rossa mam keeps recreating this page (already been deleted 3 times under A7 Friday(Indie_Band_From_Indonesia) . He's now gone and created a different name for the page. I submit this Afd due to RECREATE AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - possibly even speedy. Doesn't make any case for notability, and has been recreated at least four times (I saw it created under another name as well). --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete this band is not notable, and has been speedy deleted in the past for the same reason. SALT possibly as well, due to constant recreation. Singularity42 (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 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. lifebaka++ 01:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rihanna songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

This list is redundant with the discography article and offers no sources. Any information not covered in the discography already, can probably be merged there easily. Nergaal (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only IPs have edited this page so I have no idea whom to notify. Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is made redundant by the discography and has no sources. Given that so many bands are more significant than Rihanna, the idea of endless articles listing their songs is the logical out come of keeping this.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• While you may be correct about the logical outcome, I fail to see why articles listing the songs of notable artists would be a problem. Rlendog (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is not redundant with the discography, since this lists all songs and the discography only lists a few songs. This may be redundant with a category of Rihanna songs, but even if it is the case it would not make this list unnecessary, since lists and categories serve different purposes per WP:CLN and WP:LIST. And, per WP:LSC, even the fact that most of the songs on the list are not notable enough for their own articles would not make this list inappropriate, since that is the purpose of the list. Rlendog (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We already have Rihanna discography and Category:Rihanna songs, so this list is redundant and pointless. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this list redundant with Rihanna discography when most songs are not included in the discography and don't belong in the discography? And why do you suggest Category:Rihanna songs makes this list redundant and pointless, when there is a guideline WP:CLN that says otherwise? Rlendog (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article serves a purpose, no other article serves that purpose, and it serves Wikipedia well to have it here. Just leave it be or improve it. There is no purpose to delete it. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers is a well established category, and based on this nom would have to be deleted. The article includes songs not featured on her albums - information that is not readily linked to anywhere else. _Met^ty 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 17:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. No references to support notability, but the linked website evokes notability. To be checked Rirunmot (talk) 21:07, 16 September 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. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metalhead (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 lacks accurate factual information, contains original research, lacks neautrality, contains statements that might be interpreted as personal opinions and encourages highly generalised and unverified stereotypes, some of them negative. For these reasons, I have marked it for deletion. Ngk44 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The term metalhead is a verifiable term used in modern English music conversation. Article is a {refimprove} article. Not an AfD. Fair Deal (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. The article may be bad and in sore need of a rewrite, but the topic of Metalhead is blatantly notable. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article certainly needs work (cleanup, refs), but doesn't need deletion. Random name (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my vote - I like the idea of renaming the page to "Heavy Metal subculture" with metalhead as a redirect. Random name (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant, conditional and weak Keep. As is the article is crap. Badly written, badly sourced, very POV and feeding on selected sterotypes in particular countries. Even the article name is a nonsense, I've been a metal fan for years and have never heard anyone described as a 'Metalhead'. However, I think a single page on the Heavy Metal subculture is notable and has value, but it should be called somthing encyclopedic with a mention that 'Metalhead' is a collquialism used in certain places. It would then need masses of cleanup. On the basis that deletion is not cleanup, I vote a very weak keep, but I strongly doubt anyone will actually do the work in which case I'm very tempted to say lose it.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting - people keep saying that this page is poorly cited PoV. While there is definitely some PoV in it, it probably has more cites in it than I would have expected. It's possible that the cites need more context, particularly in terms of locales, but a good part of the stuff in this article is indeed cited. Random name (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The first six cites, which support the first two paragraphs, are all from the same book and I suspect are parroting that books POV. The parpagraph 'Authenticity' is well cited, but a rather peculiar tangent for such focus. the rest of the article is totally uncited. I particular like the sentance A list of metalhead interests lines up well with the song topics and lyrical content used by metal bands. The interests vary by subgenre, but in general they include horror films, Science fiction, occultism, swords and sorcery-oriented fantasy, European and US history, blood and gore imagery, swords, knives, and firearms, religion, tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption and last but not least death; the act of killing,emotions associated with, and sometimes even the glorification of it. Which is a ludicrously broad statement especialy when its totally uncited.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lose. I Agree. The article should be named "Metal Subculture" with Metalhead listed as a slang term used to refer to members of the specific social group. That way, the article could be expanded to list and explain the many different types of metal culture (e.g. Goths, folk metal, mainstream metal...) rather than generalising fans of metal under one set stereotype as this article does. However, as I doubt anyone will actually bother to clean up this article, I vote lose it.

