< 5 September	7 September >

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 deletion (A1). -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RONALD PUSA[edit]

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

Is this article notable? Also take a look at the layout. Should discuss before deletion. Lourie Pieterse 14:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion The subject cannot be identified and there are no sources given. De728631 (talk) 14:08, 6 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 VMware. JForget 22:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: During the AFD discussion HGFS was moved to Host-Guest File System. Both have being redirected to VMware

HGFS[edit]

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about software that says what it's used with, but no context about what it's used for or why it's notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I can't find this software on http://www.vmware.com/ . There are indications the software exists but I can not find any indication it is notable, no reliable sources discuss it. --A new name 2008 (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relooking at this, redirect to VMware is the most appropriate solution. -A new name 2008 (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to VMware: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to VMware. HGFS is a VMware feature, not a separate software product. ReverendWayne (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage I found of this topic was very limited and I could find no sources that would satisfy the notability guideline. I think a redirect may be prudent in this case. Seraphim ♥ 01:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for own page. Jack007 (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to VMWare. Part of the product, not notable in and of itself, doubt there's enough info involved for the article to grow beyond a stub. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:42, 10 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. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geraint Benney[edit]

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

fails both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. The only sources and references I can find are either unreliable or fail WP:NOT#NEWS, such as reports that he received death threats from elvis fans. Even assuming these references about death threats pass the basic tenets of WP:BIO, they make him a person notable for a single event, and such people aren't article-worthy. Ironholds (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. He sounds like an interesting character, and I'd love to have a beer with him; however wikipedia material it's not. Tangurena (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 7 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. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anttonieo Madison[edit]

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

Not notable enough, searches only turn up blog sites. Delete per WP:BIO. Athe Weatherman 19:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage about him in the press appears to be all by the campus paper for ISU as shown by a [Google News search. A web search turns up LinkedIn entries, etc but no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 7 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. I was thinking of relisting the article again but User:Shoessss basically had solid arguments enough to close this discussion after two weeks. Otherwise it would have still been a no consensus for deletion. JForget 22:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At What Cost?, Cornell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted back in 2006 and now someone tried to nominate it again, fixing the process. I remain neutral here.Tone 18:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion the event, and organization has gathered enough coverage to meet our minimum requirements of notability as shown here with articles in the New York Times [1] and[2]. In addition, I was able to dig up these references, as shown here [3]. Put together, yeah, I could see a piece here on Wikipedia. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:26, 6 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. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Federation of Sports Chiropractic[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. No significant coverage (other than trivial mentions or web listings) to be found in Google news or Google web. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a news mentions ([4][5], but no substantial coverage. As such, notability hasn't been established. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with out prejudice to coming back in the very near future. I was able to find a few more references, as shown here [6]. But just not enough to establish notability at this time. However, when and if they finally get official recognition of the International Olympic Committee more than happy to help write the piece for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This article appears to be self-promotion in contravention of Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines (WP:COI). Moreover, it and its associated articles (i.e., Dr. Stephen J. Press and Sports chiropractic) appear to also be self-promotion in that they promote the field in which the subject of the related autobiograpy earns his livelihood also in contravention of WP:COI. The conflict of interest issues are all the more apparent when one notices that the category listing, of which the article forms a part, has the effect of directing Wikipedians to the related autobiography and its subject’s associated articles, to each of which the autobiographer/self-promoter is a major contributor. There is an interconnectedness between these three articles, and the category listing collecting them all, that raises a red flag as regards Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines. Alternatively, the article does not establish notability as per WP:ORG. Further, inasmuch as it cites anything, it seems to cite self-published sources, and the organization it purports to be about in contravention of WP:SELFPUB and perhaps even WP:CIRCULAR. Finally, in order to retain the article, it desperately needs reliable, verifiable, properly cited, third-party sources. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE NeoJustin (talk) 06:27, 7 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. Cirt (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy J Gallagher[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Yet to garner significant coverage in reliable sources or any other indicia of notability. ^Bongo_matic 17:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the links given provide evidence of notability. The most promising ones refer to a video made by the crew of Top Gear. But these seem come from a blog (repeated in several national sites) and it appears that the video was not actually used on the show. Even if it were used, some kind of comment on it from a reliable, well-known independent source would be needed for notability.--RDBury (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Zoids. Brandon (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bio-Zoids[edit]

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

This is a trivial list of toys without any sources to verify them or anything to assert some kind of notability. TTN (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For a number of reasons. First you were a tad misleading with you statement " This is a trivial list of toys without any sources to verify them or anything to assert some kind of notability." In the opening statement of the article; "Bio-Zoids are a special type of Zoids released as part of the Genesis line and used in the Zoids: Genesis anime" actually implies the notability in two ways. First, the Zoids themself have been found both notable and have actually been in-line cited and referenced in the main article. Likewise the Zoids: Genesis has been found notable. As these item are an extention of the same product line, yes, they should be found notable also. As with regards to most every toy that hits the street, even the notable ones there very little, if any, main stream media coverage. Most of the coverage is found in specialty on-line collectors pages. In this case I judt did a quick eBay search to see if this item is popular or not. After reviewing over 400 listings for this item, I would say it is popular. Typically I would have just expressed a merge/redirect opinion in cases like these. However, the detail and explanations that go along with each individual item would be lost and would just make the merge pages to crowed. That is the reasoning behind my Keep opinion. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest actually looking over WP:N before using it in your arguments. "The notability of a parent topic is not inherited by subordinate topics" directly counters your argument. You need sources to independently establish notability, not some search on eBay. TTN (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh I know the notability guidelines . What I expressed was that the Items themselves, as a group are, notable. These items are part of that group, hence notable. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as I quoted, notability is not passed down to subtopics. Zoids is notable as a franchise, but that does not mean that its twenty or so different toy lines are also notable. You need to provide reliable sources that provide signifcant coverage of the topic in order to show that this specific release is actually notable. TTN (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree here but each release of that particular item is not a new toy line requiring the establishment of notability for each and every item in that particular group of items that has already been found notable. If that were the case, your next project should start with the Barbie line of toys. As noted here [7] she even has here own catagory. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 01:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please actually read over the notability guideline. You keep linking to it, but you don't seem to actually understand it at all. Notability is established by sources. That's it. It doesn't matter what Barbie, G.I. Joe, or any other franchise does with their articles. They don't set a precedent, and even then, that category only contains a couple of different toy lines from what I can see, and they aren't even directly related to Barbie anyway. TTN (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you are missing my point. The notability for these items is already established through their use in both being part of the Zoids group and through their use in Anime as specifically talked about in Anime News Network. What you are asking for is that Bio Raptor be found notable seperate from Bio Ptera and that Bio Ptera be found notable seperate from Bio Raptor and that Bamburian be found notable on its own merit, from any of the three listed above and seperate from the twenty that follow. The individual items do not have to be found notable but only the group as a whole, which they are marketed, not seperatly per say, but as part of a series. As I stated above typicaly I would have just recommended a merge/redirect, but with the amount of information on eaxch and every item, that would distract from the main article. You are reading to much into the notability guidelines. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 02:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, separate toys do need to be notable to be included in that form. They're basically just advertisements in a list format like that. If they are summed up in paragraph form (i.e. only a select few would actually be named), that would be fine. After that, the specific release does need to assert notability. It cannot exist on its own without reliable sources. TTN (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find any reliable secondary sources that would point to this being a notable topic or show that it warrants its own article. When there is a lack of reliable secondary sources, it is difficult to keep other editing issues in check, such as neutral point of view and original research, which I see this article appears to suffer from. Articles related to fiction should be governed by both primary and secondary sources and being unable to find the latter, the conclusion I have come to is that this article is not one that should be included in wikipedia. Seraphim ♥ 00:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Zoids. One of the plethora of Zoids articles up for AfD. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zoids. Pmlineditor Talk 10:13, 13 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. There is sufficent consensus from non-SPA accounts to close this AFD for a keep, otherwise there was no consensus for deletion anyways. JForget 22:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Lynn[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable musician. Does not satisfy any relevant notability guideline (WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC). ^Bongo_matic 17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, wikipedia gets waaay too many non-notables bands and singers but this seems to get above the bar with reliable sourcing and generally well-written. -- Banjeboi 04:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which source do you consider reliable that provided significant coverage?

New Now Next. Self-described blog. Not RS.
Willamette Week Online. Local interest paper. Reliable vis-a-vis facts, but not for notability purposes.
Google profiles. Self-published, not independent.
Own website. Self-published, not independent.
Just Out blog. Self-described blog. Not RS.
Just Out (potentially main site, not blog). Not RS.
Logo online. Not RS, not significant coverage.
Billboard. Directory entry only, not significant coverage.

^Bongo_matic 04:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- New Now Next is from the LGBT cable channel LOGO from MTV. They are not only reliable this is an extended interview.
- Willamette Week is the local LGBT newspaper, and the article is all about ... Lynn.
- In addition here is a review from URB Magazine, a blurb in USA Today, Lynn featured and interviewed on MTV’s “NEWNOWNEXT” show on Logo, Concert review at Melophobe Magazine and a single review at Indie Rock Cafe Music Blog.
- To me these suggest not only is this subject meet GNG but a good article can be written. For the record I would be more concerned if the article was peacocky or otherwise seemed bloated, but even that is simply a reason to clean-up. -- Banjeboi 05:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Willamette Week is not a GLBT specific newspaper. Just clarifying. Danielquasar (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. First of all, this TTony01 person seems to be a ruthless, arrogant individual who goes around labeling pieces of information as "fluff" when he absolutely has no basis for doing so. His actions and words have made me infuriated. You don't go nominating someone for deletion when there are more than a dozen notable sources on the person cited already, and when they've already had music video play on a major cable channel! His album will be in stores everywhere on November 3rd! The story of Logan's grandmother tutoring Johnny Cash came straight from him and his mom Debby, but apparently the citing of two Cash-related books aren't enough to satisfy these fuss buckets. Uh, hello..last time I checked, literature was a reliable source! I will return the full explanation of LaVanda Mae Fielder's lessons with Cash at a later date if I can get Logan to put a complete mention on it on his official site or elsewhere. Otherwise, the man is just TOO notable by now to throw away an article for. KEEP! KEEP! KEEP!!.User_talk:XxSoulSurvivorxX 07:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC) — XXSoulSurvivorXx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please dial it down a bit. We go by verifiability. If you have content and reliable sources to improve the article please do so. Whatever the motivations to nominate this article are doesn't matter. We're discussing if it should stay and hopefully the best decision serving our readers is made. -- Banjeboi 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Particularly since I did not nominate the article for deletion and have not even provided an opinion. BTW - the comments in the article about Cash might be good in an article about Lynn's mother, but I am not so sure it adds encyclopedic value to Lynn's article. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, likely the three album articles should be merged here. -- Banjeboi 23:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by merging it? Make them into one article, or include them on the main article instead? I made them separate so it would look and feel like other well made band articles. Danielquasar (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - They were split off pre-maturely. An album article should only be if teh album itself is considered notable as verified by multiple reliable sources. I would insteda merge them back and very briefly mention each one. For our readers that's enough -- Banjeboi 01:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Looks like the more promotional language has been deleted, as requested. This artist is VERY RELEVANT and the page is written in a 100% credible, truthful, and factual manner. I highly recommend keeping this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.40.138 (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC) — 66.193.40.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP. I added a couple of missing references. Hope that helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PDXProlific (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC) — PDXProlific (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's Comment': This AFD was relisted despite 5 keep votes so to have more discussion/comments from non possible SPA accounts.JForget 23:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Warrior 4321 23:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - The Dandy Warhols are a HUGE band who just put out Logan Lynn's new record on their label this week. The video for Logan's new single premiered NATIONWIDE on MTV's Logo Network last night 9/6/09. This is the 3rd single which has aired on the channel since 2007 and his last video was picked up by Time/Warner ON DEMAND for the month of October '08, was picked by MTV as #8 in Logo's "Top 10 Videos of the year for 2008) here: http://www.logoonline.com/video/logan-lynn/259577/feed-me-to-the-wolves.jhtml?id=1600444 and he filmed a 1-hour hosting interview episode of the show "NewNowNext" in 2008/2009 here: http://www.logoonline.com/video/misc/274255/logan-lynn-on-newnownext-music.jhtml?id=1594234. "The Deli Magazine" just reviewed "From Pillar To Post" last week and called it "the best album, electronic or otherwise, to have been released out of Portland this entire year." here:http://www.thedelimagazine.com/portland/index.php?name=delirious-audio&itemId=221825&mode=comments#post —Preceding unsigned comment added by PDXProlific (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) — PDXProlific (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~Comment Deleting this article now would be a terrible and foolish waste of time, given how notable Logan clearly is at this point to Wiki guidelines. If an abortion happens, we will just be starting over from scratch two months from now when his album hits stores everywhere. From Pillar to Post is available digitally now via his website for purchase, and will be in stores on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 (a revision from my last post; the date has been moved up from November 3rd). His previous videos, along with the new release "Write It On My Left Arm", have been airing on Logo for the last two years. I seriouly doubt any of you would have contested the inclusion of A Fine Frenzy or Corinne Bailey Rae on Wiki when both were up-and-coming artists (just like Logan) three years ago on VH1's "You Oughta Know" playlists. Logo, a sister channel to VH1, has "NewNowNext" which is the exact same thing as "You Oughta Know". I think instead of hastily deciding to delete this article, we should be encouraging others to recommend what facts should be cited more/better/clearer, and if the writing tone needs adjustment. Also, there are many more important missing pieces of info I need to provide, including how Logan began working with Carlos Cortes. XxSoulSurvivorxX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. I believe the article should be kept. I have been working on the article as well and I believe it falls under the guidelines that it needs to fall under. He has been recognized by multiple reliable sources, which have been noted on the article itself. From local papers to a national cable channel and even reliable internet sites and reviews. He recently has even been included as the featured artist for ads run by sonicbids.com. Would adding something like that make him more notible then he already is at this moment? I don't see what is wrong with the article. If you can, please clarify what about it is not within guidelines. danielquasar (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep MTV says she is notable, so she is. Otherwise they wouldn't bother interviewing her and showing her videos. Dream Focus 14:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is "she"? In case you haven't noticed, Logan is clearly male. XxSoulSurvivorxX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- And the reason we should use MTV's standard of notability instead of our own is...? - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above..--Judo112 (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per what? The fact that she? was on MTV? The article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Please see WP:PERNOMINATOR as well. warrior 4321 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per what the other keep sayers has pointed out already.. which i agree on.--Judo112 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well all i can say is that it seems like most people dont agree with you andthat the article indeed passes WP:GNG, you need to read WP:Assume good faith.--Judo112 (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What" have the other editors pointed out already?

