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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New Thing (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 based entirely on original research. One source links to a blog. The other links to Last.FM which is nothing more than a glorified blog that anyone can edit. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Even with the sources given, the phrase "the new thing" proves vague. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; given the lack of sources, article appears to be entirely original research. Delete per WP:OR. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. prime example of Wikipedia:By your own bootstraps (well, we SHOULD have this as a policy)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely unreliable sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 30 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Party (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 is poorly written and short. AppaAliApsa (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:RS and WP:OR..South Bay (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G1 (patent nonsense), A1 (no context) and A3 (no content). Also as above fails WP:N (does not establish notability, and may well be WP:OR (original research). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that this was the original location of Satellite Party (band), which should probably be moved back if this is deleted. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:14, 30 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Electronics and Tele-Communication Engineering (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 do not see any indication that this particular department is notable & I can find no sources to that effect--few individual academic departments are. The information given here would indicate average importance only, not notability,e.g. "Several students who have passed out successfully of this department are holding important positions " DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.Blargh29 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 09:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence that this department is held out for special distinction. -- Whpq (talk) 12:58, 30 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 redirect to Proprietary software. Non-admin closure.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  15:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed source software (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 is original research. 'Closed source software' is the same as 'Proprietary software'. Verification of claims was requested 18 months ago, but no refs were provided. Lester 23:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Proprietary software they are the same. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge, this is a widely used term. "Closed source" is not exactly the same as proprietary software, since proprietary software can have the source available (thus, it is not "closed source") SF007 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment: The term Open source software and the Open Source Definition is not only about the code being viewable or downloadable. It's about the code being "open" for users "to use, change, and improve the software, and to redistribute it in modified or unmodified forms." The opposite of that is proprietary. If you open your software for others to modify and use as they please, you are by definition relinquishing your proprietary claim on it.--Lester 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Proprietary software since the former came into usage in a way similar to non-free software. "Closed source" is just shorthand to say not "Open-source" as "non-free" is shorthand for not "free software". Of course, there is no article for non-free software. It correctly redirects to proprietary software. --Ashawley (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to proprietary software as per Ashawley above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to proprietary software as per above. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect As the editor who listed this AfD, I just wanted to say that I support the idea proposed by the editors above, to redirect it to proprietary software.--Lester 06:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemu64 (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 does not assert any sort of notability. The details are extremely trivial and the most the article can be is an advertisement for the program (though it's a free program). Basic details can be listed at List of video game console emulators. TTN (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per A7 - article does not assert notability. Failing that, delete per WP:N - the article does not establish notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (A7) no notability is asserted here. Or just do it the slow and painful way, if we must. JBsupreme (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unless it is going by the wrong name, there are no reliable sources. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:11, 29 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. WP:V is core policy; if the existence of a novel cannot be verified, it has no place in Wikipedia. The "keep" comments do not address this problem and are discounted in this closure.  Sandstein  05:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X-COM: UFO Defense (Russian novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability for this Russian-only novel is quite weak. Remurmur (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. --  pablo_hablo. 10:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is, yes. What ways have you used to check whether the article can be improved, and do any come to mind that we could still try? Have you contacted Russian-speakers on the project? --Kizor 22:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The fact that it is Russian is not grounds for deletion. That said, someone who can read Russian might want to check this link. I can't tell which sites are reliable. SharkD (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the fact that it's Russian that's the problem; it's that it's a novelization, which are rather non-notable by default. For consideration, note that we have no articles for the eight StarCraft novels (they were merged into StarCraft (series)).--Remurmur (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Being a novelization also does not make something non-notable "by default". Please reread WP:RS. SharkD (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per weak rationale. Nominator's responses have proven that no research was done on the novelization, and

WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not grounds for deletion. Vodello (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Because there's no research to do. I can't find anything that's not Wikipedia-derived from web searches and the "novel" was written by an internet-based Russian fan fiction writer. I don't even think the blasted thing was ever published.--Remurmur (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with UFO:Enemy Unknown, or with X-COM. And delete all the plot/differences from the game minutiae, it's overly detailed and non-notable. To address comments above: the notability of this novel is not established within the article, and it therefore fails WP:N - and more importantly, WP:BK, which asks for a significantly higher standard of notability. The information in the article might, however, be of interest to those researching the specific game the novel is based on or the franchise as a whole and therefore may have a place on those pre-existing pages. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find nothing resembling a reliable source for this, WP:V isn't satisfied let alone WP:N. No prejudice against reinstatement if it can be sources, but I can't support a merge as there's no sources to verify it, it's not clear if this is even an ordinary novel or a work of fan fiction, if it's the latter then there would be zero need to mention it unless it was notable. Someoneanother 01:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The fact that it is Russian is not grounds for deletion. Ret.Prof (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the grounds of verifiability. ISBN? Publisher? Vladimir Vasilyev is a fan fiction writer, so was this perhaps self-published? The bulk of the article, a comparison between the story and the game, appears to be original research. Find a reliable citation, and perhaps the novel can be mentioned in the UFO: Enemy Unknown article itself. Marasmusine (talk) 11:54, 5 October 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. Arguments for speedy deletion disregarded as going directly against policy and established practice. decltype (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested Prod, original Prod reasoning Non-notable software. Source checks show it appears as mere indexes in directories of software. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Nominating here after looking for reliable sources that discuss the software and not finding any. No indication this is notable software. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I originally searched and could not find good coverage of this. Miami33139 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I searched for sources when this was mentioned in an AFD. I couldn't find significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Speedy delete per A7 - article does not assert notability. Failing that, it fails WP:N - notability is not established within the article text. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (A7) -- nothing in the way of notability is asserted here. JBsupreme (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• not speedy as it's a computer program, which is specifically excluded from A7. Please check WP:CSD, and it's tak p. for discussions explaining why these sorts of things are not included. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep has 28 google scholar hits and 23 google book hits--UltraMagnus (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We want sources about LabPlot, not papers that say "I used LabPlot to crunch some numbers." Can you identify which of these Google hits actually counts as a reference about LabPlot so the rest of us do not have to mine through an unrefined search? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miami33139 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2009
• Keep WP:N states that peer recognition is one indication of notability. If Miamia33139 acknowledges the existence of this recognition (in the form of dozens of citations), then this article should be kept. Note: I have not actually hunted for sources about this. I suspect they exist. But our policy does not say that they must exist to keep this. --Karnesky (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Karnesky (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand, numerous sources, software is actively used, print media coverage. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It wouldn't be mentioned in that many books, if it wasn't notable. Dream Focus 03:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Peer recognition is obvious. Sources indicating such recognition exist. As such, it is notable by all standards. Notability guidelines have to be interpreted with reasonable WP:COMMONSENSE: not covering a largely peer-recognized software is a hole in our coverage. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 10:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets the notability requirement. It has multiple sources on google books.  Burningview  ✉ 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the Google books hits discuss this software package. Some of them seem to mention the software because they are software catalogs. A catalog does not establish notability. The Western Educational Computing Conference book says that students in a course were introduced to the software package during the course, again no notability. There are a few books that are about GIS, the reference to Labplot in these all seem to be a filename, no discussion about the software package at all. The other books don't appear to be any help either. The Google scholar hits are not any help either. Most of them appear to be some one did research and used the software package to present the info, this does not establish notability. If I am missing something let me know which hits establish notability so we can work them into the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep widespread use is one indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 5 October 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) 00:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of individual notability, he has co-produced films with Diablo Cody but there is little evidence of what he has done, other than put his name to productions. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is an officially credited producer for Juno and was nominated for the Producers Guild of America and Academy Award for Best Picture and and won the Independent Spirit Award for Best Film. I'm not always clear on what various producers do, but could verify the awards and nominations, by which makes him notable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you have no idea of what he actually did or does then how can he meet the GNG? Other than a suggestion to Diablo Cody to write a screenplay there is no evidence that he has actually done anything. There are a number of times when a producer is named on an award as a favour rather than a testament to anything they did. With no clear idea of what he has done (most sources only mention his name in passing) then how is he notable? Notability is not inherited. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren you are sadly confused and your statement is silly and wrong. It was long ago decided (see Don Murphy vs Wikipedia and teh world) that producers are noteworthy and deserving of their own article. I see you edited Don Murphy today saying there was no such film even though, oddly, THE CITATION SAYS THERE WAS. You need a time out young husted ItsWhatYouKnow (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)— ItsWhatYouKnow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Take a step back, did you even look at what I took out? Torso (2009 film) leads to a redirect that goes to a non-existent section link on David Fincher's article. So I suggest, "ItsWhatYouKnow" that you go make a contribution before addressing me. And as for "producers are notable", since when did we ignore the WP:GNG for a blanket inclusion of anyone whose name gets listed under the word "producer". Don Murphy does not make Mason Novick notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You take a step back- you are opening up a situation that has been handled before. Don Murphy is never listed alone as a producer. Don Murphy hasn't won any awards. Don Murphy has asked to be let out of the Wiki. Yet he has lost multiple AFDs because Producers are held to be notable. So you are WRONG, dangerously so when you say Don Murphy does not make Mason Novick notable. Notice NO ONE agrees with you? ItsWhatYouKnow (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each article is measured on its own merits, and that one person is notable has nothing to do with another person being notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple MAJOR award-winning film producer. Article needs expansion, not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Major award winner and nominee, how he could possibly be considered non-notable is beyond me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Academy Award nominated producer. There's really no higher way of demonstrating that a given Hollywood producer is considered notable by his peers. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Receiving an Oscar nomination for Best Picture is a sure sign that a person is notable as a movie producer. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Keep wildly inappropriate nomination (& in fact, it had prev. been nom. for a speedy!). Not all producers are notable, but this one certainly is. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 29 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Energy Insights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Second nomination. Article has not improved since last AfD 6 months ago. Non-notable journal, seems to be more of a blog nowadays (what exactly is not clear from their website). Article misses all of the criteria of WP:Notability (Academic Journals). Even if this is not regarded as an academic journal, it misses all of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals. The article lists 2 other articles that have cited this journal, which is far from being sufficient to satisfy either of the 2 notability guidelines cited above. Delete. Crusio (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete - the cited sources do not, as far as I can tell, support the claims that they are cited for, which leaves the article completely failing WP:N. Even were the sources to contain the information claimed, I'm not sure that the fact the publication has been mentioned in two separate places constitutes significant discussion of it by its peers - it would still fail WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not even in Ulrich's, a very basic criterion. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. --Crusio (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG; also, very few Ghits at Google scholar [1]. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 6 October 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. I suggest that a renomination or merger should be considered if and as soon as it is clear that the debates won't happen.  Sandstein  05:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom general election debates, 2009-2010 (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 is incredibly premature and is predominantly conjecture. Gordon Brown is reported to be considering these debates, and even if he agrees to the idea there is no assurance they will take place at all or in the manner described. I42 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the Prime Minister is going to announce this in his conference speech and David Cameron has been calling for a leaders debate for years now. Also, Sky News has said it will hold a debate 'with or without Gordon Brown' (Cameron and Clegg have already agreed to take part). I feel the likelihood of these debates passes the threshold needed to have an article. --Philip Stevens (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is quite possible that events will pan out as you predict - indeed, by the time this AfD comes to an end the situation may be much clearer. But as of now your article makes assertions which simply cannot be made. There is no rush - the article can be created when the facts are known. I42 (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Gordon Brown did not say he would do the debate during the conference speech. When questioned, he said he has made up his mind, but will say what his decision is at an appropriate time. HonouraryMix (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, the BBC is now reporting that Gordon Brown is saying it is not the "right time" for an announcement. This, IMO, should certainly see the article deleted but does not affect my deletion rationale - there should never have been this speculation in the first place. I42 (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It's very difficult for a future event that may or may not take place to be notable; this article is premature and can be recreated (at the earliest) when the possibility of their future existence has some real and notable effect on the socio-political landscape. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Postpone Debate There is a good change that this will be confirmed or rejected This week it would make more sense to have this debate after the Labour Conference. Otherwise Keep; there is enough media debate raging to source an article on the positions of the parties on whether to have one or not. --Nate^t/_c 12:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy until we know one way or the other. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BBC, ITV and Sky are now well in the process of making arrangements for this. Should these debates not go ahead, the fact that arrangements were advanced this far will be notable in itself. (Possibly something to merge, but choices between keep and merge aren't really AfD material.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the same reasoning, David Cameron's first year in office, 2010-11 would be acceptable - it's a well discussed possibility, after all. But still something which cannot be predicted with certainty. Discussion of that eventuality may well belong in WP, but not in that form. Same for this article. I42 (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election until the event is confirmed. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Author's rationale that Brown would say during the latest Labour conference that he would participate has not come to pass. If and when the Prime Minister agrees, I'll be the first person to call for this to be kept. For the time being, though, there are too many question marks over the whole thing. HonouraryMix (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the verifiable information about it to Next United Kingdom general election. If they happen and become too much for that article, then it can be spun out as a standalone article again. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Update, the Prime Minister has agreed "in principle" to take part in TV debates.[2] --Philip Stevens (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Aardsma (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 actress/former beauty queen. Has entered national beauty pageants but not won. some minor TV roles, including a bit part on CSI, but does not pass notability guidelines. practically unreferenced BLP Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - any of Ms Aardsma's previous work or appearances could be notable; the article would merely need to find significant secondary-source discussion of them, and establish how those appearances have had some impact on our cultural landscape. That doesn't appear in the article at present though, so it fails WP:N as non-notable. If changes are made to this aspect of the article I'm prepared to reconsider my vote. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -meets requirements, need expansion. Himalayan 11:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think winning the Miss Colorado Teen USA title passes the test for notability. If I'm wrong, then there's a list with a lot of redlinks which needs to thorough vetting. -- llywrch (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:ANYBIO #1... needs some real ref work / improvement, but appears to pass notability concerns... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:17, 29 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. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Clearly a non neutral website therefore breaches WP terms for inclusion of a web site. Is also a "bedroom" campaign and it has had no significant impact and is unlikely to have therefore it is not qualified as a full article. It should have at best a one line entry into the Al Megrahi release article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudSurferUK (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - ah, the website may not be neutral but the article is. Notability is asserted and is supported by appropriate references. Crafty (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) That's no reason for deletion, WP:NPOV doesn't extend to topics not being allowed to be non-neutral. They are what they are. As long as the reliable sources discussing the topic are neutral, and the discussion is significant enough, it should be included in the encyclopedia.
  However, I'm not really sure that page has the long-term notability that I'm looking for. A merge into Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi could be considered, but for other reasons than in the nomination. Amalthea 21:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not satisfied that the article is neutral. The boycott has received significant coverage in the UK, much of it derisive. Some coverage of those objections would be required for neutrality however this is fixable and not a reason to delete. I am also inclined to support a merge, as suggested by Amalthea, for two reasons:

1. It ties the boycott to the thing it is protesting about, distinguishing it from people boycotting Scotland for other reasons. Given that people are always boycotting something or other, this might be beneficial. Next week there might be a completely different "Boycott Scotland" campaign complaining about cruelty to haggis, or something.
2. While the website is notable, given the Telegraph coverage, I am not 100% convinced that this anonymous website is necessarily the true epicentre of the boycott campaign. The boycott needs to be covered more generally.

My second choice after "merge" would be "keep". --DanielRigal (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my second choice of "keep". I don't think there is enough for an article although I still think it is notable enough to be merged provided it is covered in a more neutral way. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The fact that there is a move to boycott Scotland is notable. The fact that there is a website which is not even mentioned in half of the links on the page it is purported to be about shows no notability of the website. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added seven links: The Wall Street Journal, The Times, CNN, The Telegraph, Irish Examiner, Voice of Russia, The Herald, all mentioning the website and the boycott. The Ghost Army (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I feel that the article name is in some way not NPOV but I can't immediately think of an improvement ("2009 Boycott of Scotland?"). I would also support a merge into one of the articles surrounding the Pan Am bombing and the prisoner in question. Merge into Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi - the article content is notable but not capable of sustaining its own page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. There are more than enough sources available online to warrant its own article. Equal Progress (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is timely and it is a current event surrounding the release of Al Megrahi. Was the article "Freedom Fries" deleted in 2003 just because a couple of Frenchmen took offense? No it was not. Likewise, the American people are boycotting Scotland. Therefore, the event is significant enough to be encyclopedic as it has been reported in the global media around the world. The article should be kept. --Yoganate79 (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is written in NPOV obviously and well balanced. Likewise, the term Boycott Scotland is well known in both the United States and Scotland. For those who think the article should be deleted, by that token, the article Freedom Fries and Cheese-eating surrender monkeys should be deleted too since the term went out of favour in the mid 2000s. Like a previous poster said, this is a timely topic. We can only surmise at this point in time whether or not the boycott will be lasting or not hold. Until then, all talk of deletion is premature. I'd give it six months to a year until tangible results can be seen in the effectiveness of the boycott. If ineffective, then I would give it consideration at that time to delete or merge into the Release of Al Megrahi article. --Yoganate79 (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Articles are supposed to appear on Wikipedia after they become notable, not before. See WP:CRYSTAL. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is about a website that is obviously notable (the website itself lists news articles about it at http://www.boycottscotland.com/campaign.html as well as through a regular Google news search) and as the principal author of this article, I tried my best to keep it neutral. Despite that, the user nominating for deletion (CloudSurferUK) has made personal attacks and baseless accusations against me simply because I oppose the inclusion of a non-notable and non-neutral pro-conspiracy website on the external links for Pan Am Flight 103, which makes this deletion attempt a revenge response. The article as it stands is very neutral and balanced, with plenty of room for additional expansion, though hopefully it won't turn into a mess because some people are biased in favor or against. Equal Progress (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is also clear that it is about a particular website, which fulfills the Wikipedia notability requirements given the extensive news coverage of the website itself in the London Times, Telegraph, CNN, Le Figaro, and more (all of which is easily found through a simple Google search). Equal Progress (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The press coverage has been laughable, the campaign is a non-notable "bedroom" campaign, It has little to no following, the owner has been mailing its few subscribers to keep it on Wikipedia, It shows clear bias, has no basis in fact and has no real support from any serious body. It also makes no mention of the fact that the majority of press coverage has been derogatory.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudSurferUK (talk • contribs) 09:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to stop making baseless accusations against other Wikipedia editors and maintain a civil tone per WP:NPA. Equal Progress (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a personal attack against an editor here? Pointing out off-site canvassing is relevant, but of course will have to be backed up by forwarding such an e-mail to the closing admin if requested, and if it becomes evident here. Amalthea 11:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Accusing other editors of off-site canvassing without evidence is abusive, among the other accusations CloudSurfer has made on this page and at Talk:Pan Am Flight 103. Equal Progress (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • CloudSurferUK - your passion is appreciated - please see WP:POLE. At the moment the article features multiple citations from sources generally held to be both significant and reliable. If you feel the article doesn't represent the full story, please introduce additional citations supporting your assertions above. It's through the inclusion of multiple dissenting viewpoints that we make Wikipedia better, not through their mutual non-inclusion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with a small merge into megrahi release article but this is not worthy of its own article. I will be more than happy to supply an email backing up claims of off-site canvassing, in fact I could publish it and link to it from the Boycott Scotland Page. Nick Harding (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above user is CloudSurferUK. If you have any emails backing up your allegations, you would need to forward a complete copy of the email with headers to a Wikipedia administrator so that they can examine its authenticity. Equal Progress (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Harding /Cloud Surfer, please see WP:Anything to declare? Thank you. The Ghost Army (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I am CloudSurferUK and this not a multiple account its called setting Signature preferences in my account! So no, nothing to declare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudSurferUK (talk • contribs) 12:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The coverage by various significant international media outlets would seem to indicate that the website "Boycott Scotland" was notable and newsworthy in and of itself. Whether the coverage was in support of the website or against it shouldn't determine the importance of the article. As matter of fact, considering the amount of debate in evidence on the internet, and in the media, solely devoted to the website itself, as well as the coverage of the 'real world' effects it has had thus far, I would not support merging it with another article, since it is important enough to retain as an article unto itself.The Ghost Army (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. There has been quite a lot of coverage of this website, but all of the coverage is tied up with a single event, and I can't see the coverage continuing once the backlash to the release has died down. I don't see any problem with the neutrality issue though. If merging is not an option, my preference would be to keep. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At most, this rates a mention in the article about the release of the Pan Am bomber. Calling for a boycott is not significant. If a boycott makes a noticeable difference (and most of them never do) that's significant. In the news now, but it won't be noticed a couple of weeks from now. At most, it will be summed up in an almanac in one sentence "There were protests, and including calls for products of Scotland to be boycotted". Yawn, boring, not encyclopedic, move on. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It apparently made enough of a difference to get officials in the Scottish government to respond to it, not to mention all the international coverage and additional political fall out. That's more than significant for it to have its own article. The sources can't be ignored. Equal Progress (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Alex Salmond responded by calling it an "online rant" hardly a notable response, its not like it was debated in parliment!, and scottish business have seen no effect, nor do they expect any, It also has not been in the news since. As Mandsford said, it will be forgotten about in a few months anyway. It's worthy as a merge into megrahi release article, nothing more. CloudSurferUK (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I very much doubt it will be forgotten when the events of the entire year are summed up, considering it was among the most visible and notable reactions of Americans to the release of the prisoner. If one wanted to describe the reactions of Americans to the release, one would first and foremost have to mention the boycott. Actually, it received more media coverage than the reactions of some American politicians. I also think it will be considered notable in Scotland's retelling of the events surrounding the release, since the boycott outraged so many Scottish people, and they spoke out against it frequently, and at length, in comments to newspapers, on forums, in blogs, and in articles in the media. To delete the article is also to delete their response to the boycott. I think it has the significance to merit its own article since it has been written about as an event in itself. As well, we can't yet know the further ramifications of the event. The Ghost Army (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Mandsford. At best it could be merged to Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi as a one liner. It's only significant if it can be shown to have been successful in some way. I wonder how many websites there are calling for the boycotting of Israel/US/UK/Denmark etc. etc. Ben MacDui 17:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles normally appear in Wikipedia after the ramifications are known, not before. See WP:CRYSTAL. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris, yes, that's true, however in this instance the article is about a website so ramifications are, as the nature of the internet dictates, ensuing and ongoing, as well as being known. The only foreseeable end to future ramifications is if the website is taken down. If this article is removed so, too, should the article about the release of the Lockerbie bomber, since future ramifications of this action are also still unknown as well. The Ghost Army (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-encyclopeadic content that is selective and partisan.

Bomberharris (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC) — Bomberharris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closing admin: Bomberharris only has a few edits. Equal Progress (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Bomberharris has only a few edits is not relevant to the argument. Boycott Scotland should feature as (at best) an inclusion into the megrahi release. Whilst it has found favour with a few americans, it has had alot of negative publicity in the UK and rest of the world. and when its all said and done, it is, and always will be a "bedroom" campaign so how can that be worthy of a full article on Wikipedia? CloudSurferUK (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bomberharris, it isn't a selective and partisan article. Five different editors have been discussing it on the discussion page and are very conscious of the fact that the article must remain entirely neutral.If you have material that you feel would make it more balanced, please do feel free to add it to the article. The Ghost Army (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is a neutrality problem here. The campaign has had a lot of negative attention in the UK and none of the obvious objections to such a silly campaign are included. Of course, this is curable and not a reason to delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, your point is taken. If you could offer links to some negative media coverage that could be added into the article it would be very much appreciated. I have looked but have so far only found opinion-based blogs and the like. Thanks! 76.69.90.43 (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Media coverage of AfD debate - Y'all have seen this? Telegraph - Wikipedia: 20 articles earmarked for deletion Welcome to the least exciting five minutes of fame ever. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite good coverage. It captures the flavour of what we do on AfD well without getting readers bogged down in understanding our detailed policies. It doesn't make us out to be control freaks or play on the lazy meme of Wikipedia being a willing home to random nonsense. (BTW, I have fixed the link.) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is excellent coverage. Nothing like a good AfD to help get a Wikipedia article in the news and get more people interested in editing. Equal Progress (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep due to bad rationale for nomination, Clearly a non neutral website therefore breaches WP terms for inclusion of a web site. That doesn't sound like any Wikipedia policy to me. It does sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT though. Keep due to press coverage as Dust pointed out above. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Thoroughly and utterly non-notable. Vandagard (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to point out here that the original nomination for deletion by CloudsurferUK is based on the premise that the website, the topic of the article, is non-neutral, and not the article itself, as Squidfryerchef has noted. I'd also like to point out that those in favour of deletion include a person with few edits, and a person using two different names, and that false accusations of off-site canvassing were made on 29 September that have not been backed up, as of 3 October. This strains the credulity of the argument for deletion.The Ghost Army (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not the point. We have been invited to decide whether the article should be deleted and we should consider all possible reasons for and against this, not just the ones given in the (very poor) deletion rationale. A poor rationale is a bad start to an AfD but it doesn't have to ruin it. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please note I have not used two names, check above, it was changing signature preferences. Stop trying to find weak faults in the argument. The consensus is clearly in favour of deletion or merge into main al megrahi release article and nothing more. This is a debate and that is whats happening. CloudSurferUK (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advocacy contrary to WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't advocate a position on the website pro or con, so WP:NOPE. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:COATRACK on which to hang WP:LINKSPAM. No thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except there's no "coatrack" and no linkspam. Just an NPOV article describing the organization, and the external links are all either news stories about the boycott itself ( which should be converted to footnotes ), news stories about the release ( which can be taken out ), or to the website itself. No spam here. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi - I'm not yet convinced long-term notability has been established here. Deletion would also be an option, but I think at least a mention in that article might be justified. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per most of the arguments above, or else delete per Col Warden. --John (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is well-sourced and complies with all WP guidelines. It was checked and had input from those of us over at RSN. I understand why some may have a problem with an article about a single protest website, but we leave it up to coverage in reliable sources to decide notability, which we have. The only possible outcomes are keep or merge, not delete. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That's strange! I make it: Keep x 5; Merge x 2; Merge/Keep x 1; Merge/Delete x 1; Delete x 7 = 8 each side! Vandagard (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. It is the quality of the arguments and the ability to build consensus that matter, not the numbers on each side. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• so if the the majority want it deleted or merged then it wont be? Its a debate Daniel hence the majority rules. by proxy yes it is a vote. CloudSurferUK (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WIkipedia is not a democracy. The number of "votes" does not determine the results, it's the quality of the argument. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• See WP:Rough consensus. Amalthea 08:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You can't base notability on 24-48 hours worth of media jumping on the bandwagon with a global event. Notability of a Boycott can only come from whether it has any impact or not and Boycott Scotland has had no impact at all. Also the protest claims to be backed by the american victims of pan am 103 whilst no mention of it at all is made on the VPAF103 website so support is either unacknowledged or not there at all. CloudSurferUK (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd agree that I can see why this might be suitable for deletion. Nobody seems to be noticing any effects (although how you'd detect a consumer boycott during a recession's a good question anyway). Apart from one of the Scottish governments political enemies trying to revive it via his tweed company in September, it faded away from the media in August. As regards notability, the empty Scottish and British media can be quickly filled with any old non-story during the August "silly season", so it would be easy to find lots of news sources reporting this -especially as they're none too sympathetic to the Scottish government anyway. Zagubov (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have just added a mention of the parody sites and a Twitter campaign denouncing the boycott, as reported in The Guardian. This is all I have been able to find in notable media sources referring to the negative press that has been mentioned in this discussion, but hopefully it will help to enhance the neutrality that some have said they thought was previously lacking. The Ghost Army (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is one case of an article about a subject noteworthy and notable enough to keep. This was a huge sensation in the British media and made waves all around with everyone talking about it, and enough of a reaction to have European trade associations react to it, as well as a Scottish trade assocation take down its website as a result of the website. Those who oppose this website's inclusion in Wikipedia appear to be suffering from a definite case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is very sad, because Wikipedia is above and beyond such concerns. The article in question is most certainly neutral, very well sourced, and there are abundant, abundant sources to confirm the website's notability. Metaspheres (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that a lot of people seem to be mixing up the reaction to the release with this particular website. The reaction to the release of the Lockerbie bomber was undoubtedly huge - I am far from convinced that it was all down to this one website. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way I see it the bottom line is this, for a Boycott Campaign to be "notable" surely it must A) have a signifanct impact, it hasn't, and B)receieve regular press coverage, it did a one or two days now its forgotten about. This was a knee jerk reaction with very little support(it isnt even worthy of a mention on the VPAF103 site, has received a little, but not large support in America, let alone the rest of the world. An entry into the megrahi release reation, nothing more. CloudSurferUK (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep A non-neutral website can certainly be appropriate for coverage by an article; but in any case this article is about the campaign, and only incidentally about the site. the question is whether this is significant, and there seem to be enough 3rd party sources to show that it is. But I see nothing in the news since early September, and unless there is renewed interest I think it would probably be better to merge. I am not sure about the neutrality of the article, which seems to assume that the release was wrong, & the only question was whether or not Scotland should be boycotted because of it. Obviously this can be balanced, but it would be easier to do so in the merged article. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi The prisoner release and the American official reaction were notable, and the article seems neutral. The bit I don’t get is how the website’s notable. It pops up anonymously and campaigns against the SNP government and, sure, it then gets reported in Britain’s mainly anti-SNP newspapers at a time when there's no other news to report. But after a few days, nobody can find any reliable effects they can attribute to it - the story dies. The SNP’s rivals tried to revive the issue in mid-September but it was quickly revealed to be a politically-planted news item. The Scottish/British media are so hostile to the current SNP government that they’d love a real boycott that they could blame on Salmond, MacAskill et al. The fact the press have nothing more to say about it is the real dog that didn’t bark in the night here. Zagubov (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -To something more general as has been done for other boycott insert country here websites, some of which, from checking google, appear to have considerably more public support, popularity and mentions in the media than this particular one has. I'm not confortable with the fact that the creator of the article is a single purpose account which raises questions regarding the purpose of the article. If the editor is connected with the website then it should probably be deleted as advertising. If he is not then merging with a relevant article is preferable. Wayne (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be confusing the website with the political action. Whether or not the actual boycott is notable has no bearing on whether or not this website is notable. Changing this to Boycott of Scotland due to the release of Libyan terrorist or some such title might be appropriate. Claiming that this one particular website is notable is a bit of a stretch. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:19, 6 October 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. Since the issue is notability, and all seem to have reviewed the sources, we can go with the headcount: Five editors believe the sources are not sufficient to establish notability, while one aggregate editor believes they are (counting weak keep as 0.5 and very weak keep as 0.25). No objection to recreation if new substantial coverage is found.  Sandstein  06:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Aanes (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 minor playwright, has written a couple of plays for TV. Incoherent article. Very few google hits. Does not seem to pass notability guidelines Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article does not assert notability. The external links are all trivial coverage, and I could not find any significant coverage searching google. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Of two of the links, somebody's resume says that the worked on the play by Mr. Aanes, and somebody else mentioned someone else who worked the play by Mr. Aanes. As he is not the subject of these (beyond that he's cited as the author of said play), these can't work. The others are NY Times links for searches (which don't mean much), and then his iMDB listing - which is not a reliable source. Beyond that, there's nothing for this guy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per A7 (article does not assert notability) and A3 (no content). Failing speedy delete, it also does not meet WP:N - the article does not establish the notability of its subject. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - google books shows some mentioning in reliable sources. New York Magazine thought he was notable enough to write about a subject he wrote.... Himalayan 11:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment - that may be so, but the information's not in the article. We can only assess on what's in the article, not what might possibly be in the article in the future. Currently there's no claim of notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • @ Himalayan, looking at the books, they are either not about Kirk Aanes or they are trivial coverage of Aanes, they do not establish notability. @ DustFormsWords, there is no criteria that the sources must be in the article to evaluate them. If someone brings up sources that establish notability at the AFD, we should evaluate them to see if they do establish notability even if they are not put into the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak Keep May just meet requirements for creative writer: One play, The Book of Lamb is included in an anthology The Best Plays of 1993-1994‎; another, "Love thy Neighbor" was made into a film. [3] But the New York listing is just a listing & not significant for notability - It's an off-off-Broadway production, and the magazine includes all productions in NYC. The other refs are also just listings. DGG ( talk ) 12:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll go along with DGG on this one, too - very weak keep. I think off-off Broadway is right on the edge of notability. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep per DGG, because I cannot find evidence of notability beyond that one anthology and one adaptation. If we think that's enough, than the article can stand, but this cat better get to writing a bestseller. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep unreferenced does not mean unreferencable. We can absolutely consider sources that have not yet been added to the article. As DGG said, it's borderline but I think it may pass. StarM 03:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Off-off Broadway might make the cut, but I'd want to see more OOB plays, reviews, etc... - Vartanza (talk) 19:30, 3 October 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. The "keep" opinions ignore that WP:N does require substantial coverage in reliable sources. Whether the software is good or bad does not matter under our rules, sorry.  Sandstein  06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JollysFastVNC (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 software product. Haakon (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software, but that's because I didn't bother trying. Joe Chill (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: You must be nuts. This is the best VNC client for the Mac, bar none. This RfD is a sign of ignorance. AshtonBenson (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is AFD. This comment is based on you thinking that it's useful and based on no guideline. Read WP:CIVIL. Joe Chill (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may well be right, AshtonBenson! But it's not (yet) supported by the article. If you'd like to see the article stay, what you need to do is find independent, reliable secondary sources that put forth the view you're advocating, and then cite them in the article. If you do that feel free to note that you've done it here and I'll revisit my opinion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced AfD is up for a week. If this is notable and references show it in the week this is at AfD, I'm open to changing. Miami33139 (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no significant coverage has been demonstrated. whether it's the best or worst vnc is irrelevant to wikipedia policy. fails WP:N Theserialcomma (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Best VNC client" or not, we need some kind of evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Do you have any, AshtonBenson? JBsupreme (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per A7 - article does not assert notability. Failing speedy delete, Delete - it does not pass WP:N in that it does establish its notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: You must be nuts. Other VNC clients are also in wikipedia. This is one of the most modern for Mac OS X. User: Jollyjinx 21:20 29 September 2009 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Please note that "other stuff exists" is specifically not an argument against deleletion. Nor is your assertion that the product is "the most modern"; if it's not notable, or it cannot assert notability, then it fails Wikipedia's criteria. Also, speculation about other editors' mental condition is not an argument against deletion, either. Haakon (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Welcome to the Wikipedia cesspool, where armies of meatpuppets and the ability to quote WP:WHATEVER from memory will always trump real Knowledge.... AshtonBenson (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Welcome to the world of Wikipedia, where armies of editors attack everyone that disagree with them. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not mean to offend anybody with 'are you nuts' but I wonder if the whoever marked this has any knowledge of the VNC area on Mac OSX. There are only two free VNC clients on the Mac out there an the other one is from January 2006. So I assumed that this one IS noteable. User: Jollyjinx