I'd be wary of overexpanding the scope of this article; heavy metal as a "subculture" can be said to have some defining characteristics (at least in the context of a given time period and location), but subgroups may be pushing it too far. Random name (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wether you like it or not, the term exists. End. Iaberis (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lots of terms exist, that doesn't mean they are notable enough for a wikipedia article because wikipedia is not a dictionary. All this argument support is having a redirect. Besides, if the notabillity criteria is just about the term existing the article can be trimmed right down to a very brief description of the history and usage of the term, rather than the current sprawling mess that is addressing various random facts about the heavy metal scene, all under a label which is not really encyclopedic and only applies to certain parts of the world.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Interesting to note that the only one of the cites that appears to use the phrase 'Metalheads' is a book with that as the title. All the others seem to use phrases like 'Heavy Metal Fans', which is what I'd expect to be honest.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• From my personal knowledge, "metalhead" was certainly a current and widely-used term in the late 1980s/early 1990s in the United Kingdom. Google searches tell me it doesn't have much currency in the internet age, but that doesn't mean it isn't a plausible search term for someone of my generation. (Damn, I feel old.)

  I think what we have here is a plausible search term but a non-notable subject, so "metalhead" should be a redirect to somewhere. I'd recommend redirect to Heavy metal music until such time as we have a decent article on heavy metal subculture.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment my experience is more the 90's in the UK. Don't recall 'metalheads', but phrases like 'metaler' or 'rocker' were common, as was 'mosher' or 'headbanger'. I recall 'rivethead' as well. Of course you also had the 'thrashers', 'glammies', 'grebos', etc, which kinda underlines how daft it is to refer to such a wide genre as one particular colloquial phrase. It would be like putting all of goth sub culture under 'spookykid' :o) --ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US we call them metalheads or, less frequently, headbangers.Yilloslime ^T_C 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that's universal accross the whole US. My wife is American and used to work in music industry, including Gutiar Player magazine, and she doesn't consider this to be the main phrase used to describe heavy metal fans. I'm not saying it isn't used, but it quite clearly isn't the only, or even majority, term. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article needs a clean, not a deletion. _Met^ty 17:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Heavy metal music per S Marshall. The term isn't that notable, and most of the article is either unsourced or a summary of another, main article. It seems a bit redundant to me to identify this one verbal element of the heavy metal subculture and elevate it to article status; whatever is notable about the metalhead is there because a metalhead is part of the heavy metal culture. That the term exists is a good thing but doesn't warrant an article. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• PS, S Marshall, if you have The Eagle Has Landed at hand, burn me a copy please! Drmies (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A metalhead is a person, so it seems misguided and inappropriate to redirect on page about a type of person to an article on a type of music. Heavy metal music, metalheads, and heavy metal subculture are 3 different (albeit related) topics, so they're best treated in separate articles. Yes, metalhead could be written, and maybe it would better to rename the page "headbanger" or "heavy metal enthusiast" or something like that, but redirecting to heavy metal music seems like an easy step in the wrong direction. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A metalhead is a fan of heavy metal music. I'm sure you are not calling me misguided, and I don't see what's inappropriate about proposing a merge from the fan-article to the larger article on the subject of which they are a fan--and "metalhead" simply has very little status as a subject in serious publications. The term is mentioned plenty, but where are the reliable sources that actually discuss the entity without constant reference to the heavy metal scene/music? It's easy to imagine hooligans (easily independently notable) not watching the game because they are too busy, but a metalhead who goes to the show and doesn't care about listening to the band? Drmies (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I hadn't noticed the subculture section in Heavy Metal. So long as the article isn't too long for merging, I'd say a merge probably makes sense. Random name (talk) 09:45, 18 September 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. NW (Talk) 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson Live in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

No Source Mclarenaustralia (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unofficial DVD of poor quality. Frankyboy5 (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw it a few days ago in some stores. I don't know if the quality of that is not enought for being a DVD Aguilac (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While this appears to be a legal release (music royalties probably cleared since it's in the mass market), it is made of poor quality amateur video footage. Coupled with the fact that it's by no means official discography, let alone not being officially licensed Jackson merchandise of any other sort, it does not pass notability. Imperatore (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The quality may or may not be poor (and actually, it's not "amateur", but taken from a TV broadcast), but either way it doesn't matter. Being official, or "licensed merchandise" is irrelevant. It's available. It is also very notable- along with Nirvana live at Reading, it is one of the most famous bootlegs of recent years. See also Bootleg recording#Commercially_released_bootlegs or The Beatles bootleg recordings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.157 (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep - It can't be a bootleg, since it is being sold on numerous legitimate sites, including Amazon.[22] As a non-bootleg DVD release by an extremely notable artist, I have to believe that this is notable (basically applying the WP:NALBUMS criteria). And it gets numerous Google hits, albeit many (though not all) are commercial sites (but that gets to the first point). While the quality may be poor, that in itself does not mean that the DVD is non-notbale. I can be convinced that this is not notable, but none of the delete !votes so far do so. Rlendog (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe as a article, it should be deleted (seeing as how there isn't much information abut it anyway). As a non-label, non-artist sanctioned bootleg release, it should be deleted. (There are hundreds of bootleg MJ tour DVDs out there, but it's unknown why this one has receeved so much attention). However, IMO, I would AT LEAST give it a mention on the Bad World Tour page. MaJic (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The statement "it's unknown why this one has receeved so much attention" seems to acknowledge that this particular DVD (I suspect that it isn't a bootleg for the reasons above) has received a particularly large amount of attention, which would seem to argue in favor of its notability. Even if it is a bootleg, per WP:NALBUMS, bootlegs are not automatically non-notable and thus deletable. Rlendog (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "unknown why this one has receeved so much attention"?? The attention is because it's taken from a Jackson-authorized TV broadcast, and as such, some versions are of exceptionally good picture quality, thus setting it apart from other bootlegs. The amount of interest has lead to many versions of the concert surfacing: Highline, Crane Crew, Hudson Street, an Italian company, a British company, a Dutch company, a Chinese company, several fan-remastered versions... It's also notable because it was a good performance, and from a historic and record-breaking tour. I find it hard to find examples of other bootlegs that are as worthy of keeping.