Are you talking about this: MTV says she is notable, so she is. Otherwise they wouldn't bother interviewing her and showing her videos.

Or this :I believe the article should be kept. I have been working on the article as well and I believe it falls under the guidelines that it needs to fall under.?

One is talking about another person, and the other has been working on the article, and does not want their article to be deleted. Please provide a reason for deletion by yourself. warrior 4321 17:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Who" does not agree with me? Are you talking about these users : XXSoulSurvivorXx (talk · contribs) PDXProlific (talk · contribs) 66.193.40.138 (talk · contribs). All of those users have made no contributions outside of Logan Lynn. So, who exactly does not agree with me? Three single purpose accounts, someone who worked on the article and does not want it to be deleted, or someone who has the wrong person in mind? warrior 4321 17:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well-written and all sources indicate notability in one way or another... Even one source would have been enough for establishing the minimum of fame/notability for a singer. You dont have to be extremely famous like Britney Spears etc etc.. to be worthy of your own Wikipedia article.--Judo112 (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those sources reliable? warrior 4321 18:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that she has released a number of studio albums talks for itself....--Judo112 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logan is a male? Who exactly is she? warrior 4321 18:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont blame me for someone elses mishap... i know that she is a he:)--Judo112 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - well-written and sourced article already exists. Keep it. #REDIRECT Target page name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astanhope (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Chatz[edit]

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

This article is about an author who does not meet notability. There are no independent sources writing about the author, nor are there any reviews of his fiction work Serum self-published through Xlibris. As a journalist, there is evidence his work has been published but without any sources writing about him, this only verifies he is a working journalist rather than a notable journalist. The PROD was contested and links added to the article presumably to demonstrate notability. I've reviewed those links and they are generally not independent of the source or is an article written by him. There is also a mention of him in somebody's thesis. None of these links establish notability, and indeed I had found many of them myself when doing my own search before placing a PROD on the article. Now bringing it to AFD for a fuller discussion. See also Talk:Brett Chatz. Whpq (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DOes not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 7 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. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ericka Boussarhane[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking any GNEWS. A number of GHits shown, but most are appearance listing and press release type entries. I could only find a single article of marginal importance supporting the individual. Appears to fails WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Reads like resume. Has published a children's book this summer to no reviews. Canuckle (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 22:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Jordan[edit]

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

non-notable individual - no coverage in significant third party sources of the sort we would associate with a notable individuals. Cameron Scott (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's a Miss Bolivia winner. That would indicate that notability is likely to be established. A search reveals multiple reliable sources writing about her although much of it is not in English which is not surprising for a Bolivian person. There is this (english) article in the Christian Science Monitor [8] which is non-trivial coverage although she is not the main subject. There is also [9], [10], and in Vietnamese. I stopped looking at more of teh search results from Google News at this point because it's quite clear that this is enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As shown here [11] Ms. Jordon has not only local coverage, but international coverage. It also seems that Ms. Jordon is not only a pretty face, but is gathering quite a political clout in her country (Boliva that is, not the UK). Regarding the nomination statement "...no coverage in significant third party sources of the sort we would associate with a notable individuals", have I missed a new policy or guideline that names specific sources we can use or not use. My understanding was that if the source was verifiable - reliable - creditable and thrid party, it was fine to use. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping Into Rivers[edit]

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

Contested redir to Diana Vickers. This article is about an unreleased, uncharted single by a not-especially-notable artist (talent show contestant). Clearly fails WP:MUSIC: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song" and as the only ref is to the artist's site that you can download it from, also fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:SPAM. I42 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't AfD - Redirect it until it's notable, if redir contested WP:DR procedure is there. --Triwbe (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diana Vickers and protect. Song is not notable. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, fails notability in every sense. There really is no supporting argument. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NeoJustin (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see no notability here. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. There really is no notability here whatsoever. Unreleased promo single by a talent show contestant. I don#t see why the page was created in the first place. --MissusCitrus (talk) 16:42, 12 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. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sample (cartoonist)[edit]

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

No references to verify notability. Closedmouth (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and merge with Ogri. Completely fails WP:N, I'm not even sure we should keep the Ogri article but thats an issue for another AfD. – sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 11:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:13, 7 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. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

previous nomination was for a different Michael Tang, this one should be deleted as per WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Afd 2" from 2006 is actually for the same person. The result from that debate was a unanimous "keep". cab (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:15, 7 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. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surf folk[edit]

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

A music genre is unlikely to be notable unless the band characterizing it is notable, which it gives no evidence of being. No independent sources. Prod removed by author. Rigadoun (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability as a genre. No independent and relaible sources and I have looked but cannot find any.--Sabrebd (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let us know when "emerging" becomes "emerged" and then when "emerged" becomes "notable". --DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:50, 6 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. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Vitlin[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits substance and with no GNEWS. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No clear claim to notability. The article appears to delve into WP:HOAX territory by claiming that the subject was hired to take photographs for Bruce Springsteen's Lucky Town and Human Touch albums -- which came out when he was 9 years old. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:55, 6 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 . Marasmusine (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croc III[edit]

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

Article appears to be pure speculation. Yahoo! and Google yield no results related to the game's announcement or release information. Hibana 05:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably a hoax. Attlee Enterprises does not seem to exist. Can't find anything else on it either. RP9 (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Doesn't look like a hoax (some boards are talking about what it might be like since the original company abandoned the series), but there certainly isn't anything verifiable here. MuZemike 14:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any information about such a title. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No proof that this will ever be released. Joe Chill (talk) 02:55, 7 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. Cirt (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Trees[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with no GNEWS. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications that WP:BIO is met Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real notability shown, nothing here satisfies wp:n or wp:music Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:53, 9 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Hughes[edit]

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

Delete - Doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Even if FunnyFest Calgary Comedy Festival can be considered notable (and the indications are thin), none of the available references mentions Hughes anything more than in passing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding secondary sources that deal with this guy directly and in detail. Fails WP:BIO so far as I can see. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Roman[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Only claim to fame provided is that he once competed in an international racing competition of very little note. The first source is self-published. This leaves no sources to verify the information in the article. Further, with zero Google news hits that I found, it is highly unlikely that there are sources for this person. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry for the creator MiliHistoryWV who clearly cares deeply about the subject, but the sheer fact that he is a "local hero" proves lack of notability. The sources are trivial as well. McMarcoP (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have doubts about how we can judge notability of armed conflict where much of the information regarding the operations are not disclosed or classified (which negates the ability to provide reliable secondary sources). The long list of medals and awards seem to indicate notability among his peers and perhaps these awards can be linked to proper sources (if military awards and commendations are available publicly) to satisfy verification standards. AZFitness (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC). — AZFitness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. It makes me wonder about my priorities when I put forth the argument that the subject is notable enough for a Bronze Star or Purple Heart but not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I hope this guy succeeds in his business and racing careers so we can re-create this article. Location (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO per secondary sources. FWIW the various claims about his military record have not been substantiated to meet WP:V (though I am not, of course, questioning them). Of the three sources; the first is self-published, the second broken, the third is a passing reference and most likely submitted by the subject. Obviously a worthy individual with a brave and commendable military record but not notable in our terms. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:00, 12 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. Withdrawn nomination with no delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bendigo Weekly[edit]

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

Delete, no sources to back up claims. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~: If there were sufficient sources to cover all the claims then it would be a keep. I am seeing some coverage but possibly not enough as it seems to relate to one reporter who won an award, rather than the publication as a whole: [12], [13]. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few reference sources have been included in the Bendigo Weekly article to prove that it does in fact exist as a newspaper, has won a range of awards, has run prominent and effective campaigns successfully fighting for critical infrastructure for the local population, and is a paper with a remarkably high readership in a competitive market. The Bendigo Weekly is notable as a newspaper in several aspects. Firstly, it is one of only two newspapers to cover this large area. It is notable in currently having an astounding 77% readership figure as indicated by the independent Roy Morgan Research organisation.

Since its inception the Bendigo Weekly is notable in the respect that it has had a large impact on the lives of the local population, being instrumental in forcing government to build a pipeline to supply water in a drought prone area. Bendigo Weekly has also been notable in its efforts to secure a public hospital. These claims can be verified by entries in the Parliamentary record "Hansard" where the Bendigo Weekly is named as a source of information. It is also notable in respect of the amount of awards this newspaper has won in a short period of time. From 2006 until 2009 the Bendigo Weekly got no less than 12 awards, remarkable for a country regional newspaper. No less remarkable were the "Walkley" awards won by the Weekly's editor - awards which generally go to city based newspapers. If any newspaper deserves an entry in Wikipedia it is the Bendigo Weekly.

STATE OF VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA, PARLIAMENTARY HANSARD

line 5 Markjenni (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you found the sources as it was quite hard for myself however I congratulate your effort and withdraw my nom.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not sure why this got relisted as Hell in a Bucket has withdrawn the nomination. Anyway, the new sources seem sufficient to me so I am changing to keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher W. Sudbrink[edit]

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

City council member for a city with a population of 3K. Ghits are mainly just local city reports mentioning his activities, but not focusing on him. According to WP:POLITICIAN, this doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. Also note that the article was almost certainly created by the subject of the article, so there is COI. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This city is located in the Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Metro area, its a significant part of the metro area, the topic in the article have been reported on and published in local newpapers. Plus he is one of only a few openly gay elected officals in the entire state of Kentucky. Sounds notable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.11.208 (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the only activity the above IP has done is remove the autobio tag from the article (claiming that the article is neutral) several times [14] [15], and modify the entry for Park Hills, Kentucky, city of Mr. Sudbrink's residence. Whether this is a sock or just a friend is left to the judgment of the reader. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on suspicious activity of the above IP address and others, I have opened a sockpuppet investigation on CSudbrink and several IP addresses: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Csudbrink. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidate clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, being a gay local councillor is nothing notable and there are no other claims to notability. A few mentions in local community newspapers is to be expected and virtually every local councillor in the world will have that. Valenciano (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - council member of a very small council who appears to have achieved nothing of note. Fails WP:Politician. Most of the content is so utterly trivial it would have no place here even if sourced; e.g. he voted against a tender to buy a fire truck; we are jesting, yes? Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:32, 12 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. Cirt (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-symbiotic Acinomycetes[edit]

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

We already have an article at Actinobacteria discussing these bacteria. The article was created by the scientist who discovered them in the lake, whilst WP:COS does allow this, this article is not going to go anywhere in my opinion. Smartse (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete. But please notify author of this page.Biophys (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the author was notified when I nominated the article for deletion. An IP originating in India blanked the page shortly afterwards which I suspect may have been the author when they weren't logged in. Smartse (talk) 04:21, 10 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. Cirt (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Grasso[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:BIO. I have been unable to cover any reliable sources about this individual.

The previous AfD request was speedy deleted as a copyright violation, so G4 does not apply. Cunard (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Someone I know is at afd. Um. Puts me in a bind. Looks like he's moved on a bit since I last had any contact with him, I think weighing it all up it's looking more like delete than keep, with apologies Stephen. Hiding T 13:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:59, 9 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. Cirt (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go Chuck Yourself Tour[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Non notable concert tour. Nothing that makes this tour any more notable than any of the other thousands of tours each year. Perfectly adequate fan site material but not for Wikipedia Nouse4aname (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also the two tours below, nominated for similar reasons to above.