• Keep- As far as I can see, there are only 2 comparable players concerning VNC for Mac.[4] This and Chicken of the VNC. I can understand that there is a lack of sources. It is for the Mac, It is freeware and vnc is not a particularly mainstream activity. I found some sources after a brief search. I imagine that someone who knew the subject could improve this page. In the sea of software it may not be notable, but in its particular pond it seems to be a large-ish fish. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 12:58, 30 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linnea Aaltonen (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 beauty queen. Has entered contests but has never won any. Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no real evidence of notability. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Certainly is pretty, but she never placed in either pageant she was in - thusly failing WP:N. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:N. Crafty (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think. Isn't the "delegate" claim in the article equivalent to saying she won the newer Miss Finland title, as listed in the infobox? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per A7 - article does not assert notability. Failing speedy delete, the article does not pass WP:N as being an entrant in a beauty pageant is not inherently notable and the article does not provide multiple significant secondary sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy declined. The national prizes asserted may or may not be notable--it isn't my field--but they are at least an indication of possible notability. DGG ( talk ) 11:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody know what the policy is on Miss World entrees? My understanding is that they are accepted on here. This article is pretty poor at present though.. Himalayan 11:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've reconsidered the matter, and decided I was being overly biased against beauty pageants. Ms Aaltonen's field is "beauty pageants", and being an entrant in Miss World is really as high as you can possibly go in that field; it constitutes a significant achievement at the apex of her professional area and as such meets WP:N. My feeling was that beauty pageants were inherently non-notable and upon reflection I don't think that's supported by current policy. Vote accordingly changed to keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the article only really exists to say that she lost some competitions. Who cares? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:30, 29 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sarkis (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 violates WP:BLP; Back Bay Restaurant Group may be notable (article doesn't currently exist) given the number of restaurants it has, but this article of the company's founder doesn't seem to warrant an article of its own, especially the way it is currently written. Of what importance is it to know who this guy is married to? CPAScott (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes he may be notable in a certain way because he is the CEO of a 35 restaurant company BUT I can't see much notability because the said restaurant group has no article on Wikipedia. If there is no page for this restaurant group than what is the point of having an article about the CEO? Except from being CEO, he has not done many notable things in his life thus failing WP:BLP.... Moreover, this article lacks of sources/references (there is none) AND there are no sources since the writting of this article 3 YEARS AGO. Something is wrong... Finally, article seems to be written in a non-neutral way. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BBRG is a maybe, but this guy is not notable just because he runs almost 3 dozen restaurants. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:BLP requires the immediate deletion of any unsourced statement in the biography of a living person, which in this case would result in blanking the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've created a stub page for Back Bay Restaurant Group given its prominence in New England (about the same size as Legal Sea Foods). However, I still hold that the Charles Sarkis article should be deleted. In Legal Seafood's case the CEO, Roger Berkowitz has his own article, but the article also faced afd discussion. There it was determined that Berkowitz was notable enough given the company's notability outside of New England. In the case of BBRG, or Sarkis, himself, this is not the case. We can debate the merits of the BBRG article seperately, but as stated, my nomination for deletion of this article stands. -CPAScott (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent call, Scott. Needs more work, but it's a good start. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:36, 30 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Harvey (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 indication of notability, unsourced BLP, original research. Author seems to have a Conflict Of Interest, claiming to know the subject personally in the first edit summary. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable Declan Clam (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't really give much that's particularly notable. If there's more, now's the time to add it... Peridon (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Hooray, somebody agrees with me! Oh, wait, not the place, sorry, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A7 - no assertion of notability. Failing speedy delete, the article does not pass WP:N - nothing present would pass the notability criteria, and in any event it's unsourced. Additionally, it being the biography of a living person, unsourced statements would typically be deleted under WP:BLP which in this case would result in blanking the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:52, 29 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. Apparently this page has changed substantially since it was nominated for deletion, and accordingly, votes towards the end of the discussion hold more weight in borderline cases such as this. Among the most recent comments there seems to be an overall agreement that this prison is notable. Therefore, it seems consensus supports keeping the page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gefängnis Zürich (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 removed by editor as 'rubbish.' I beg to differ and ask for others' opinion. My rationale for prodding this for deletion:

Stub about a non-notable building. I can find no sources that discuss the actual building, its function, its history, its architecture; its only claim to fame seems to be that Polanski is in it. That is not enough, and buildings such as these do not have inherent notability, as far as I know.

I stand by this argument, and would like the community's opinion. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. It's the main prison in Zürich, and is just as notable as any of the (extremely) many Category:Prisons in the United States. Your statements are simply hilarious. Urban XII (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your manners, please. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a disruptive nomination and abuse of the AFD process. Any prison is by definition notable, there are hundreds of articles about American prisons. Urban XII (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, prisons are not by definition notable (there's no such provision in WP:N). If there are articles about non-notable US prisons, these should be nominated for AfD instead; see WP:WAX.  Sandstein  19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c with Sandstein) So, no, you won't mind your manners? "Rubbish" and "hilarious"--that's disruptive of civility. AfD is a normal part of Wikipedia. If notability can be established, or if there is a consensus that prisons have some kind of inherent notability, then I will either withdraw this AfD or it will close as a keep. What is the problem? If you want articles NOT to be prodded or nominated for deletion in the first place, provide reliable sources that establish the subject's importance. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the article as it stands is "rubbish". If general notability can and will be established within the timeline this AFD will run I will not hesitate to change my "vote" to "keep".The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for now. A large European city's principal jail, in operation since 1916, is almost certain to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources (such as a century's worth of the local pages of the Swiss newspaper of reference, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung) to meet WP:N. But these sources, if they exist, seem to be offline. If they are not found by the end of the AfD, the content should probably be merged into a suitable article with a larger scope, such as a list of Swiss prisons.  Sandstein  19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Sandstein, I was thinking the same thing--but I have not yet found any such discussion, just mentions. Good luck to you; you probably have access to better material than I do. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now started List of prisons in Switzerland, so we've got a merge target if no sources turn up.  Sandstein  21:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I would think that the largest prison in the Canton of Zürich [5] would be notable, just as the largest prison in, say, Illinois would be. Just browsing Category:Prisons in Illinois, it seems we don't seem to have a problem with less important prisons there. Is this a case of systemic bias? --Oakshade (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias? Let's be honest. The only reason this page was created is because Polanski is held there for now. That's why I said above that I would withdraw my "vote" if general notability is established (which wouldn't be a really hard task). Polanski could and should be only a side note in this article but right now it's the main "attraction".The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally don't hate Swiss prisons. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your advise? Should I book a sweet there fore my next vacation? :)) . Just trying to bring some humor into this.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be locked up for your spelling alone! It's "suite". :) Crafty (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please lock me up. I could talk myself out of it but I won't :))The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of that you saucy wench! This AfD is serious business! :P Crafty (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Y'all just be glad I didn't book you in the Illinois state pen. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why this article should need any further sources than the website of the Zürich Bureau of Prisons[6] [7]. All the information currently in the article is from the official website of Zürich correctional authorities. The Federal Correctional Institution, Pekin does also only have official sources. I've seen many similar articles on American prisons. Urban XII (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a stub article about a building the notability of which is not supported by relevant reliable sources. Crafty (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Needs more than a temporary resident to establish notability. It's not even notable for size so far as I can see. Peridon (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing in the article that says this prison is notable. I could not find any reliable sources that provide significant coverage. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - Merge to List of prisons in Switzerland - All it needs is a bit more detail and some citations, and I'll change to Keep. As a major prison which is almost 90 years old I'd be very surprised if it couldn't find some notability (for historic, architectural, or heritage reasons) but they're not currently in the article. I'll stick this on my watchlist and if someone more enthusiastic doesn't beat me to it I'll have a go myself later in the week. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All right, I've had a go at improving it and I can't find the sources. I still feel they must exist - prisons simply don't go 90 years without accruing notable history - but it might take a German speaker to dig them up; Google translate just isn't up to the task - it keeps translating the prison as "airport prison" which makes things difficult. Can we hang on in the hope of finding a German to give it a go? - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per this comment, I have left a request at the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board alterting them to this AfD.[8] Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major prison in a major city is notable enough. Sure, it could do with expansion and sources are likely to be in German or French but that is not a reason to delete the article. I've tagged the article with WP:LE, WP:Prisons and WP:CH and notified all three WPs of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as "the largest prison in the Canton of Zurich" [9] and nearly 100 years old. Certainly notable. SGGH ^ping! 10:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear keep I'm one of the German speakers (and Zurich locals) that have had a look due to this call. Yes, the percentage of incarcerated US citizenry (and resulting number of prisoners) is quite high in comparison to Swiss standards, and yes, Swiss prisons do not feature as prominently in Hollywood films as their US counterparts, but this shouldn't really count here. I'm sorry (and at the same time, quite happy) to say that prisons in Switzerland do not tend to become any bigger than this one.