• • Just to reiterate some ideas, this would probably classify as a grey market release- not quite a bootleg. The music may or not by cleared with the music publishers, but either way it is by no means licensed merchandise, and is therefore surely not fully legal. Furthermore, the argument that because something appears on Amazon it cannot be at bootleg is ridiculous. Imperatore (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's as maybe, but if anything, the fact that it's a bootleg that's actually on Amazon could arguably point towards notability. In addition, this proves that although it's been a standard and essential purchase for any Jackson fan in the last 5-10 years, this recording has now moved beyond that, to a status where it's now viable financially for bootleggers to mass-produce it and sell to the general public.
      • I agree with above rebuttal. Imperatore (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, no encyclopaedic value New seeker (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it not notable? Rlendog (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Erroneously nominated; sourced as notable per Rlendog. Irrelevant and even self-contradicting (MaJic, as pointed out by Rlendog) assertions for deletion (in Newseeker's case, a WP:VAGUEWAVE). Please note Imperatore's comment against argument for deletion, given away from the usual place at the margin. Anarchangel (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet the wikipedia definition of notability in that no sources available meet WP:RS criteria. No reliable source is cited in the article - only fansites, web-retailers, and youtube. I own a copy of this disc and I must say it is most certainly a bootleg - it is copied from a VHS recording of a TV broadcast from the late 80s - many versions of the disc include some of the original Japanese commericals between songs, and most all versions have a Japanese Pepsi commerical before the song "Bad". WP:NALBUMS states that bootlegs are "in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources" - seeing as how the subject is both a bootleg and not adequately covered by reliable sources I think deletion is the clear answer. Solid State Survivor (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 13:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Heggarty (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 WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 10:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 18:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 18:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The murder has been referred to as one of the most "notorious" crimes in Cardiff and the south of Wales[23][24] and the perp was one of a relatively small number to receive a whole life tariff, however, the nom is correct in this case in that there has been no widespread or lasting coverage of the perp or the event. Location (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. This has a slightly better claim than the standard WP:NOTNEWS case, but I don't think we should be giving Wikipedia pages to the top 50 most brutal and imprisonable murderers. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems a pretty clear BLP1E. Not a biography, not an encyclopedia article, really. --Stormie (talk) 06:49, 17 September 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 Pulmonary embolism. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

One of numerous sets of criteria for the diagnosis or exclusion of pulmonary embolism. No evidence of widespread use. Not individually notable. JFW | T@lk 23:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This discussion was not added to a log page but I've listed it now. (see discussion here). ascidian | talk-to-me 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite: PubMed comes up with four different resources [25] and some of the first 80 hits on Google seem more than promising. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 21:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Stub and merge to Pulmonary embolism#Diagnosis. This isn't really suitable for a separate page, but it has been talked about enough in medical circles to warrant including briefly in the main article. Fences&Windows 23:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove copyvio text from here, merge to Pulmonary embolism#Diagnosis, award article a prize for its stunningly unwieldy title.  pablo_hablo. 10:18, 15 September 2009

It's all about the acronyms in medicine... PERC. Snappy. Fences&Windows 00:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 13:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm concerned about the notability of this article. A quick google of "Radical Extreme (novel)" brought up nothing. Airplaneman ^talk 16:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The book is not listed in WorldCat; Amazon has it as an e-book, [26] The publisher is apparently a vanity publisher [27] -- apparently a new vanity publisher, for it is their only book. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DGG's investigation. --Stormie (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. DGG seems to have done his homework. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:41, 21 September 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.