Delete all, a bunch non-notable tours, that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just an indiscriminate collection of fancruft. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oooh, lots of pretty blue links... must click on them... turn them purple.... oooohhh. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol'ing, I know, I just HAVE to justify myself Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:44, 31 August 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) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:06, 6 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. Cirt (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SoundCloud[edit]

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

The subject had nothing but passing mentions on news articles. At its present state, the article has used primary sources excessively. Delete if it cannot be rewritten. Alexius08 (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It has received a limited amount of coverage in independent sources, but nothing hugely significant. Aslo it has received an award, but as I've never heard of them before and we don't have an article on them I'm not sure how much significance to attach to it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, award appears not significant, lacks non primary sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sources have been provided though neither demonstrated to fulfill or not to fulfill the requirements of the general notability guidelines. As this discussion has already been relisted twice, I am closing it as not having reached consensus. Skomorokh 01:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mister International[edit]

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

non-notable beauty competition Cameron Scott (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the contestants did not come from a national competition unlike the contestants in the female category like Miss World or Miss Universe. Although Mister International's unreferenced wiki article claims to be "the male version of Miss Universe", it's far from reality. This male pageant has no notable history just like the Miss Universe; no worldwide publicity, and it's not broadcasted just like Miss Universe. There are no notable third party references other than personal pageant websites; the article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The pageant has no any mainstream news agency (like Associated Press or Reuters) that picks up the story. If there's any publicity or promotion, it is done mostly through blogs, paid advertisements, and non-notable websites. Additionally, you do not see the titleholder of this pageant making the news. Unlike Miss Universe and Miss World, Miss International still has a way to go to prove itself worthy of global news and be included in an online encyclopedia.--Ped Admi (talk) 23:25, 25 August 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) 00:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also to be considered in this nomination: Mister International 2009. Cenarium (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly not really "the male version of Miss Universe" (despite what some news says [16]) but it doesn't have to be nearly as big to be notable. Google News has many hits including maybe good refs, [17], [18] and many not in English that may be good. Also others such as from Borneo Post [19] and New Straits Times [20] might be ok. It appears to have news coverage (including international), passing wp:n. Article needs changing to reflect its real status. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While this is not exactly the most notable competition in the world, Duffbeerforme does provide some sources that are worth considering.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as withdrawn by nominator. lifebaka++ 00:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Yasgur[edit]

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

~~doesn't meet notability criteria for biographies.~~ Nomination withdrawn (see below). JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just located Sam Yasgur's website, and in it he says as follows, "Sam's consultations with his father played a crucial role in the events leading to the Woodstock Festival." [21] While the language is a bit ambiguous, in light of this, as promised, I'm withdrawing this AfD nomination.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. Sam is the son of Max Yasgur, famous for allowing his farm to be the site of the Woodstock Festival in 1969. This article was created some years ago by an IP, on the basis of Sam supposedly talking his father into allowing the festival to take place on his farm. However, the sourcing for the article did not substantiate that, so I removed this dubious assertion a few days ago. If it was not accurate, as apparently was the case, it was one of the longest running hoaxes in Wiki history. If it is true, and if it can be sourced, I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination. Otherwise I just don't think that Sam Yasgur, while prominent in Sullivan County, meets the notability criteria for biographies.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC) see above[reply]
Keep - I understand the reasoning behind the nomination, notability is not inherited (which I assume is the main reason for the deletion request), but feel Mr. Yasgur has gained notability on his own, though riding on his father's coat tails. As shown here [22] Mr. Yasgur has gardnered quite a few references, in his own name. I releaze that many are in relationship to his father and his fathers involment in Woodstock. However, quite a few also talk about Sam's participation in the event itself and the events leading up to the concert. Likewise, on the backside of the refrences, you will note that Mr. Yasgur has gained notority as an attormey. Put the two together, and I believe he meets our criteria for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I did find a source to the claim you alluded to in Maxes: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases‎ - Page 136 As shown here [23]. Hope this helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PSST! Those Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases‎ books are printed compilations of snippets of Wikipedia articles. Notice the "[WP]" at the end of the entry? Deor (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right! How about this one [24] or this one [25] or this one [26] or maybe this one [27] maybe these are more palatable to everyone's though process. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk

I'd like to see something to substantiate the bald assertion that he persuaded his father. It may be an urban legend. If he did, I'd think that he'd be reminiscing to that effect in all the voluminous recent coverage, but he hasn't. A quote from Sam Yagur himself would satisfy me, but I haven't found one.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there - if you agree, as in your own words "... voluminous recent coverage". Why would you than bring to AFD? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 23:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voluminous coverage of Woodstock's 40th anniversary.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - thanks for the explanation - I always had a tendency to take things to literal. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shoessss' argument. $TheWeak$ $Willed$ (T * G) 22:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Plenty of mainstream coverage in his own right. Here's a source for the claim you deleted, don't know how reliable it is: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/13/766020/-Back-to-the-Garden:-Remembering-Woodstock,-40-Years-Later Little Professor (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It was so rainy that summer, we couldn’t get the crops in," Sam Yasgur told the newspaper. And having been denied permission to hold the festival in Walkill, Lang and his partners were scrambling to find another site. Besides, Sam loved rock and roll. And so Sam lobbied his father to rent their alfalfa field for the concert. Max Yasgur ultimately agreed, seeing an opportunity to tide the farm over financially.

The accounts of Woodstock that I have read make no mention of Sam Yasgur persuading his father, and neither has this been mentioned in the 40th anniversary coverage. Here's a report of a lecture by Sam Yasgur recently[28]. Nothing about persuading his father.

Keep in mind that Sam Yasgur was a grown man, a prosecutor in New York City at the time of the Festival, not a kid living at home. The article until a few minutes ago gave the opposite impression. I don't believe that Sam being mentioned in the press 40 years later as a proxy for his father in some places is sufficient upon which to hang notability. A single quote from Yasgur claiming he talked his father into taking the festival to Bethel would be sufficient, but we don't have even that. If he did it, why is it that we don't have Sam saying, "I said, 'Dad, it would be groovy'" or something to that effect?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:06, 7 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. Cirt (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grillifilms[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this commercial producer. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fi.wikipedia article states that they have won several awards including "Platinahuippu" and "Kultahuippu" awards by Grafia ry. as well as a Muuvi award (it's some sort of a Finnish musical video award), and directed music videos for Lordi, among others. Sadly, I can't find any sources for these claims by either title ("Grillifilms" or "Kaivopuiston Grillifilmi"). News search turns out empty and a web search reveals only trivial mentions. Jafeluv (talk) 21:04, 30 August 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) 00:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:47, 6 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. Tone 10:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic marketing[edit]

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

This article has multiple problems, firstly the topic does not probably meet WP:N, there are only ~7000 google hits for "islamic marketing". Secondly the article seems to be promoting a new journal that is not launching for another 6 months and the article seems to have been created by the founder of this journal. There are obvious conflict of interest and spamming problems because of this as well as possible original research. Smartse (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is just spam. By admission of what can be presumed to be the article creator/promoter under an IP, there simply are no references available which if nothing else makes this article fail WP:V. -- Atama頭 22:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nidrosia (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing useful in article apart from a WP:PROMOTION. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I PRODded the first version of this article as OR, but three books were then added as references, which suggested to me that "Islamic marketing" might be a valid article subject. I raised the matter here at the COI Notice board, and explained my concerns to the author, who has replied on my talk page:

I am actually working on developing a comprehensive article on the subject and the small article that has been contributed is only the start of a much larger project. I understand your concerns about promoting self and I already removed my name from the begining of the article. I am adding Islamic Marketing to Wiki for knowldge purposes only. I will remove or rewrite the contents to make sure that there is no conflict of Interest.

This is inceasingly becoming a hot topic and it seems natural that Wiki has something to say about it. Just give me sometime and I think I add something of value to your online encyclopedia.

Clicking the "findsources" links above confirms that this is not a non-notable new OR subject, and I think there could be a valid article here which should attract contributions from others. We should give it a chance to develop, while making sure that COI and promotion issues are monitored. JohnCD (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd have to see evidence that such an article would be more than a "how to" based on those references. From what I can tell from book summaries those are essentially guides on how to market to Islamic areas. -- Atama頭 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page. Not only is it a promo for a forthcoming magazine, it doesn't address the main issues associated with Islamic marketing, e.g., Halal and shariah compliance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspennow (talk • contribs) 10:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC) — Aspennow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tendowon[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Abc518 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism with no evidence of widespread use; do not transwiki to wiktionary. Searching for "Tendowon" -wiki found absolutely nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. (This is a disputed PROD I had originally tagged, I was unable to find any significant usage of it.) ~Excesses~ (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Make-believe words don't belong here. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland national football team head to head[edit]

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

An article based on an unreliable source, and an arbitrary cut off date, probably what wp is not Fasach Nua (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The website appears to be a fansite, and is not official - so as a source, it is unreliable. But is the article itself notable? This is the criteria for deletion? BTW, the information appears accurate according to the FIFA website. --HighKing (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have suggested that the content be merged into the Northern Ireland national football team article, but if the source can't be trusted then the article must be deleted. – Pee Jay 15:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OleOle isn't reliable at all and even so this doesn't warrant an article Spiderone 15:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non trusted source means this article has little merit. Giant Snowman 15:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unless I'm missing something, I can't find this data on the OleOle website. However, if this is indeed a compilation of past results, this table looks like it would fit in rather well with the open wiki section there. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced (source does not work on me) WP:TRIVIA which does not really deserve its own article. --Angelo (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a good article categorising results. If out of date it can always be updated. Eldumpo (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreliable source BUC (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maplehurst Correctional Centre[edit]

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

This looks like nothing more than a PR blurb from a prison that isn't particularly notable. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ as copyvio of [29]. TOS reserving copyright is here: [30]. Page tagged accordingly. Arakunem^Talk 20:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional free-content material added, so no longer Speedyable. RM'ed copvio material from the page. I'll wait to see if/how it is further expanded before !voting, as the article is only a few minutes old... Arakunem^Talk 20:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still a certain promotional tone, if a prison can be said to be promoted, but I have found independent sources (though much is devoted to the Toronto 18). May also be notable for a new approach to prisons in Canada: [31], if editors want to tackle that angle as well. Original article was a PR blurb, as nom correctly noted, and in fact was a copyvio as I noted. That has been resolved now, and I think we have a viable article. Arakunem^Talk 18:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. May be largest prison in Canada according to union in 2006. Canuckle (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Flagship modern prison that serves as model for transformation of Ontario's corrections system -- See here. Important part of public infrastructure. Home to high-profile inmates such as terrorism suspects, the Toronto 18... Should be moved to official facility name - Maplehurst Correctional Complex Canuckle (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is kept, that's a good move. Irbisgreif (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Canuckle (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner's Motion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Prisoner's Motion

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

This article is a complete hoax. It says that it's extremely rare, but that it's derived from Jefferson's Manual. If you search the full text of the Manual (available here), not once does it mention any "prisoner's motion." Additionally none of the sources describe the prisoner's motion or mention it by name. A Google search (leaving out the normal judicial use of the phrase) for the term gives back only hits to Wikipedia or mirrors of our content. Steven Walling (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article has six "references" but none of them mention this motion. Unfortunately, the article creator has not been active on Wikipedia for over a year, so even warning him about this hoax would probably not accomplish anything. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not verifiable. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 8 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging Leaders of the Digital World[edit]

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

Very small list, with no clear inclusion criteria. UltraMagnus (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like advertising for the sole member of the list. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Greg Tyler. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. this could have been a speedy delete.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as CSD A7 The article is not about what the tile of the article says it is. Looking at the actual source and the name of the editor, it was created as an attempt at an article on Dr. Dhrupad Mathur, who is included in a booklet by this title put out by an organization known as "Diplo Foundation". The booklet includes several bios of the people they are giving training grants to -- none of whom are yet notable, including him.. The foundation might be, if anyone wanted to write the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete.The page creater has created a page on himself Dhrupad Mathur too. Not notable at all. That should also be deleted.Shyamsunder (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per Nomination withdrawl JForget 23:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi[edit]

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

Non-Notable person that has appeared in a single youtube video. UltraMagnus (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I started this article shortly after the video appeared. I think the nomination is misleading to imply that this is not just some random youtube video. It contained the news of the merger two separate branches of Al Qaeda. The men in this video claimed to be the leaders of this newly merged al Qaeda groups. Security officials took this claim at face value. I honestly believe being one of the leaders of a branch of al Qaeda makes one notable. I honestly believe that having security officials believe one is a senior member of al Qaeda makes one notable -- even if they were mistaken. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A couple of weeks after the youtube video was uploaded Saudi security officials published a new list of suspected Saudi jihadists. This guy is ~~going to have ended up~~ on that list of 85 men. A little patience is going to be required to figure out which one. Then we should merge the two articles, or if he was one of those currently a red-link, we incorporate the info about the most wanted list into this article. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Geo Swan (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the guy is also alleged to have plotted to target the US Ambassador to Yemen. Geo Swan (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- for the reasons given above. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reviewed article, violates notability requirements, the suspect's actual identity is not known, and the source provided is not reliable. Would suggest author consider placing under personal space, and trying to bring in corroborating facts and sources before placing it back onto the site. Otherwise, it should be deleted.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unanswered questions about a topic are not a good argument for deletion, as I have explained in The earliest sockpuppet to be unmasked... Since the article currently cites multiple references perhaps you could bring yourself to be specific about your reliability concern? Geo Swan (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- when this article survives this ((afd)) it should be renamed Qassem Mohammed Mahdi Al-Rimi -- which is the transliteration given here. Geo Swan (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO, uncertainty is well outlined in the article. Ray^Talk 19:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - In light of additional notability established--UltraMagnus (talk) 20:23, 10 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. There is very substantial and well-argued support for a merge or redirect to Haplogroup CT, and further discussion along these lines can take place on the relevant articles' talk pages; but from an AfD closure point of view, what this debate has established is that Eurasian Adam should not be a redlink on Wikipedia. It should, at minimum, be a redirect.