  However, if you mess up in Zurich, that's where you will normally be headed (no first-hand experience, though); and yes, Vitalij Kalojew did make quite a name for himself in Switzerland before he checked in, so the "just because of Polanski" argument doesn't really apply. I'm not quite sure what kind of an attestation of notability in published sources you expect (an article in a newspaper attesting the prison's notability for an internet encyclopedia? -- it's certainly not the only building of public interest in Zurich on WP). I cannot see a rationale that would make it logical to cover the many prisons in America but not the ones in Switzerland. And if neither is notable enough, what with WP:WAX and whatnot, have a try at having a few US prisons deleted first and see what the reaction would be! ;-) How cramped for space are anyway we to make it necessary to draw the line here? Trigaranus (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The fact that news events can cause articles that should exist to come into existence is a good thing (though making them good articles is a pain). Main prison in a large city, this in of itself appears to be notable based on existence of other prison articles in the project, e.g., Massachusetts Correctional Institution - Framingham, Lansing Correctional Facility (Kansas), Darwin Correctional Centre (Australia), Chanchalguda Central Jail (Hyderabad, India), Drakenstein Correctional Centre (South Africa), Ofer Prison (Israel), Jaslyk Prison (Uzbekistan), Matrosskaya Tishina (Russia), Bastøy Prison (Norway), etc. etc. etc. --Milowent (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Milowent. mgeo talk 15:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article has been improved considerably since nom and I don't think deletion is still an option. Would Drmies care to withdraw? ninety:one 16:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources in the article looks ok/reliable to me. This prison seems to be notable enough. I'm not sure if a better title for this would be Zurich prison or something else instead of the German name of this prison. This is the English Wikipedia and not the German. Barras (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the title, I've just created a redirect from Zuirch prison to the current title based on your comment. I guess that we should use whatever title English-language reliable sources use but I've not looked to see what that is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, you created a redirect from Zurch prison :-p Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now fixed! Redirect is now at Zurich prison rather than "Zurch prison" or "Zuirch prison" *whistles innocently*.Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep major prisons are notable. This is actually a jail, not a prison--it holds primarily people awaiting trial -- and I'm not sure notability should automatically extend that far. But it seems to be the main jail for the city, & there are undoubtedly additional sources to be found about it's construction, extension, and the like. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 5 October 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.  Sandstein  06:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

unreferenced BLP. No indication of notability. no sources (and none seem to be easily found) Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand Estonian, which the review seems to be written in, but as near as I can tell, the review is not about Mari, it's about an exhibition that she was in. Granted, I could be wrong, so anyone who knows Estonian should review it. Since she's apparently not the primary subject of the review, I must say Delete, since this renders the review to being not a source we can at all use. Beyond that, we need more info on her in the way of reliable sources that show notability. Also for the note on the WP:BLP issue, as per AFL's nom. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:N - no sources present to establish notability. Also WP:BLP demands that any uncited content on the biography of a living person be immediately removed, which in this case would result in blanking the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being a member of the Estonian Artists' Union is a clear indicator that she is a nationally recognised and notable artist. Himalayan 11:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt say that. it means he's a professional writer in Estonia, nothing more. Doesnt imply national recognition. DGG ( talk ) 12:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look at the article first, as she is an artist and not a writer - and she, not he. --Sander Säde 13:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the web site of the Estonian Artists' Union. [10]. It appears to be a professional association of artists with over 900 members, presumably artists of a certain quality as applications require a CV and 3 letters of recommendation, but I hardly think that's an indication of notability in the Wikipedia sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs)

Yes, they require three letters of recommendation and 2/3 support in voting ([11]) - and it is the main artists union in Estonia. I don't think notability can be asserted that way - and there appears to be no extensive coverage of her even in Estonian press, probably due her advanced age (almost all matches are simply mentions of her birthday). She was probably more notable during her heyday in 60s and 70s, that is why I support deletion now and re-creation of the article if more sources can be found. --Sander Säde 13:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a member of the Writer's Guild of Australia, but sadly that doesn't get me an article on Wikipedia. The standard is not what profession you're in or what memberships you may have, but what you've actually achieved to earn the specific and extraordinary attention of your peers or some section of the public. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless this article can be significantly improved to establish notability and verify the facts in a BLP. I looked at the original references and the google translations. The fact that she is a member of the Estonian Artists' Union is not supported at by the reference given.[12] That article is about an entirely different person, Anu Raud, and Aakre is not mentioned in it at all. The second article [13] is not even a review. It merely announces a free exhibition in which she was one of three 12 artists. The announcement is a press release from the gallery (as can be seen from the bottom of the article). The mere fact that an article about her appears in the Estonian WP is no indication that she is notable. Voceditenore (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been notified to Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia - Voceditenore (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice and allow re-creation if notability is asserted and better sources provided. Right now the only inline source goes to an article which has no mention of Mari Aakre at all - so this is basically completely unsourced BLP. --Sander Säde 13:03, 29 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.  Sandstein  05:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Aakhus (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 writer, unreferenced BLP, unsourced from any reputable sources and none show up on Google. Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No dice. Seems to be a new entrant to the world of writing. No coverage other than the books equivalent of IMDB. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed !vote to keep per investigation of others. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Has been reviewed in the Sunday NYTimes Book Review [14], about as notable coverage as books/writers get. While not 100% proof of notability, the likelihood that no other coverage exists for an NYTBR-reviewed writer is so vanishingly small that we should infer notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NYT review not quite enough. Notability may be achieved in future but not yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Meets general content requirements. Notable writer google books reveals hits including that she is a notable translator too. Like 90% of our other articles needs expansion and referencing. I do not believe that systematically going through the encyclopedia starting from aa and trying to delete anything which isn't start class as Animatronic is clearly doing is a good idea. Himalayan 11:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to WorldCat[15], the writer publishes her fiction under the names of Patricia Aakhus McDowell, and Patricia McDowell -- and uses Patricia Aakus for her academic works. DGG ( talk ) 11:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you'll find a lot of her academic works in google book under Patricia A. McDowell. Himalayan 11:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all the more reason for a thorough check before nominating. time to legislate WP:BEFORE. The nom could have found this,too. DGG ( talk ) 12:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep clearly notable with minimal investigation.--Buridan (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The nomination seems correct in this case. At least I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. And the subject does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. The subject’s most widely held book in libraries, The voyage of Mael Duin's curragh, is held by only 134 libraries according to WorldCat. This book has an Amazon.com sales rank of 1,503,966. Many of the GBs entries are for catalogs of books, like the International Books in Print 2000: Subject Guide. I really do not see the strong evidence that swayed Dennis The Tiger, and that Buridan refers to.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. Has anyone read the NY Times piece? It clearly states that the novel by the subject is an adaptation of a story that has been told many times before under various titles, including The Yellow Book of Lecan.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a highly misleading summary of the review, which notes that Aakhus is presenting content never before accurately presented in English. The key language in the NYTBR reads "[I]n this version by an American teacher, writer and actress, pagan elements are properly restored and superfluous additions have been stripped away. What remains is a scholarly yet exciting and vivid rendition of the voyage of Mael Duin, one that has never before been accessible to those without fluent Old Irish. It rings true, and that's what becomes a legend most. (my italics) The Yellow Book of Lecan, mentioned as an earlier version of the story, is a 14th century manuscript including a variant version of the story, not something one might find on the bookshelves of Borders. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I accept a NYT book review as evidence of notability, whether or not they think highly of the book. they include only a small number of titles. But even if one wants another ref to confirm it, there is first, Rocky Mountain News in Gnews,[16]. Remembering that the book is 1990, there are undoubtedly others--GNews is not even approximately complete even for major US newspapers for this period. I consider Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's argument a good one. And in fact, using one of the standard references present in any good library, Wilson's Book Review Digest, an index to reviews in magazines, there is also a review in The Hudson Review v. 43 (Spr 1990), a well-known literary magazine. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. A reminder to people, let's please be civil about these affairs. Non admin closure. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Aaker (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 "marketing specialist". unreferenced BLP, has written some books about marketing, but hardly that warrants coverage in an encyclopaedia. Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not really a CV, but it's a brief blurb here. On this, I'd focus on WP:PROF - and Mr. Aaker doesn't seem to hold to this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change !vote to keep per other research found. Good job. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Named chair at Berkeley is a pass of WP:PROF #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Speedy Keep. Top GS cites are 2067, 1531, 1191, 1107, 973... I stopped counting after this. The cites surpass anything I have yet seen in these pages. Passes WP:Prof #1 in spades. Do the deleters know something they have not told us? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy Keep His book Consumerism is in 1164 WorldCat libraries; Developing Business Strategies is in 1155; Strategic market management , published in 26 eds. and translated into German also, is in 1061; Marketing research and Building Strong Brands each translated into multiple languages and held in over 990 WorldCat libraries; other books; 890, 778, 605, 453, 382. [17]. There are certainly going to be reviews, which should be found and added and make up the appropriate references. This is way sufficient to show him as an authority in his field. How one can judge someone doesnt meet WP:PROF without even checking his books puzzles me. If there ever was a case for requiring WP:BEFORE, it is this reckless nomination--and some of the others in the series. I strongly suggest the nominator -- apparently a newcomer who just started today and has done nothing except nominate articles for deletion, show good faith and an awareness of the need to learn Wikipedia guidelines by withdrawing this nomination. DGG ( talk ) 11:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Ridiculous nomination. Clearly notable. Himalayan 12:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OKAY, I withdraw this one. I have been reading your messages and I think in some ways it is six of one and half a doxen of the other. I don't like to be called ridiculous: and I agree with DGG that this is indeed notable. However, I object to the suggestion that all my nominations are "ridiculous":, as they clearly are not. I never mentioned "Prof": I just misjudged the importance of a load of books about marketing. I am trying to do the right thing, I am not nominating masses of articles each day, and I think the encyclopedia will be better for it. So yes, I show good faith and withdraw my nomination. Now you show good faith to me! Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 21:09, 29 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NProtect GameGuard (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 non-notable software product which appears to be lacking in non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Somewhat notable. There might be good sources for it not working on Win7. Fix it up and remove some excess info, then see what it looks like. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short of removing 98% of the current content I'm not sure how it can be fixed. It is relying completely on primary sources and forums, like this one: [18] JBsupreme (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you try searching for sources? According to the WP:VG google search engine, there are a few reliable sources.[19][20][21][22]. Need I say more? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although please be wary of press releases, or re-iterations of press releases, as some of these links appear to be. They don't count towards notability. Marasmusine (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean-up. The fact it is indeed used by many pieces of software that are notable themselves should provide this with notability. Whilst the current sourcing is not strong, it still shows notability and verifies claims in the article. --Taelus (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree there currently aren't enough good sources in the article, but Google returns about 184,000 results: [23] (Yes, I know this doesn't establish notability). But if 184,000 websites talk about Gameguard, there's bound to be magazines, books, etc. out there that do the same. However, Gameguard is mainly active in Korean RPGs (I believe it's in MOST of them, actually), and I'm not in South-Korea, nor do I speak the language, which makes it difficult (for me) to find good sources. --DanielPharos (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is indeed the issue that I presume is the problem here, its notability comes from alot of non-English usage, and as such the sources out there are probably not in English. Perhaps we could attempt to find someone who speaks a relevant language to dig around for sources? It would be a shame to delete an article just because it isn't covered in depth in the western world. --Taelus (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I found this information very useful while I was beta testing the game Aion and petitioned for a full refund due to GameGuard being utilized. --Shawnshekari (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to INCA Internet. A lack of reliable, third party coverage (just press releases such as [24]) Extremely weak sources (almost entirely forums?). I consider the large list of "known games running GameGuard" and "known blocked applications" to be indiscriminate information. There's a small amount of verifiable information that can be included in the company article, per WP:PRODUCT. Marasmusine (talk) 15:51, 2 October 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.  Sandstein  05:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unreferenced BLP, non-notable academic, very few hits on google. Doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a CV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure If the Civil College of Commerce, Rawalpindi, Pakistan and Nova College of Commerce are actually university-level institutions, he's possibly notable; if high schools, he is not. DGG ( talk ) 12:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The college is apparently affiliated with the University of Punjab and grants a B.Com degree. -- Whpq (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would be inclined to delete, no google book hits. We have a high number of advert like ego articles about Pakistani people on here, which are like CV's. Most of them are of very dubious notability. If the nom really wants to get rid of such articles I'd recommend going through all of the Pakistani people categories... Himalayan 13:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a CV trying hard to be a notable BLP, which it aint. Dr. Meh 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see any soruces writing about him and his academic output consists of 4 papers? -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 30 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. Unsourced; WP:V applies.  Sandstein  05:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madloku Ganapathi (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 is about a specific Ganesha idol that has been used by one particular family. List of Ganapathis (non RS) lists a Ganapathi temple in the village, but nothing about this idol. PROD was contested. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ganesha article. Wikid^as©
  • If there's even one reference to this somewhere and it is covered in the Ganesha article, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but redirecting doesn't serve any purpose here.-SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverified and non-notable. No sources seem to be available, and unless someone can at least verify the claims of the article even a redirect would be unjustified. Abecedare (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with no redirect. There is no Wikipedia notability shown for what appears to be an idol that is important and notable to a particular family. Priyanath ^talk 17:51, 30 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Letter Black (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 music group lacking Ghits and GNEW of substance. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC, specifically #5, "Has released two or more albums on a major label or ... important indie labels." ttonyb (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, can't find any sources to show notability  Chzz  ►  09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 12:37, 1 October 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 per CSD A7. GlassCobra 20:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxheat (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 individual with no GNEWS and lacking GHits to support notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 17:24, 28 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.  Sandstein  06:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (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 consortium; a consortium is not notable just because notable institutions are in it. Orange Mike | Talk 17:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, notability not established. ukexpat (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There are too many collaborations to have separate articles on WP. Notable achievements (if any) could justify inclusion, but I see none. As a technical detail, the article is poorly formatted. Materialscientist (talk) 01:23, 29 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.  Sandstein  06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Armstrong Johnson (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 actor Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable, single purpose account of creator might indicate COI.--Derek Andrews (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - some of this information seems verifiable, but am having a hard time with notability. --Milowent (talk) 05:38, 29 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.  Sandstein  05:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:Notability (books) Dlabtot (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can't see why this article won't develop as well as those for this author's other books.--Derek Andrews (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the author has other books that do meet the criteria of WP:Notability (books) seems rather irrelevant to this discussion. Can you articulate any reason to keep the article based on our actual notability guidelines? Dlabtot (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing my initial comment on gut feeling which is now vindicated by the references (especially Wash.Post) Hullaballoo has dug up below. Given all the Ghits for the title there are likely others that will turn up. I agree that the article is in poor shape, but not that the subject is non-notable. --Derek Andrews (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, speedy close. Reviewed in major publications like New Scientist [25], Washington Post [26], and the UK/London Times [27], with lots more coverage shown by Google News. Frankly, it's hard to see why this was nominated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per wolfowitz. the article as it stands is not well written, with too much attention given to the one review. but thats cleanup, not afd.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep By spending just a few seconds clicking on the link for Google News, and looking through it, I found an old long established newspaper had coverage of the book. [28] Other sources are just as easy to find. Dream Focus 03:26, 6 October 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.  Sandstein  06:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Nicholas Gomes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

None of the references (most of which are articles by the subject, not about him) establish notability per WP:BIO. Ghits don't help much either. ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - based on the above search links, and references included in the article, there seems to be only trivial coverage, consequently doesn't appear to comply with the general notability guideline. Also, concur with Ukexpat that articles written by the subject don't establish notability. PhilKnight (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Sole Soul (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough reliable sources. Richard (talk) 04:22, 6 October 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. SNOW. Yes. And it's not even October. Tone 21:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How A Lack Of Sleep Affects A Person's Behavior (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 on the grounds that the article helps people. Blatant original research, and already covered by Sleep disorder and Excessive daytime sleepiness. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-encyclopaedic. --Derek Andrews (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete. Non-notable essay; I'm not sure why speedy deletion was opposed. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criterion invoked (test page) did not apply. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly most obvious delete ever. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per several guidelines, most notably WP:OWN and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete NOW, there is absolutely NO reason why it should be kept, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia has given me my daily laugh, now it can be deleted. Written By: --Milowent (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most certainly a speedy deletion candidate --CPAScott (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I won't say 'drivel', because it isn't. However, encyclopaedic it isn't either. Not a bad bit of work for a school essay, but that's not what we're about here. Peridon (talk) 20:26, 28 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. MuZemike 22:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Djibouti 2010 FIFA World Cup Qualifier Squad (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 squad list for one match. Individual squad lists might be the the subject matter of news items, but they are not individually notable. Are we to have 18 such articles for each CONCACAF team? Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Djibouti national football team. This is already the subject of a merge proposal so I'm not sure why we are here. There is already a World Cup squad at the target so some work is needed to reconcile and update that list but that is an editorial matter. TerriersFan (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed target page already has a current squad on it. On what possible grounds we we want it to additionally have a 50 week old squad list? The logical consequence of the proposal to merge is that national team articles would become an almanac of old squad lists. Kevin McE (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It can be easily slotted into Djibouti national football team, and it's unlikely that anyone would come here looking for it. (Also, never mind 18 pages for the CONCACAF teams - there'd have to be 48 articles for all the European teams except for the already finished Group 9.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the national team page should only have the current squad listed; no need whatsoever for a seperate article. GiantSnowman 09:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - already covered in team's main article, and an extremely unlikely search term -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we wouldn't have an article like this for any national team Spiderone 14:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ridiculous, IMO. – PeeJay 00:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above. Govvy (talk) 10:46, 3 October 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. NW (Talk) 00:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: article has been moved to Hungry Beast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Declined WP:PROD. Non-noteworthy subject; it's not even an "event". There are references, but they merely established that something happened, not that it is noteworthy.  Frank  |  talk  16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for now simply because the official ABC1 website is confusing; I don't know if this is supposed to be a show or what. Also, in terms of the article, where exactly is the "Wikipedia involvement" section going? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep It's a TV show that is being broadcast on a national TV channel on 30th September, it took me 30 seconds at google to establish this. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclining to keep. The show (i.e., the article's subject) has certainly generated a lot of news coverage via its hoax. From The ABC website Hungry Beast appears to be a kind of journalism "reality show" show a la The Apprentice) and is due to premiere on Sept. 30 2009. See also The Sunday Telegraph, September 26, 2009. The hoax is similar to the "Alexander Stanhope St. George" hoax which was pre-publicity for a notable art installation, also involving Wikipedia. See Telectroscope, Articles for deletion/Alexander Stanhope St. George and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive422. By the way, the article has been re-written and is somewhat improved. Voceditenore (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep entirely noteworthy event. Just because stuff happens outside America doesn't render it non-notable ftw. Crafty (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As it stand this could probably deleted as a news event (WP:NOTNEWS) but with the debut of the TV show on national TV happening before the standard AFD time period is over the show will most likely get some reviews/coverage of the actual show making it notable in it's own right. Keep unless the show is otherwise ignored. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - info about the hoax should be added to the page about the show. Although this could be classed as news.Cofie (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 04:26, 30 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 all. Discussions to listify and/or redirect should be made on a discussion page and outside AFD. MuZemike 00:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gillabhrenainn Ua hAnradhain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Clearly fails WP:N which demands "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"; a mention in a chronicle isn't enough. These articles contain no inline citations, so it's impossible to establish if such coverage exists. They do contain a list of references, but these seem to be general sources, not directly connected to the individual subjects. Some of the articles contain lists of events during the subjects' lifetimes, without making any connections between the events and the individuals in question. I see nothing in these articles that could not be represented much better in a list.