A closure as "keep" does not prevent a merge or redirect. It merely means that deciding exactly how to proceed from here does not require administrative tools, so the normal talk page procedure is the way forward.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian Adam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eurasian Adam

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

The article is about a (non-notable) term for a subject which already exists: Haplogroup CT Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article explains a specific human ancestor along the lines of Y-chromosome Adam and African Eve. This article is not about a Haplogroup, and thus does not already exist. — Reinyday, 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe this editor does not understand the subject. (I have never noticed any editing on this type of subject before?) A haplogroup is a clade, i.e. a lineage with a common ancestor. It is defined by a common ancestry. Eurasian Adam is also only defined by being the common ancestor of the clade. Nothing else. This article simply puts a Biblical name and a continent name together and attaches them to the concept of this CT clade. Adam is a name being chosen to mean "patriarch" or common ancestor, but nothing else is known about this person other than that he was the common ancestor of this clade. This term is not a separate subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect about my familiarity with this subject and my editing history. If you looked at my user page you would at least be familiar with the articles I started. — Reinyday, 16:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if my words came across as over-simplistic, but taken literally they do not say what you think they say. I did not say you are unfamiliar with the subject, only that your statement above shows a misunderstanding upon this particular point. I do not say you never edited similar articles, only that I never came across you doing so before.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not put "a Biblical name and a continent name together and attaches them to the concept of this CT clade". That would be original research. This article explains a term used in anthrogenealogy to describe a particular supposed human ancestor. It may be less common than African Eve, but it is still a term used. If a human wants to know what the term "Eurasian Adam" refers to, they should be able to go to the Eurasian Adam article of Wikipedia to find out. You are welcome to use the article to explain the linkage with Haplogroup CT, the reason the phrase is problematic to you, the reason the phrase is less common, etc. as long as you provide valid sources for your contributions. You made this deletion nomination despite not being able to get anyone to agree with you on the talk page. You have tried to discredit me instead of addressing my valid argument. I am working hard to assume good faith here. — Reinyday, 16:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem having a redirect called "Eurasian Adam" nor with mentioning the term on the Haplogroup CT article, if it can be shown that the term is used by more than a couple of people. But there is no reason to have two articles about the same subject. This article is currently a very poor stub, but if its errors were corrected it would basically be an article about Haplogroup CT.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Eurasian" Adam is depicted as CDF near the top right. It includes Africans, Asians and everyone else "outside Africa"

The problem faced here is a case of popular culture meets hard science. The term "Eurasian Adam" appears in a few popular science books, such as The Journey of Man. As I have previously mentioned, biblical analogies sell books, and Eurasian Adam is a catchy phrase that is likely to attract attention. The reality is, there is no mutually exclusive Eurasian Adam. Consequently almost no peer reviewed scientific journal per google scholar uses the term, only a few books. The Y-chromosome family tree is a tangled web that makes a mutually exclusive Eurasian Adam impossible. That is Eurasian Adam is the common ancestor of only Europeans and Asians, but no other population. The so called Eurasian Adam, is actually the Adam of Africans, Australians and Native Americans as well, so it is a misnomer. Basically Eurasian Adam is the common ancestor of the entire world, except for 10-20% of Africans. 80% of Africans and the rest of the world are descendants of "Eurasian Adam". Consequently, I recommend merging it into haplogroup CT and providing the necessary caveats that such a mutually exclusive person does not exist. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. The "Eurasian" is a hopelessly misleading adjective. I suppose the authors were trying to show with this word that this is not the original Y Adam but a second "Adam" (not Y-Chromsome Adam himself who has no specific haplogroup), where Adam just means common male line ancestor.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the term is misleading is totally irrelevant. This is not a discussion of whether or not Eurasian is a good descriptor of human beings. This is discussion of whether or not Wikipedia should have an article explaining what the term "Eurasian Adam" means. You have made it perfectly clear that you don't like the phrase "Eurasian Adam". That does not change the fact that other people should be allowed to read a definition of "Eurasian Adam" if they are seeking one. — Reinyday, 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether a particular way of referring to a subject is misleading is relevant, if the subject can be explained in a less misleading way without loosing anything, surely? OTOH I agree that this is less important than the main reason for proposing a delete, which is that this subject is about the same subject as another article which already exists. It only exists as a misunderstanding of the science, as is shown by the woeful way that the term was defined in the stub of its text that I fixed today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a "2nd nomination"? Was there a first one that I'm not seeing? -- RoySmith (talk)
I haven't seen a first one either, if there isn't a move may be necessary. Though this term was popularized by Spencer Wells, a Eurasian Adam doesn't exist. The recent phylogenetic reconstructions by Underhill et al 2007 have clarified the y-chromosome tree, and as a result have dispensed with the notion of the existence of a mutually exclusive Eurasian Adam. Linda Stone has even updated the terminology by referring to an Australian/Eurasian Adam. However she should have gone further by stating that it includes Native Americans as well. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a delete proposal tag on the article which was removed by User:Small Victory.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Haplogroup CT (Y-DNA). I do not understand the genetics well enough to pass judgment on whether such an individual as Eurasian Adam ever existed, or whether Haplogroup CT (Y-DNA) adequately describes the concept. Such questions are for the subject matter experts who are editing these articles. AfD is for deciding what are fundamentally administrative issues, not for hashing out technical content. From a What makes sense for the encyclopedia? point of view, all that seems important here is that a user should be able to type eurasian adam into the search box and get directly to an article which discusses the concept. Whether it's a scientifically accepted term or not is not really important; it's apparently a term that has some popular acceptance, and thus deserves an entry. Whether that entry is a stand-alone article which discusses the topic (which might possibly mean explaining why the term is not accepted by the scientific community), or a redirect to another article such as Haplogroup CT (Y-DNA), I cannot say. But either way, it is clear to me that simply deleting the entry would be the wrong thing to do. I leave it up to the subject matter experts to figure out which of the possibilities I've outlined make the most sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where has anyone given proof that this term has any significant level of popular acceptance? In any case this article is about the same subject as the Haplogroup CT article, so the difference between merging and deletion is not important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the subject matter, being quite technical is not ideal for the afd, and could be addressed on the talk page. It would be very difficult for users who are unfamiliar with the subject to pass meaningful judgment. The default assessment would be to keep because "Eurasian Adam" does have some popular culture appeal. It is a problem that is faced on many genetics articles. My concerns with keeping such an article include:

Duplication of information in both articles
Creating a perception that Eurasian Adam is real

The only meaningful difference between the content of the two articles is that "Eurasian Adam" has some popular culture appeal. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying there needs to be two articles. You could make Eurasian Adam a redirect to Haplogroup CT (Y-DNA), (I got this backwards in my original note; I've fixed that now) and that article could say whatever is appropriate about how the term Eurasian Adam, while common in the popular press, is not used in the scientific literature. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE This is apparently not the second afd for this article. An error during the nomination process may have confused the AfD template. If this is incorrect and the article has been afd'd under a different name before, please note that here. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see a valid reason not to have it at the proper number, so I moved it. I should have fixed (almost) all the links, but apologize if I missed any. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 21:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think I move an AfD a long time ago and pointers to and from the log and article failed gracelessly for a few days. Not sure what might have caused that (apart from error on my part!), but I haven't moved an AfD since. Protonk (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to a section Haplogroup CT (Y-DNA) article that deals with the popular culture and popular science aspects of the subject. If that article gets to be too big in future then this title could be spun out again. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure I understand, are you confident that this is a term with wide acceptance? If it is then of course it could be mentioned on the Haplogroup CT article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With 8 independent books hits, an additional 2 independent scholar hits, ~350 web hits (excluding Wikipedia and mirrors, not all checked for independence of one another, and 4 apparently independent news hits for the exact phrase "Eurasian Adam" I'd say that the term qualifies for a redirect at the very least. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. One thing I noticed so far is that at least according to the editors who made this article, different people seem to define the term in different ways, some of which seem to contain pre-suppositions that are wrong. But anyway I have no opposition to including re-direct and section discussions on any notable term even if it is a term involving a misunderstanding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily 8 independent book hits, two are written by the same author, Spencer Wells. A couple of them are somewhat eccentric. With one book suggesting that biblical Adam and Eve, Noah etc were literally real people and corresponding to the genetic haplogroups. One other book actually refers to "Australasian/Eurasian Adam". In any case all of them mention "Eurasian Adam" alongside M168, which is Haplogroup CT. More hits are available for terms relating to M168 such as [M168 y-chromosome on google books, M168 y-chromosome on google scholar and on the web. Haplogroup CT is the latest YCC nomenclature beginning 2008, so we expect it to gain popularity with time. On the web "Eurasian Adam" is likely to be a hit in the blogosphere, as everyone tries to trump up their own specific ancestry. But it is a misnomer. Eurasian Adam lived in Africa, has African descendants and descendants in all the other continents, not just Eurasia.Wapondaponda (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you (Andrew) mean by different people seem to define the term in different ways. If by, different people, you mean, different editors of this article, then you've got a content dispute which you need to resolve on the article's talk page. If by, different authors in the scientific and/or lay press, then you have an external conflict, in which case the article should probably explore the various definitions used, i.e., Some authors (insert refs) use the term to mean X, while other authors (insert more refs) use it to mean Y. If it truly is a term only used in the lay press and never in the scientific literature, you could say that too. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy, what I am saying is that the authors of the Wikipedia article as it stands were defining it in several different confused ways at the same time, apparently without realizing it. See below my post in reply to Small Victory's post for an example. But also I only know of this term because of this Wikipedia article. I am not saying that proudly, but only to explain that the term may still require extra discussion to see if the published users of this word use it in a logical and clear way. So if it is a notable term then even though we still certainly need to make a redirect to Haplogroup CT and delete the redundant article, we are going to have to work out where this term sits on the scale between alchemy and pop science. Whatever theories its proponents profess to have, and whatever scientific qualification they have, the term certainly seems chosen to be emotive rather than scientific, so it is already clear enough that it is "pop science". It's been a real problem for Wikipedia articles on these subjects that the scientific literature itself does not have much peer reviewed debate or review, and so pop science, normally 10 or so years old and completely out of date, is often being cited uncritically.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, from what you say, it sounds like you and the other editors of this article have a content dispute. AfD is not a good forum to hash out content disputes. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Reinyday's reasoning. And for the record, the term is not "misleading" or a "misnomer". The man called Eurasian Adam is indeed the ancestor of all Eurasians. This does not preclude him from also being the ancestor of some Africans, nor does it imply that all of his non-African descendents remained in Eurasia permanently. Some people's logic is very faulty. ---- Small Victory (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you several times on the talk page of the article as follows: if this article is just about a term for Haplogroup CT, and nothing else, why then does it deserve a separate article? You have never replied. You always change subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way as a demonstration of how off track this is, "Eurasian Adam", if this has any connection to M168, is not going to also be defined as "the ancestor of all Eurasians". He will be one of many ancestors of all living people today, and a direct male line ancestor of nearly all Eurasians and most Africans. All human beings, especially all non Africans (which is apparently what Eurasian means in this term), will have many much more recent common ancestors than him. And indeed all M168+ men will even have much more recent direct male line common ancestors. The differences being delineated here are basic to this subject, and the subject can not be seriously handled in any way which confuses these differences.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing the debate. Certain issues are not controversial. The Haplogroup CT article contains or should contain all the necessary scientific information concerning "Eurasian Adam". A separate article on "Eurasian Adam" should only exist if there is enough notability in popular culture/science that is independent of the scientific facts concerning haplogroup CT. There should be two articles only if there is no redundancy between the two, that is the two articles cover different subjects. If they cover the same subject, then there should only be one article. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Jack007 (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused CT gives rise to CF and DE, While D is found in Eurasia, E is believed to have spread from Africa, therefore it appears there are two alternative theories. Either CT spread into Eurasia and E back migrated into Africa or CF and D (that's two haplogroups) spread from Africa into Eurasia. Therefore there could have been 1 or 2 male progenitors in Africa. I have no problem with the page named as such, if it was used in the media, but I have been following molecular anthropology for a long period of time and I am not inclined to believe something just because Spencer Wells says such things in documentaries. After all was it not Klien and Wells who claim humans left Africa 40,000-50,000 years ago, despite much evidence to the contrary. These beliefs are shaped by one chromosome, a chromosome that shows aberrant fixation relative to most other loci in the human genome (if I strictly use their data for spread and TMRCA for Y it would mean the paternal population size was 30,000/(2*generation time) ~ 800 males from 70,000 to 40,000 years ago, when the evidence from mtDNA has human female population at 3500 for the period of 194 to 40 kya (following their logic)(See mitochondrial Eve page) and Takahata and Shaffner independently place population size at 11,000 to 12,000 individuals up to the expansion. Tishkoff et al. 1996 defined the exodus population as being composed of 1000 individuals, this and the evidence (earlier) for the expansion of Khoisian (Behar et al 2009) indicate that the constriction effectively ended well before exoafrican migration occurred. If we use a male to female ratio, liberally of 1:3, that would mean that 250 males left Africa with 750 females, the timing appears to be about 60 to 70ky years ago. Consequently, there was no single male who left Africa. In addition that number of males could have easily carried variants D and CF, in addition other Y DNA might have left and been lost due to genetic drift.

The basal Haplogroup E* has been found in one South African male.[1] All other members of haplogroup E are subclades. E1a and E2 are found almost exclusively in Africa. IOW, even the proponent of the E backmigration theory now believes E originated close to the CT branch point in Africa, which means that D & CF or D, C & F left Africa with a small probability that CT left Africa and E returned. Which of these theories is the correctly Eurasian Adam? I would add one other thing, instead of wasting time in these style of arguments, why doesn't someone take the time to improve the Haplogroup D, CT, CF, C and F pages?PB666 ^yap 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random break[edit]

Roy, my apologies if I have confused the issue a bit, but I do not see this as a content dispute. I see no real argument about content between those proposing to delete or keep this article, despite having asked for it. Please check the talk pages.

The comments of myself and Muntuwandi about the types of sources are looking ahead to problems that might arise handling this pop science term in the Haplogroup CT article, or any article where it continues to appear, if it has no consistent and clear definition.

For example is Eurasian Adam defined as the most recent common ancestor of all M168+ men, or is he the first person to have had that mutation. There are likely to be millennia between the two definitions. If Eurasian Adam is a meaningful term, and intended to be equivalent to Y-chromosome Adam, then it should be former of the two. The mutation could have happened virtually anywhere and anytime. Population genetics can help understand major dispersals, but not random single events. It deals with clades, i.e. groups of lineages with common ancestry, and not individuals.

The reasoning for an Afd is and was that:

(a) this article covers a subject already covered in another article, or more precisely it is an article about a term used to describe the idea of Haplogroup CT to lay audiences. (Badly explain, but still it might be notable.)
(b) the first delete tag I attached to the article was removed by User:Small Victory, and there is no discussion possible, it appears. Not many people are watching this stub, so that is no surprise. The 2 people proposing "keep" seem unable to argue the case in any way that would not be resolved by replacing the article with a redirect, but they insist on opposing a merger of the two short articles in discussion. I question their understanding of the case.
I should perhaps also point out that there is no simple equivalence between this subject and the subject Y-chromosome Adam which appears to be User:Reinyday's understanding. The reason is that Y chromosome Adam is the male line MRCA with no haplogroup, i.e. it is by definition on no branch of descent from the common patrilineal ancestor of all men, but at the root. Therefore that article can not clash with any haplogroup article. If there was some sort of name for the haplogroup that included all men and was defined as being in the direct male line descent from Y chromosome Adam, it would need to be treated in the Y chromosome Adam article, because it is the same subject.--Andrew Lancaster

Actually Y-Adam is the root haplogroup, the haplogroup that includes all humans but paraphyletic to Neandertals or Homo erectus. The point about Y-Adam is that all human males must have a common ancestor. But no other type of male (Neandertal or Erectus) has as far as we know a part of the Y-Adam lineages. The can be contrasted with CT, in which other Eurasians, Americans rarely have other lineages (of recent ancestry), however many africans have CT(DE) haplogroup E lineages. By one criteria it may pass the equivilency test, by the other criteria it fails.

Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes sense. I think your point (a) above is the key point for this AfD. Does the term Eurasian Adam have sufficient notability to be worth an entry in the encyclopedia? I look at it from the point of view of a non-technical user. Is it likely that somebody will come across the term Eurasian Adam somewhere (read it in the lay press, hear it on TV, or at a cocktail party, or even as part of a homework assignment), want to learn more about the topic, turn to wikipedia for their research, and type it into the search box. It seems we have one of three choices for what will happen when they hit the "Go" button:

They find that no such entry exists in Wikipedia (and get offered a chance to create the page!)
They get to Eurasian Adam, which discusses the topic as a stand-alone article, linking to Haplogroup CT for more information.
They get automatically redirected to Haplogroup CT, which includes a section talking about the term Eurasian Adam, perhaps explaining why professional geneticists do not use the term.

My feeling is that the first alternative is clearly inferior, and I leave it up to the subject matter experts to figure out which of the second two is preferable. My gut feeling is that (and I respect the fact that you will probably disagree with me) is that the second is better than the third. If Eurasian Adam is a term only used in the lay press, then I suspect anybody who searches for it will be lost in the scientific jargon found on [Haplogroup CT]]. There is value in a simplified explanation (with a pointer to the more hard-core stuff for those who want to dig deeper). The hard part is knowing where the dividing line is between simplified and wrong. I'm certainly not asking that we present any information which is wrong, but try to look at it from the point of view of a 5th grade student working on a homework assignment (or an adult with no scientific training but heard the term on a TV show). If you type in Eurasian Adam and get to In human genetics, Haplogroup CT (P9.1, M168, M294) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup., you're not even going to make it past the first sentence. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would have said that all arguments on this page so far seem to be pushing us to a Merge, your option 3. No one has proposed option 1. You explanation of the case for 2 is the best so far, although I recognize it might be what Reinyday was trying to say on the article talkpage. Thanks for that. I can see that someone coming to Haplogroup CT from a redirect may be a little surprised. I guess this could be helped by making sure "Eurasian Adam" is placed right near the opening. However, as I mentioned there this raises the question of whether this subject can be explained correctly without explaining the science. If the quotes being given are the original source of the term then the people who invented this term did not even know how to define it. For example if we say that M168 is the clade whose ancestor has been referred to as Eurasian or Australasian/Eurasian Adam, then I think that is acceptable. But actually the authors cited wrote a nonsense definition implying that M168 was a mutation that happened first in a man who was the "ancestor of all Eurasians". That is a misunderstanding, and misunderstandings are hard to handle on Wikipedia unless a reviewer has already criticized them somewhere. (OR risk unless other Wikipedians feel the handling is obviously correct.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To keep it distinct, given Roy's posting about avoiding content discussions here, I have started a separate thread on the article's talkpage about the problems Wikipedia will have with this subject independent of the question of whether the subject can be separated from Haplogroup CT. I looked at the sources, and the term does have definition problems, because the various definitions put this concept in definite conflict, apparently out of ignorance, with mainstream science, and therefore the subject can apparently only appear as a notable misconception in this subject area of Haplogroup CT, if at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if any article is to exist, it would be dominated by caveats and misconceptions rather than any real content. This is an interesting problem. We have a catchy title that was promoted as a means to sell books. The term is misleading or wrong, yet it is popular, though mostly in the wrong places such as blogs, or those trying to prove that biblical stories are literally true. Due to the "catchiness" of the title, it is likely to get positive responses from editors unfamiliar with term. Another misconception that has not been addressed is that Eurasian Adam should actually be Y-Chromosomal Eurasian Adam. As it may give the impression that there was only one person in Eurasia, when in fact it just refers to the common ancestor of just one part of the genome, the y-chromosome. From the Identical ancestors point, there were several Eurasian Adams or just Adams and Eves. So it comes down to should we keep a term or a title, even though we know it is misleading, but because it appeared in 8 books and is popular in blogs. Or should we merge it into the article that has all the scientific facts, though with some jargon. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For large values of some :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if we use Y-Chromosomal Eurasian Adam as the new name of the current stub, which then has a well marked link to the main article [Haplogroup CT]]? I tend to think that creating a stub redirect is somehow against a policy somewhere? But I am always thinking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are reaching a concensus here on what to do. Might I propose the following:

The first section beyond the lead should open with who(pl) proposed the idea based on what evidence.
Exact quotes from those authors, and I mean exact, since this is pertinent to 'myth' the story is the story.
This should be laid out author-version of all prominent authors.
The next step is challenging, should each authors opinion should be pointed out independently, or should all the faults, and subsequent correction of science be presented in a section.
In that section link to the relevant pages (And hopefully those pages will improve as recipients of those points)
A Lead, composed of the authors, a synopsis of thier beliefs followed by the critique.

I agree with Roy, I hate articles on wikipedia that have been merged that really make a missense out of the original meaning or are not properly explained.PB666 ^yap 23:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that the page is getting about 30 hits per day which is not bad for a fairly new page.

This Eurasian Adam was also referred to as "Out of Africa Adam" by Oppenheimer in The Real Eve. I think "out of Africa Adam" is in fact more accurate than Eurasian Adam as it is the common ancestor of all male lineages outside Africa. The term is used several times in the book and for people with an Amazon account snippets can be obtained online with the amazon reader. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the wikipedia Admins have a good sense of humour, of late our Afds have become downright novels, lol. To adress MWs issue, we decide which term was more frequently used by experts, consider what is popularly used and then name the page, and give reference in the first sentence of the lead to other names. I looked at media hits on "Eurasia[n] Adam" there were none. Author specific hits on "Out of Africa Adam".

The real Eve: modern man's journey out of Africa: By Stephen Oppenheimer
The Toba evidence: By Stephen Oppenheimer

The term appears to be only used by Oppenheimer

Eurasian Adam:

The journey of man: a genetic odyssey- Page 71 by Spencer Wells, Mark Read - Science - 2002
Genes, culture, and human evolution: a synthesis‎ - Page 187 by Linda Stone, Paul F. Lurquin, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza - Medical - 2007
Darwinian detectives: revealing the natural history of genes and genomes‎ - Page 100-by Norman A. Johnson - Medical - 2007
Does DNA Evidence Prove That Humanity Branched from Mt. Ararat?‎

And Many others.PB666 ^yap 14:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the AfD can be closed as these publications by professionals no matter the errata, is notable. The page needs to be kept and markedly reorganized.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdeitiker (talk • contribs)

Just a few comments on the above books. The Journey of Man was published in 2002 during the height of the controversy concerning the origins of haplogroup DE. If Wells were to write a book today, he probably would avoid using the term Eurasian Adam. The footnote by Wells illustrate that a lot of what is known now wasn't back then, as he decides to ignore any further discussion of the Yap insertion(haplogroup DE). As haplogroup DE was thought to be Eurasian back then, it explains the motivation for the term "Eurasian Adam".

Linda Stone and Cavalli Sforza use Australasian/Eurasian Adam

Darwinian detectives mentions Eurasian Adam alongside M168, only casually

Does DNA Evidence Prove That Humanity Branched from Mt. Ararat? Believes that Bible is literally true and that Y-Chromosomal Adam was actually the "Adam". It reminds me of "Intelligent Design".

Only Oppenheimer uses the term "Out of Africa Adam", but as one can see, the more accurate term is less glamorous than the misleading but blog friendly "Eurasian Adam"Wapondaponda (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture Many articles have "in popular culture" or "in popular science" sections such as Mitochondrial_Eve#In_popular_science or Haplogroup_K_(mtDNA)#Popular_Culture and Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)#Popular_Culture. This is a possible option as opposed to a fully fledged article. More guidelines at Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. The advantage of a popular culture section is that we can deal with all the various names including "Eurasian Adam" "Out of Africa Adam" and Australasian/Eurasian Adam all in one place. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitochondrial Eve in popular culture Wapondaponda (talk) 13:31, 12 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. Enough with the mass nominations. The next trainwreck I see like this will be speedily kept. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hunt[edit]

I am nominating a series of biographical articles. The articles are Million Dollar Winners in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. While their achievements are notable in the scope of the show, in scope of WP:BIO they are not. Since this is an important topic for the show, I have created a List of top winners in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and copied the information in each article I've listed for deletion. If this nomination fails, then I request the removal of List of top winners in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire as it will be redundant. Mitaphane _talk 07:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles are:

John Carpenter (2nd Nom)
Dan Blonsky
Joe Trela
Bob House
David Goodman
Kevin Olmstead
Bernie Cullen
Ed Toutant
Kevin Smith
Nancy Christy

Delete, per nom, unless one does something exceptional in the next few days. Jefffire 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment. I don't think a mass nomination is appropriate because not all of these persons are on the same footing. In particular, it seems to me that Carpenter achieved bona fide renown and in addition was involved in more than one event likely covered by the press. My keep applies to Carpenter's article. In addition, I'd like to comment that I'm not sure I see how a list of non-notable people would be worthy of an article. If these articles are deleted, the newly created list article should also be deleted. Finally, I think the tactic being employed here is ill-advised and against the spirit of AfD. It creates a de facto referendum on whether content should be presented in one form or another instead of focusing debate on the suitability of content for this encyclopedia. AfD should be about content, not form. Erechtheus 08:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (nominate only the non-notables of the list). A spot check also produces Nancy Christy was the first woman (May 8, 2003) to win the top ($1,000,000) prize on the United States game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. You can say what you want, but to be the first woman to do something, is notable (even if it's a bloody game show) I don't think a mass nomination is in order here either. There's at least two people in this list who deserve an article in my view and if someone doesn't deserve their own article, it doesn't neccesarily mean a list of WWTBAM winners is not notable. This needs a different approach. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. While Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate source of information, neither is it a paper encyclopedia. Major winners of gameshows should be notable enough for inclusion. Brisvegas 09:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) After mulling over some more, I figure that since the entries would still be listed, it makes no major diifference. Changed vote to neutral.[reply]