Furthermore, it was recently decided in a a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump that any large-scale article creation, whether by bot or not, should go through a request for approval. Granted, this decision hasn't been widely advertised, but there is little point in having such a rule if it is not followed. Lampman (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Aedh mac Ailell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Eoghan Ua Cathain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Maelpeadair Ua Tolaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fiachra Ua Focarta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aenghus Ua Flainn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ua Corcrain of Clonfert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mac Flaithniadh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tibraide mac Fearchair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Muireadhach mac Olcobhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ceannfaeladh of Clonfert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Conghaltach mac Etguini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tibraide mac Cethernach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Olcobhar mac Cummuscach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ruthmael (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rechtabhra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Connagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cellan of Clonfert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Suibhne of Clonfert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crimhthann mac Reachtghal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cethernach ua Ermono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Flaithniadh mac Congal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mughron mac Ceannfaeladh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mughron Ua Níoc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nuada ua Bolcain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Feardomhnach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Litan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Flann Aighle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Maelimarchair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rechtabhra mac Dubbchomar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Maelduin of Aughrim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seanach Garbh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fachtna mac Folachtan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fiachna ua Maicniadh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Maeineann of Clonfert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brenainn mac Cairbre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cormac mac Connmhach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cormac mac Ciaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Lampman (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there. Sorry about that. I still don't know how to make inline citations. I agree with what you say. I do hope to add more material to these articles. I just thought it best to create them first. If they fail the criteria, I guess they'll have to go. Thanks for the heads up, Fergananim (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is more, substantial information to be added to these pages, then you should do so. My concern is that there is too little individual coverage of them to warrant stand-alone articles at all. I'd suggest you create lists instead, since then there will be less demand to establish individual notability. Any additional information could fit in a separate column, after "Name", "Accession" and "Death". Lampman (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the above suggestion. A list should be better, at least now. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, lists for the abbots, kings etc., and redirects from their names Declan Clam (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• List and Redirect The info could be valuable - but better in a List. (Unless one of them did something extraordinary, in which case an article would, of course, be appropriate.) Peridon (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - List and redirect as necessary where they can't be expanded (Maelduin of Aughrim reaches a decent stub size already). Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• No he doesn't. In byte size maybe, but the article consists of: Name, Date, Succession, all of which can fit perfectly into a list. Events that took place in his lifetime; peripheral, do not establish independent notability. Lampman (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Incidentally the categorization can be left on the redirects. Rich Farmbrough, 20:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep all. I do not hold with these mass deletions. Each article should stand or fall on its own merits, not simply because they're part of a set of articles you happen to have taken a dislike to. There's variable quality / notability across the articles. I'm buggered if I'm going to go through all 38 merely to be able to add my voice to this discussion. There's nothing so urgent that you could not have listed them seperately or, even better, listed a specimen one or two articles before launching into a mass deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sympathy for your viewpoint, however I guess that, reading the articles, a reasonable compromise is to create a single, solid article listing all of them. Whenever one of the entries becomes large enough, a separate article can be easily created. The list would also help not disperde material. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon, your laziness is on your own back, not on mine. I did go through all 38, and there was not a single bit of information that could not have been presented just as well in list form. If you have anything to present against this premise then please, go ahead (btw, there were plenty of Fergananim's articles I did not nominate, because they had potential to meet WP:N). Lampman (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but discourage this type of robotic article creation, since it is evidently problematic. These are not BLPs, which was a major concern at the batch of articles that was deleted which led to the discussion cited by the nominator. Also, these articles are all sourced (albeit robotically) and contain no material that is controversial, and notability is evidenced by the sources. Nevertheless, it is concerning that the same references were used in all of these articles and I think more care should be put into developing each article individually, rather than carelessly copy/pasting the information from one to another. ThemFromSpace 04:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how notability is "evidenced by the sources". For the article on the top of this page, all we have is a mention in the Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland saying "Gillabhrenainn Ua hAnradhain, successor of Brenainn of Cluain-fearta, died". In no way does that constitute "significant coverage", which WP:N demands. The other entries are no different. Lampman (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is somehow absurd. According to our notability criteria, every single playboy playmate is notable, most of whom probably have no historic significance whatsoever, but mediaeval Irish Abbots, who must have been among the most influential Irish people of their time, aren't supposed to be notable because there simply are only a few primary source for them. Well, they simply didn't have as much media back then as we do now (what an understatement)! I really think that mediaeval Irish Abbots are certainly more notable than playboy playmates, and that these articles should be kept. For the future, I someone wants to create a set of articles like these, better try to get a general notability criteria establish at Wikipedia:Notability (people),. etc. If we have a general criteria for pornographic actors, there certainly isn't an argument against general notability criteria for mediaeval churchmen.Zara1709 (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Nobody is saying that there should be no coverage of these individuals, simply that there is no purpose in separate articles when all the information that is available on them would fit just as well into a list. If you disagree with the notability guidelines, then you have to take it up on the relevant guideline's talk page. Lampman (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omg, you most likely have misunderstood me. I didn't reason that we would need to have articles on medieval Irish abbots because we have articles on 20th century playboy playmates. LoL, what kind of reasoning would that be. What I tried to say was that we have general notability guidelines which presume that playboy playmates are notable, because for each one of them sufficient reliable sources could be found. Similarly, we should assume that for medieval Irish abbots enough reliable sources can be found, especially since we probably have enough editors who work on articles about playboy playmates, but we certainly lack editors who work on articles about medieval Irish abbots. So, if Fergananim wants to create a set of articles about mediaeval Irish abbots, let's don't give him a hard time. If you are looking for articles to delete, look at our articles about pornographic actors instead. Zara1709 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if it helps get more Playmate articles up, I will gladly spend a great deal of time on medieval abbots. And abbess. Fergananim (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I would definitely support articles on pornographic medieval abbesses. Zara: you can't wish sources into existence; as far as I'm aware, there is no other source for these individuals than a passing mention in a medieval Irish chronicle, am I right? Anyway, you seem to be the only one arguing now, I think we all agree to put this into list form. Lampman (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At closer scrutiny, the articles seem to violate WP:OR as well as WP:N. The only sources seem to be medieval chronicles, but these need to be backed up by modern, secondary sources to confirm their veracity. In the worst case, these names could be entirely apocryphal, which was not uncommon at the time. So far, the only arguments for keep have been variations of I don't like it (bundled nominations) and other stuff exists, but I have still to see anyone argue why we should keep articles that so clearly violate some of Wikipedia's most central guidelines and policies, or how they don't. Lampman (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources seem to be medieval chronicles, but these need to be backed up by modern, secondary sources to confirm their veracity. - Medieval chronicles are sources nonetheless. If there are studies putting doubts on their veridicity, they of course should be discussed, but how citing medieval sources equates OR, I can't see. Do we have a guideline or policy for the age of sources? As for the articles "clearly violating" policies and guidelines, I am perplexed. Where is such blatant violation? I simply think that the article creator should work on the articles together in a single list, and let's wait to see what comes out. No need to bash immediately newborn articles which show potential.--Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need go no further than the WP article on the Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland, which says that "The reliability and usefulness of the Annals as a historical source has sometimes been questioned..." And we do have guidelines against ancient sources. WP:RS says that "some scholarly material may be outdated". I take that to mean 50-100 years at the most, not several centuries.

But look, Fergananim has agreed that this material belongs better in list form, as have a lot of contributors here. I personally would be happy to help him with formatting those lists. At least we can all agree on one thing: leave the Playmates alone! Lampman (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the annals should be used with some caution, but that is true of every historical resource. And they are accecpted as reliable by all Irish scholars. Furthermore, they are not ancient - they were compiled in the 1630's from much older sources, many of which no longer exist. In short, the Annals of the Four Masters is regarded as one of the fundamental texts for anyone wishing to engage in Irish history. Now having said that, I will convert all to a list, though leaving the more substancial ones as articles. And can we get a few pictures of Playmates to brighten up this place? Fergananim (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Respect the Brenainns. Don't delete, just merge into the appropriate lists - like Abbot of Clonfert and so on. If these little articles are only going to consist of xxx mac xx, King of xxx, died xxx or xxx then they should be combined into lists. It is easier for everyone then. When they get bigger they can easily be daughtered off.--Breandán MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• List and Redirect. Many of these articles only contain the name and dates of each abbot, but nothing more. Until there is more information on any of the abbots, the articles should be redirected to Abbot of Clonfert. - Scrivener-uki (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and Redirect Separate articles for each is unnecessary when they're so short. No comment on the notability standards for Playmates. :P GlassCobra 23:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi boys and girls.

As I said, I put these up so that more could be added to each article at a later point.

Having reviewed other, published sources, since yesterday, I now agree that there may not be much to add to some of them. Yet published sources do exist; they are just not easily available.

However, I will abide by whatever decision is taken. Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S: I have plenty of time for Playmates and porn stars, myself. Fergananim (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fergananim, to start with I personally suggest to create a single article/list and merge all content therein. Find sources which support the list : -that is, a source that lists them and says who they are. From that, you have a good startpoint to improve your content. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but what is your position on Playmates? Fergananim (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. They should stay. Like probably your subjects, too. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 20:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Fergananim (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these (like Maelduin of Aughrim) are already long enough to stand as stubs. The rest - for example, Cethernach ua Ermono is barely even a sentence fragment - should be redirects to a list. DS (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looking at some of them, mention in a standard historical chronicle that someone is in a position that is ordinarily considered notable, such as an abbot, is sufficient. almost always more can be said, as for Mughron Ua Níoc, for there are multiple good secondary sources dealing with this period of history. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 5 October 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.