Keep the Carpenter page at least, Listify the others. Carpenter's WWTBAM victory was very notable in it's own right, (citing press coverage.) The other winners may be notable enough to list, but not on their own page in my opinion. AfD Precedent says spelling bee winners et. al. are considered notable. It should be noted that Carpenter's first AfD nomination resulted in a No Consensus. --Roninbk 12:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Each article should have their notability judged individually. For example, Bob House is not notable for anything except winning on the show, while Kevin Olmstead is notable not only for winning the show, but for the fact for a long period he held the record for the highest winnings on a game show, and is also a founder of National Academic Quiz Tournaments.--Nonpareility 14:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote keep for all (as independant articles) with varying levels of conviction. Strong keep for Carpenter, as he was a genuine celebrity for a few months; keep Olmstead, for reasons listed above; keep Cullen due to his success on multiple game shows (he was also part of Jeopardy's Ultimate Tournament of Champions); weak keep for all the rest. Who Wants to be a Millionaire was really popular in its prime, and it has always had a good sense of its own history (compared to shows like Wheel of Fortune, which never talk about their past contestants). I think we can spare some space for every million-dollar winner. Zagalejo 14:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete]Their 15 minutes of fame are over unless the TV exposure led to some notable carrer in movies, TV, or whatever which itself makes them notable. Edison 01:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree that a mass nomination is not appropriate here. There is no question to me that Carpenter (since he was the first winner) and Olmstead (since he held a game show record for a few years) should have their own pages. While I'm not sure that each and every winner should have their own page, I do think every page should be decided individually.--Jatterb 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also agree mass nomination is inappropriate, and Carpenter and Olmstead should definitely be kept, with the others weakly kept. (Many of the articles include substantial information on the million-dollar question, which, in my view, is borderline encyclopedic.) I did suggest redirection for non-notable people (or, I should have implied, for biographies that don't state much more than what they are notable for) in the talk page for Kim Hunt. Hunt could have been redirected to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) if article content was an issue. I recently redirected David Korotkin, the first contestant of the US Millionaire (which I now brought up in WP:RFD), and I also redirected Robert Brydges to the UK version of Millioniare. Tinlinkin 08:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of top winners in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, if not already complete there. --FlyingPenguins 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Millionaire isn't like the other game shows, and as long as we don't start expanding to "500k winners," I think this will be fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If editors went the rest of the centuries deleted, it would have to be nominated and using this AFD as a reference. --JForget 00:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

37th century (Hebrew) (and other Hebrew century articles)[edit]

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

No discernible encyclopaedic content. Speedy declined. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would like all the NNth century (Hebrew) articles to be deleted. The intent seems to be to list articles important in Jewish history, but assuming that's a valid purpose, it doesn't make any more sense to divide them into articles based on the Jewish calendar for the audience of Wikipedia (which uses, predominately, the Gregorian calendar) than it does to write them in Hebrew (or Yiddish or Ladino) instead of English. I don't believe that the Hebrew calendar is used even within the world of Jewish scholarship for purposes of laying out chronology, so it also doesn't make any more sense to do it here than it would to similarly divide up articles about Armenian history or Japanese history. Finally, though there is nothing about the title of these articles that indicates that the content should be limited to Jewish history, so technically speaking this is nothing more than a redivision of the articles that already exists for centuries on the Gregorian calendar. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Idea. Why not list centuries of other calendars on Gregorian century articles? That seems a fair way of resolving this issue. OTOH there may be a use for Hebrew century articles. — Rickyrab | Talk 12:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would there be a use for Hebrew century articles, when no one dates events in Hebrew centuries? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There might be enthusiasts out there. And it's common to date things in some Israeli and Jewish contexts in Jewish time periods. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My first inclination is to say, let this placeholder turn back into a red-link until someone cares to write about it, at which time they will click on the red-link and actually have something to say. On the other hand, this particular time (roughly 160-61 BC) saw events, such as the Maccabees, and someone who wanted to do something could. The overall purpose of an encyclopedia, however, is for reference. You look up an article, and you expect to learn something about the subject. The only reason that I can see that this pointless article was created is that someone prefers the color blue over r.ed. Mandsford (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I happen to be busy, which is why I haven't written much or attempted to write much. Maybe transfer to personal pagespace until I can figure out what to put in them? — Rickyrab | Talk 12:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would be happy if all of these wre moved into user space until they have sufficient content to be notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not think that any one is seriously using this dating system. Jews who do not want to acknowledge the existence of Christ use CE and BCE for AD and BC. In any event, I am far from clear that this is other than a 2nd millenium AD construct. If it were, I would have expected to find soemthing other than regnsal years in the Bible. However, I am not an expert here, and may need to be corrected. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean. The way I look at it, any article that includes an alternative dating system also has to have the Christian/Common Era system that everyone uses in order to be understood. I suppose that this article could be called "2nd Century BCE in Jewish history" and look at the range from 200BC-101BC, but I don't think it would add or take away from its usefulness in talking about a period of 100 years. On the other hand, I think it would be unencyclopedic to have an article called "5750 (Hebrew) in Israel". Narrow focus articles, like "1980 in Swedish football" are a way of retelling history from a particular perspective, generally started one editor dedicated to doing the research and then trying to present it in an interesting way for the readers. Given that a person clicks on one of these because they want to know more about the subject, I think that using a traditional dating system adds to the experience. I like the concept of presenting Jewish history in the format of a Jewish calendar. Mandsford (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Is seems like the existing content could just as easily go in Timeline of the Bible or Jewish history. Failing that, a similar Timeline of ... article could be created, or perhaps "Outline of Jewish history". Creating endless ways of reorganizing existing material is a waste of time.--RDBury (talk) 00:50, 9 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. Hoax. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Star Airways[edit]

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

Hoax - this isn't a real airline according to Google. I can not find any RS that supports this airline. Admrboltz (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant find any evidence that it exists. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never heard of it, nor any reference to it AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rates a 7 on the hoax scale for dropping some hints, like daily service to 18 destinations with a fleet of two jets. One point off for the slogan, "You're a star... be treated like one!" Mandsford (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Six Ghits, and the only non-Wikipedia hit doesn't mention anything close to what's in the article. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:38, 6 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. Tone 10:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elope (album)[edit]

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

This article has been open for an extremely long time but fails to meet notability. "Us against the world" was released as a single under myspace records. Since then Milian has moved labels and even changed the name of the album from Dream in Color to Elope. This page should have never been created because under WP:Notability (music) it would fail. As a general rule album's need a cover art, track listing and confirmed release date. This album has none of these and the details are ambiguous. One source says she was dropped from her old record label whilst another said they parted ways on mutual agreement. Wikipedia content is supposed to be facual and encyclopedic and so in its current state this page deserves to be removed until a new release date is confirmed and a new single too. This is becoming too much of a WP:Crystal. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the article's primary contributor, I have made sure that every statement in the article is fully sourced. I do not see how the article is violating WP:Crystal, as it already has a fully-fledged production section, and more reliable sources than most released albums. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment, for albums to have their own page they should have a track listing, cover-art, confirmed released date and charted singles. Of these criteria this album has just one of those. Much of the information is confusing and based on secondary sources. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Where are you getting this information from? WP:Notability (music) says that, in general, "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." Now, of these, we only know the title, but we also know that the album will be released late this year, or early next year. It is also stated that "in a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it", which I believe applies here. There is definitely enough verifiable information in the page to support it. Also, you claim that there is confusing information, but what is confusing? You said before that, "One source says she was dropped from her old record label whilst another said they parted ways on mutual agreement", but that hardly makes an argument. Of course there are differences. How is it my fault that different sources reported different things? I already fixed this a while ago to make sure everything was consistent in this article. Finally, if you have a look at Wikipedia:No original research, you'll see that we are supposed to use secondary sources. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as unreleased albums go, this is properly and comprehensively sourced. In fact, it is one of the most well-sourced album articles I have seen – including albums that are already out. – B.hotep •talk• 10:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus on deletion but merged with 2009 Taconic State Parkway crash. Let's wait and see folks before nominating for a second time. Nothing to see here, folks, please move along. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Schuler[edit]

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

Tragic event, but there are thousands of similarly tragic traffic accidents every year, and this is not a particularly notable incident. Denied speedy deletion previously, so PROD was not an option. Risker (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: Please see this Administrator Noticeboard thread prior to closing. Thanks. Risker (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

Extremely Strong Keep - Not particularly notable? Thousands of similarly tragic traffic accidents every year? Come now. I can hardly take those claims seriously. In fact, this deletion suggestion probably falls under the WP:Snowball clause. While there are many traffic crashes each year, I have never seen any similar to this ... let alone the "thousands similar to this", as you claim. This is indeed notable ... and far different from the other thousands of crashes. This is notable on so many levels, that I hardly know where to begin. It is notable, as it appears in reliable sources consistently and repeatedly over the past few months ... with each developing turn of the story. Differences between many thousands of "garden variety" road crashes include: 8 people died; a mother caused the death of her own children / family (numbering 4), as opposed to strangers; the inexplicable actions of Schuler; she was driving the wrong way on a road she is familiar with; she had enormous amounts of drugs / alcohol while choosing to drive with her own children / nieces; she called home to state that she wasn't feeling well; the young child called home to state that the driver was acting strangely; the alleged drunk driver has no history of drinking or drunk driving; what parent would put their own kid in harm's way like this ... much less 5 of their own kids?; the aftermath back-and-forth tit-for-tat between Schuler's husband and the other victims (which has been highly publicized, sourced, and thus notable); etc., etc., etc. I could go on and on. This case is extremely unique. I cannot fathom how you equate it with "thousands of similar traffic accidents" that occur every year. In fact, I would challenge you to cite even one similar event. Just one. Furthermore, this was the worst accident on that highway in 75+ years ... notable in itself. In addition, this event was a catalyst to open national discussion / debate about "hidden alcoholism" and how it can be very hard to detect in people. It opened national debate / discussion about "closet drinkers" among suburban housewives and mothers. Also, this event prompted a few states to consider new laws about drunk driving while children are in the car. (See, for example, the following article that recently appeared in The New York Daily News: In Wake of Taconic Crash, Governor Paterson's Tough Talk on New Legislation on DUIs if Kids Aboard.) (In fact, these new laws will probably be come to be popularly known as the "Schuler Act", in my opinion.) How much more significant / notable do you want? This case heightened awareness and discussion of alcohol issues on very many levels throughout the nation. Quite frankly, suggesting that this be deleted is simply ridiculous. And claiming that this event is "similar to thousands of other similar crashes" merely demonstrates severe misunderstanding, ignorance, and/or lack of knowledge of the issues at hand ... and the deep impact that this event had in the USA. No one will be able to cite even one similar crash ... much less the thousands similar to this that you proffer. That being said ... as I stated on the article Talk Page, however, this article should be renamed "2009 Taconic State Parkway crash" (or some such) ... as opposed to "Diane Schuler". (See: Talk:Diane Schuler#Title of article, posted by me on 08-22-09.) This article is about the crash; it is not a biography of Diane Schuler. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

Comment I can see the long-term notability for this particular accident, based on the coverage by sources outside of New York (USA Today, ABC news, NPR, etc.) and since it will be cited as an example of the tragedy that can be caused by drinking and driving. But I can't say "keep" for this ghoulish, over-the-top, minute-by-minute, retrace-the-route account of the tragedy that appears to have been lifted from the Journal-News website. Mandsford (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is ambiguous. Are you advocating Keep or Delete? Suggesting that ghoulish facts and details in an article be re-written is far different than suggesting that said article be entirely deleted. Which is your position? By your own admission, this crash is notable. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

It's not a vote. Yes, I "admit" that this crash is notable, but my position is that I will not !vote to keep an article that I really do not like. Perhaps others will urge that it be kept. Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one said that this is a vote. This is understood to be a discussion. Your above reply is as ambiguous as the first. Are you advocating that the article be kept or deleted? It's a simple and straight-forward question. Why not simply answer it? Why be so coy about it? This is what I got from your response, however. (And what any reasonable reader would also get.) You agree that the crash is notable and thus merits a Wikipedia article. Yet, at the same time, you do not support keeping notable articles on Wikipedia just because you "don't really like them". Wow. Are Wikipedia readers really supposed to take that position of yours with any seriousness? Does such a statement lend itself to any credibility whatsoever? Is that your belief? That boils down to "I want Wikipedia to only contain articles that I really like, notability issues aside." I would offer to you that the standard in discussing whether articles be kept or deleted centers around notability, not whether individual editors "really like" the article. And -- as I stated earlier -- a more reasoned response in a deletion discussion would be "This article, while written poorly, covers a notable topic. Thus, it should be cleaned up, but not removed." Your argument of keeping only the articles that you "really like" is a standard with which I am unfamiliar. It's rather silly, to be honest. (As a side note, I can see why "they" demanded an Electoral College be written into the US Constitution.) Unreal. Thanks for your, um, response. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

Noted. Mandsford (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing that makes this accident stand out is the amount of minute detail. Otherwise it's just another case of DUI. NVO (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that this is "just another DUI case". Which other cases, specifically, have raised national (if not, international) awareness of this cause to the extent that this has? Which other cases, specifically, have prompted legislation to stiffen DUI laws when children are passengers? Which other cases, specifically, have received the level of attention that this one has? Please let me know. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

What attention? It's all gone, there's a trickle of local news concerning her husband, nothing worth of note. As for the legislation, it appears that the bill was already in progress before the accident more stale news. NVO (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You have not answered any of my questions, I see, when I asked you to offer up "similar cases". (2) As to the points you did raise (regarding attention): Hmmmmm ... Let's see what a quick Google search shows us. Not that it's infallible or scientific ... but it is a fairly good barometer. If I use either "Diane Schuler" or "Taconic crash" ... or some such variation ... as the search terms, these are the results.

* When I limit the results to the past day (24 hours), I get 2,130 hits.

* When I limit the results to the past week, I get 66,800 hits.

* When I limit the results to the past month, I get 302,000 hits.

* When I limit the results to Google's "recent results", I get 732,000 hits.

These include local, state, and national coverage. Reliable sources appearing include: MSNBC, The Huffington Post, Newsday Magazine, ABC News, The Associated Press, The New York Daily News, The Miami Herald, The New York Post, Fox News, CBS News, and The Seattle Times, to name a few. Clearly, this refutes your claim that there is no attention to this incident. This refutes your claim that all of the attention to this incident is gone. This refutes your claim that there is only a trickle of coverage about this incident. This refutes your claim that there is only local news coverage of this incident. This refutes your claim that there is nothing worthy of note. Furthermore, you concede that there is indeed coverage on the husband, thus indicating persistent and consistent coverage (i.e., notability of the incident). (3) You also claim "it appears that the bill was already in progress before the accident". To the contrary, the article that I cited above states: "In the wake of the horrific Taconic crash, Gov. Paterson on Thursday will unveil legislation to toughen the laws for drunken driving with kids in the car." It also states: "Paterson will unveil his legislation less than three weeks after the Taconic crash." This New York Daily News article was dated August 13, 2009. This clearly contradicts your claim that the bill was in progress before the crash. In fact, the article explicitly states that Paterson is unveiling this in light of the crash. And three weeks after the crash. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

It's a sad fact, but local politicians do jump at accidents to pursue their agendas. I am in no position to judge governor's real intents, but it is clear that he could use any of recent DUI accidents familiar to his constituency. NVO (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment does not make sense. How could the Governor use just any old garden-variety DUI accident to pursue an agenda of legislation that targets specifically children passengers as victims? He would be saying, for example, "In this John Smith DUI case, there were no children passengers at all as victims. And I would like to use this John Smith DUI case to pursue legislation that stiffens the penalties for DUI cases where children passengers are the victims." Makes no sense whatsoever. Also, the intent of the legislator is irrelevant. The relevant point is that this crash prompted legislation, independent of the legislator's underlying motives / intent / agenda. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 7 September 2009)

Strong keep, not because the incident was especially tragic, but because it was especially weird and as a result, has received tons of press and public attention, much more than the average fatal collision. The argument that the article should be deleted for having too much detail is ridiculous, as that's a) wholly a content dispute and b) goes to bolster the incident's notability, since these details would not have been reported if a wide number of media sources didn't think them of interest to the public. (The accusation that the timeline was "lifted" from the Journal-News website is both false and inexplicable; the timeline was built gradually and currently cites at least fourteen different sources.) The argument that it should be deleted because reporting on the incident has tapered off, even allowing the benefit of the doubt that that's a true assessment, is still baffling, but I would hope a link to Notability Is Not Temporary resolves that. Coverage of this incident was not limited to a one-time burst of reports that "an accident happened", but has extended to new reporting whenever a new development has arisen in the investigation of the event. Propaniac (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that! (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

It's 7 weeks after the crash, so WP:NTEMP doesn't really apply. If it is still notable 7 months or 7 years afterward, then it applies. I think it is worthy of mention in the article about the parkway, where indeed there is a nice, succinct paragraph about it; it's probably the most notable traffic accident on that roadway. We have a couple of these a year on Highway 401, often worse than this, and I wouldn't call them lastingly noteworthy. If legislation results from this, then the legislation would be noteworthy and a paragraph about this particular incident as a catalyst for the legislation would be appropriate in that article too, should it come to pass. This incident is also appropriately listed in List of road accidents 2000-2009, and that is where the level of notability should be noticed; while I do not dismiss the tragedy of the deaths and injuries in this case, it is illogical to say this is "very noteworthy" when compared to collisions resulting in much higher death and injury. As noted in the nomination, these sorts of incidents are commonplace, and very, very few are noteworthy enough for their own article. A nasty accident during a slow news cycle just means that lots of stories get generated; it doesn't mean it has any true significance. Risker (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wholly missing the point. This case is notable not because it was a DWI, not because it was a head-on crash, not because it was a wrong-way driver, and not because so many people perished. Yes ... such events are quite commonplace in the USA. This incident is notable due to the bizarre and strange circumstances all of which aligned to produce this crash. You state that: "We have a couple of these a year on Highway 401, often worse than this". (A) I find that terribly difficult to believe. You have had several cases on Highway 401 that are similar to the Schuler case? That is flat out incorrect. If so, please provide the details that make it similar to the Schuler case. If indeed your Highway 401 cases were similar (i.e., a mother with no drinking history drives drunk on the wrong side of the highway and kills her own 5 children / family members), I am quite certain that we would have heard about it. (B) When you make such a claim, this simply proves my point. You are considering these cases similar because they are DWI's and/or because of the high fatality count. And ... as I stated before ... that comparison is wholly missing the point. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 7 September 2009)

I'm not sure why some people seem to be thinking of this incident as "some cars crashed and some people died," and then comparing it to all incidents where some cars crashed and some people died, and saying that since most of those incidents don't get a lot of public attention, this one isn't notable. Are you aware that this incident did get lots of public attention? Even if the incident were precisely comparable to other incidents that were mostly ignored, if one such incident is the subject of a huge amount of news reporting, it becomes notable. (In this particular case, the attention came because it involved an apparently responsible and loving mother who killed her daughter and nieces while driving, for no apparent reason, in the wrong direction on a major highway for nearly two miles without stopping, and it turned out she was filled to the brim with alcohol and narcotics even though everyone who knew her said she rarely drank and never did drugs and appeared sober the last time anybody saw her alive. But none of that is why we can determine it to be a notable incident; it's what led to the press coverage that allows us to establish notability.) I'm pretty sure there's nothing in WP:N that requires incidents to result in passed legislation, or to kill more people than have ever been killed before, in order to be notable. It's about the attention received from the media, which reflects the interest of the public. Propaniac (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the subject of extensive and continuing media coverage not only about the immediate incident that addresses any BLP1E issues. Ample reliable and verifiable sources establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Incidentally, a declined speedy does not preclude you from prodding an article. Quite a lot of articles are deleted by prod after it's determined they don't meet the criteria for a speedy delete. Propaniac (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this sad and pointless story. Content is unnecessarily goulish and when that is taken away nothing is left. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

... except that it's a notable incident. Let's keep the topic at whether or not this is notable. Whether the incident is sad or tragic is not relevant to notability. Whether the content is well written or poorly written is not relvant to notability. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 7 September 2009)

Delete Yeah... Sad story but wikipedia is not a newspaper... Str8cash (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Neutral per the article's creator. My own edit of the article would look like this. Although it's true that drunk driving accidents happen regularly, this one has attracted attention from TIME Magazine, USA Today, ABC and CBS news, etc. and gotten nationwide press. As with 1988's Carrollton, Kentucky bus collision, where a wrong-way drunk driver killed 27 people, there are examples of DUI that serve as cautionary tales for future generations. Just as the focus of the 1988 crash was on the accident, rather than on the perpetrator, Larry Mahoney, I don't believe that this should become a biography of Diane Schuler. Mandsford (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

neutral here's my opinion when Ttonyb1 first proposed a speedy delete. and this will be my opinion when every admin proposes a speedy delete on this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Diane_Schuler#Contesting_speedy_deletion but.... you know what, who cares. wikipedia isn't what it was anymore so it doesn't really matter. Lucky dog (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply is confusing ... or, at least, I don't understand what you're saying. Why would you contest speedy deletion proposals every time for this article ... yet, advocate neutrality for this specific AfD deletion proposal? Please clarify. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 8 September 2009)

Keep At some point, a particular news item transcends into general notabilty, and admitting it's a subjective call, I think this one has. That being said, the article could certainly use a trimming Vartanza (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the circumstances make this more than just your everyday, run-of-the-mill DUI case. Though I agree it should be about the incident and not about the perpetrator, primarily. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - This was a horrific accident that is note worthy on the taconic parkways history. Worthy of a page on wikipedia.. GormnT (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— GormnT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: User:Mandsford moved the article to Taconic Parkway Crash. Mandsford also subsequently replaced the article with an entirely new, much shorter version, which I have mostly reverted because I didn't feel the new version adequately supported the notability of the incident, which would obviously be unfair for this discussion. Once it's decided here to keep the article in some form, I am absolutely open (as one of the main editors to the article in its current state) to revising and shortening it considerably, to something in between the current version and Mandsford's linked suggested version. I just didn't think it was fair to suddenly change discussion of an article with 22 sources, to discussion of an article with 3 sources that barely touches on why this is more notable than most other fatal traffic collisions. Propaniac (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The shorter version looks tidy, but it completely removed the stuff that (here I have to side with Joseph A. Spadaro) made it look notable for inclusion. Take out the ticking timebomb and the gory flashbacks and its just another crash that happened a month ago. Perhaps, in case of keep vote, the original detail should stay. NVO (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough; this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, after all. However, I'm surprised to see removal of links to national sources, like TIME, USA Today, CBS News, etc. Ultimately, any Wikipedia article is a mix of two things: (1) basic narrative and (2) links that people can click upon if they want further information. To the extent that details (such as the timeline) can be found in links, it's an editorial choice as to whether the narrative is made better or worse by the inclusion of a particular piece of information. I think there is a difference of opinion, even among those who say keep, as to whether the original level of detail is necessary. Mandsford (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I didn't notice the national sources you referred to in the External Links section; I have no objection to those being re-added. As I said earlier, I think the optimal version of this article would be somewhere between the suggested shorter one, and the current one. Propaniac (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extensive secondary source coverage. Brianga (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The version of User:Mandsford (which has since been reverted) is superior to the bloated and goulish original. Nonetheless, the incident is of a local and transient nature (except to those directly affected by it) and is not suitable for a WP article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

How do you define "local" and "transient"? If you define "local" as "appearing in reliable sources all across the country" ... and you define "transient" as "notable in-depth reliable source coverage that is continuing and persistent" ... then I will agree with you. Otherwise, if you are using the plain-language meaning of these terms, your claim is silly, not credible, and/or wholly misinformed. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 11 September 2009)

Nobody has brought up WP:CIVIL yet, and I think it's because we recognize that you're new to the AfD Forum. The response above, however, goes too far. You really need to stop this tendency to make a hostile response to anyone who happens to disagree with you. Saying "Thanks" at the end does not make a difference. I've was blocked once for uncivil comments, and I can assure you that it is no fun. You have the makings of a good writer and I envision that you will make many good contributions to Wikipedia, but we all need to do our part to keep discussions under control. Mandsford (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, my postings are all quite civil. If people are going to post preposterous claims, then –- yes -– I will certainly call them on that. It has nothing to do with whether or not they agree or disagree with my point of view. I am not under any delusion that I am the King of Wikipedia and everyone must agree with my opinion. In my opinion, it is simply preposterous to make the statement that this crash received only local coverage. In my opinion, it is simply preposterous to make the statement that coverage of this crash was transient. Under the normal meanings of those terms, such claims are simply ridiculous -- and factually false. And, if someone dares to assert such preposterous claims, then -– yes –- I will certainly call them out to defend said claims. Questioning statements that are factually untrue in no way equates to incivility. Requesting that such statements be backed up / defended / explained -- when they fly in the face of the facts -- does not equate to incivility. My above post can be restated to read: (1) How are you using the term "local" to describe this incident, when its coverage has in fact appeared in reliable sources all across the country? You see, I myself would use the word "national" -– not "local" -- to describe that type of coverage. And I believe that many (most) others would also. My above post can also be restated to read: (2) How are you using the term "transient" to describe coverage of this incident, when it has in fact received notable in-depth reliable source coverage that is continuing and persistent (all these months after the incident)? You see, I myself would use the word "continuous" -– not "transient" -– to describe that type of coverage. And I believe that many (most) others would also. So, please tell me exactly what is uncivil about asking such relevant and reasonable questions? No – I don’t don any kid gloves to call a spade a spade. Such statements are absurd, and I will call the editor out on it. If he (or you) is offended, so be it. My statements and my points are valid and reasonable and deserve an answer or, at least, deserve consideration. There is nothing uncivil about my choice to not wear kid gloves, so as to not offend an editor who makes such absolutely false statements. This crash has received local and transient coverage! Yeah, right. Not on this planet, as I have witnessed it. But, that's just my perception. To which I am entitled. And I invite the claimant of the statement to back up said statement. Too bad if people are "offended" when they are asked to back up / defend preposterous (and flat-out false) statements. That's their problem, not mine. My questions are valid and civil. If you purposely read incivility into it, that's your issue – not mine. I stand by my comments, as I have every right to do so. From my perspective ... calling the coverage of this crash either "local" or "transient" –- let alone both –- is indeed silly, not credible, and/or wholly misinformed. And I challenge the claimant to back up his statements. I would also proffer that many people would share my perception ... and/or that it would be entirely reasonable to do so. I don't live under a rock. As I said in my Post Number 1 (above), this entire deletion debate really falls under the WP:Snowball clause. Some editors, however, like a lot of "process" and like to hear themselves talk. And, so, we are endlessly forced to defend why a valid article like this is notable and belongs in Wikipedia. So, to re-iterate ... from all that I have seen ... how can this coverage be described as "local" or as "transient"? I await a reply. I may be misinformed. And I believe that that would only be the case if I do not understand the plain-language meanings of the terms "local" and "transient". And I am open to such possibility. If anyone cares to offer the definition of those terms ("local" and "transient") and how specifically they are applicable here, I am more than interested to hear. Furthermore ... if anyone is being uncivil ... it is you towards me! First: you purposefully inject your own emotions / interpretations (i.e., that are offensive to you) into my comments. And then you have the nerve to call my comments "offensive"! Unreal. When it was you, yourself, who injected the offending emotion in the first place. Second: you deny (or attempt to do so) me of my right to ask valid questions and challenge others' claims and statements. Which, by the way, is the very definition of a discussion / debate. Which, by the way, is what this page is. Third: You indicate that I have no right to conclude my comments with a "thank you" ... or that doing so violates incivility rules. Simply because you yourself are injecting a sarcastic tone into the term "thank you" (that is not there to begin with). I challenge you to review all of my posts. I end 99.999999% of my posts with a "thank you". Which, by the way, is the very definition of civility ... not incivility. Unreal. Sometimes, it feels like the inmates are running the asylum. I love how people can argue that white is black or up is down, with a straight face. And then they get "offended" when they are called on it. Simply unreal. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 10 September 2009)

In addition ... three post-script comments in brief. (1) You describe my post as "hostile". My post is merely black-and-white words typed on a page / computer screen. There is no emotion. And there is no hostility. If there are any emotions or hostility anywhere in the neutral black-and-white posting, said emotions and hostility are there only by you injecting them in there. That is, you are interpreting neutral statements made by me as being hostile. I cannot control how you choose to interpret the black-and-white facially neutral words that I type. And, I would proffer: you cannot / should not inject the hostility into the neutral statements and then turn around and complain that they are hostile. They are only hostile because you think so. And because you have opted to add that emotion into my otherwise emotion-less and facially neutral comments. (2) You invoke that we all need to do our part to keep discussions under control. I agree. And I am doing my part. I am keeping this discussion under control by questioning and challenging statements made by editors. Especially false statements. This crash isn't "local" simply because some editor decides to type the five letters l, o, c, a, and l in describing the crash. And if he does indeed do that, then I will request that he defend or back up that claim ... which flies in the face of all the facts. So, I do indeed see that my questioning helps as my part to keep this discussion under control. (3) Here is another blatant falsity with which I disagree from the prior editor. The editor claims "this incident is of a local and transient nature (except to those directly affected by it)". At last check ... the Governor of New York instigated legislation because of this crash. All citizens of the state of New York would be subject to said legislation. The legislation would be / is debated by all senators and representatives in New York ... who represent all citizens of New York. So, how -- pray tell -- does an incident that extends its reach in such a broad and sweeping manner get described as not notable "except to those directly affected by it"? Is it me who has gone mad? There are 20 million people living in New York. All of them are affected by these laws. Not to mention the millions of others who don’t live in – but who visit – New York. How can anyone make the claim that this incident is only notable to the 8 people directly affected (and their family / friends)? You see, I myself cannot agree with that statement. But, that’s just me. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 11 September 2009).

Those of us who are registered users are at somewhat of a disadvantage to a person who uses only an IP address (64.252.26.82). I think that most users would consider comments such as "silly", "makes no sense", "misinformed", "preposterous", etc., to be uncivil. Whether you choose to become a "Wikipedian" or not, Wikipedia is a community and we look out for each other. Mandsford (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well if you insist that I don my kid gloves ... two can play at that game. First: let me re-phrase. It is my opinion that offering as true statements that are absolutely factually false is silly, makes no sense (to me), is misinformed, and is preposterous. That is my opinion, period. Just because you do not like my opinion does not mean that I am engaging in incivility. Second: Since we are donning our kid gloves now ... I shall accuse you of incivility toward me. (A) For accusing me, unjustly, of being uncivil, simply for stating my opinion. (B) For accusing me of incivility simply because you do not agree with my opinions. (C) For categorizing as uncivil my reasonable requests that factually false statement be defended, clarified, or explained. (D) For labeling as uncivil my attempts to engage in meaningful dialogue, discourse, discussion, and debate. All of these, by definition, include questioning the claims / statements of others ... and demanding / requesting explanations, clarifications, and the backing up of claims ... and offering counter-claims. That is the very essence (nay, purpose) of discussion and debate. Discussion and debate does not mean: people make factually false claims ... and so as to not hurt their feelings, we simply let such claims go untested and unquestioned. Third: I notice that you completely ignored (i.e., did not address) any of the valid claims that I have made in the (immediately preceding) above two posts. Rather, you choose to focus on calling me uncivil when -- as I see it -- I am engaging in discussion and debate about an article ... the very reason for which this page was set up (i.e., exactly to debate and discuss it) ... !!! I will assume that you have no valid counterpoint(s) to the points that I have made ... otherwise, I am sure you would have raised them. Instead, you are resorting to a "red herring" by (falsely) calling my actions uncivil. Ad hominem attacks that avoid substantive claims. Fourth: It should be well-noted that all comments in Wikipedia debates / discussions are -- either explicitly or implicitly -- preceded by the phrase "it is my opinion that ... xyz". (Actually, such is the case for all debates, not just Wikipedia debates.) Thus, I do not think that stating one's opinion is uncivil. (You do, it seems.) And, it is my contention that that is the very purpose of an AfD debate ... to offer one's opinions, arguments, and counter-arguments. That is the entire point of AfD debates and discussions. If someone is offended and deems it uncivil and hostile that their opinions, posts, and statements will be subjected to being questioned and to being countered ... then perhaps engaging in debate is not quite an appropriate activity for one so offended. In other words ... you are effectively saying: "I want to engage and participate in a discussion about this topic but only on my terms. And my terms include that you cannot disagree with me. And if you do so, I will consider that to be hostile and uncivil. For clearly, I am right. And it offends me that anyone would question or counter me. Even in a debate." That is the net effect of your posts, as I read them. (Which, I opine, is ridiculous.) Yours is a sentiment with which I disagree ... and, moreover, with which I am fully entitled to disagree. Without being accused of rule-breaking and/or incivility, that is. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 12 September 2009)

Keep as ~~Taconic Parkway Crash~~ 2009 Taconic State Parkway crash. The subject meets WP:GNG. Location (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC) [edited 17:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)][reply]

I agree that this article should not be named Diane Schuler, as this is an article about the crash and not a biography of Schuler. However, the current title needs to be tweaked, please. First, we should use the "real" name of the Parkway ... which, I believe, is Taconic State Parkway (adding in the word "State"). Second, we should include some designation (such as the year 2009, for example) since there has not been only one crash on the Taconic State Parkway. Third, the word "crash" should be lower-case, not capitalized, in the title. Therefore, I suggest 2009 Taconic State Parkway crash. Any thoughts? Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 11 September 2009)

I agree with your suggestion and have revised my recommendation accordingly. Location (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, but I just don't see what makes this so 'special'. It looks like from reading, it was just a woman who didn't know when to stop and a loyal husband stuck in denial. How is that any different from the many tragic stories that occur every day on our roads? The media coverage is not trivial, but it just a news item. No lasting notability; this story will just be replaced by the next tragedy. We aren't FOX News. Minute by minute descriptions look to me as desperate attempts to flesh out the article and make it appear that this article is more important than it actually is. The possible law that could come out of this is yet another news item; a politician capitalizing on the collective feeling as a result of saturated media coverage. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user. There is a WP user User:Joseph A. Spadaro who was indefinitely blocked on 24 June. Is the person editing this page as an anon and signing himself as "Joseph A. Spadaro" connected to this blocked user? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Reported to the Administrators Noticeboard. I understand that yes, it is the same user, and have requested that one or more administrators review the situation to determine what should be done here. Risker (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the same person. One: I am certain that there are more than one Joseph A. Spadaro's floating around in the world. Two: I would be using the same exact name to avoid a block and to avoid suspicion of avoiding a block? When I can sign in anonymously under, say, "I Love Peanut Butter" or "Go Yankees" or any other of a zillion names that would cloak one in anonymity? Come on, man. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 13 September 2009)

And, Risker ... why are you concluding "yes"? When the person who responded to your concerns over at that ANI Board specifically replied with, "I didn't have time to research the IPs further" ...? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 13 September 2009)

On the the Administrators Noticeboard it is claimed that the IP addresses were the same. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

To - Xxanthippe ... my question was addressed to Risker. Or, are you the same person as Risker? If not, I am not sure how you would know his reasons. Please let me know. And ... back to the issue: If, in fact, they (IP addresses) are the same ... what "further research" would be necessary? If, in fact, they (IP addresses) are the same ... and no further research is needed, why would someone state: "I didn't have time to research the IPs further." ...? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 13 September 2009)

In answer to your question, the person verifying that you are the same editor (USer:J.delanoy) is a checkuser, who has access to additional information about certain characteristics of your IP, your ISP, and your useragent. For privacy and security reasons, the precise details linking accounts are not usually released publicly. Another administrator (the one you refer to in your post above) blocked the first two IPs you used here and, I assume, did not seek to identify any other IP you have been using. You are an indefinitely blocked editor. As I am involved in this discussion, I will not block the IP you are currently using; however, any uninvolved administrator can do so, as you are admitting that you are the same person editing logged out on a narrow IP range. It's quite possible that another administrator may block the entire IP range too. Risker (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am admitting what exactly? Please point out exactly where "I am admitting that I am the same person editing logged out on a narrow IP range." I barely even know what all that computer mumbo-jumbo and technical gibberish means, let alone would admit to something I barely comprehend. I'd like to know exactly where I admitted to such words that I don't even know, utilize, or comprehend. Second ... I am quite curious as to your agenda here. This (following) is my opinion. You wanted to delete this article. I strongly opposed that. You see that the consensus is not leading toward "delete", after about 7 days, as you would have liked. So, you stir up this other business. Third: I also find this quite curious. After 7 days of debate -- and after you post that other accusation against me -- geez, all of a sudden quite a few people (3) pipe in with a "delete" vote. They were not concerned all week about this AfD, and now they all offer a barely one-sentence delete vote, each parroting the other. Now that is interesting. Agreed? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 14 September 2009)

Delete - just another DUI. If historical notability crops up that passes WP:NOT#NEWS, fine, but there's nothing here that makes it stand out. Ironholds (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another DUI - I see no historical notability or even any wider current debates from this. It's a wikinews story at best. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. This is a sad event, but its not likely to have any longstanding notability. Them From Space 03:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Themfromspace. This is a clear clase of WP:NOT#NEWS.Singingdaisies (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (in supplement to Keep vote above): A son of the victims was on Good Morning America four days ago accusing Schuler's husband of being complicit in the accident. I really don't understand how this can be classified as "just another non-notable collision" when new developments like this are still being covered in detail in national news coverage nearly two months later. Propaniac (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are over 600 Google news results for "diane schuler" in the past month. Propaniac (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrim's Progress (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pilgrim's Progress (album)

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

Delete Disputed prod. No reliable sources of upcoming release. WP:CRYSTAL Wolfer68 (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails CRYSTAL, also not finding much reference to it AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, with a side of WP:OR. Yummy $TheWeak$ $Willed$ (T * G) 22:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per . Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Usborne Book of Dinosaurs[edit]

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

Article shows no evidence of notability, and I am not finding any off Wikipedia. Contested Prod without reason given. Rlendog (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete there is no chance this is a notable book. publisher is known for nonnotable books for kids, etc. if article creator couldnt find reason for notability, there isnt one. this isnt robert bakkers masterpiece, and there are approx 3 billion books on dinosaurs.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as original prodder, I could find no sources that said, "this book is noteworthy." Abductive (reasoning) 18:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mega Delete NN Book. $TheWeak$ $Willed$ (T * G) 22:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Efrem Hill[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:Notability; sources that actually discuss him (rather than simply mention him) are limited to local college newspaper stories

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Passes WP:ATH as he's played (see stats) in a fully professional league.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a professional athlete, there are enough reliable sources about him GoogleNews GoogleSearch to make a V, NPOV, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per same rationale and sources cited by DoubleBlue. Cbl62 (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D. Miles[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and lacking GNEWS. Minor roles in IMDB. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:N and WP:BIO.South Bay (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of coverage are you referrring to for D. Miles? Can you check under his birth name Dwaune LeMaunze Miles or Dwaune Miles? Shichi Shichi son (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the nominator could not assume everyone knows what the abbreviations/acronyms/initialisms in the nomination mean. Links at the very least, or even explanations in plain English would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin W. Crowninshield[edit]

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

no claim of notability, other than the implied claim that he commissioned the design and construction of a house that has a Wikipedia article. Any notability attaching to the house should go to the designer of the house rather than to the owner. Donald Albury 15:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the nominator's assertion, article subject can also claim notability as the subject of writings by Henry Adams and as a published author in his own right. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you point to the sources for that? Better yet, use them to improve the article. -- Donald Albury 16:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BIO. See this Google Books entry. Cunard (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jengod (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reason, please...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 04:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reason is that the PNC is satisfied. As the article itself demonstrates, the life and works of this person, from his education in Harvard through his activity in the U.S. Civil War to his post-War writings and business activities, are documented in depth by multiple independent reliable sources. Ironically for the nomination, the house is actually but one small facet of the overall biography, that several of the sources don't even touch upon. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leung Kam Fai[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Shatin article reads second division, which I don't believe is pro. If I'm incorrect there, close the AFD as withdrawn. Lara 13:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he played for Happy Valley in the HK First Division, which is fully professional, so he meets WP:ATHLETE. However, we will need additional sources for verifiability. Giant Snowman 11:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pro appearances Spiderone 12:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in a notable professional league Eldumpo (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per G3 - well speedy not really since it has been opened for the full seven-day period, but anyways it's hoax nevertheless JForget 23:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garden City (album)[edit]

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

This and the related article Letchworth Corset Riot seem to be hoax articles. I was clued into this by the discussion at here. This seems to be a sophisticated hoax by Jspearmint, even more so the Garden City article, which is backed up by text inserted at other wiki articles (generally by IPs) and also a user-created last.fm page here, with three musical tracks (one labelled "Morrisons: Fresh Choice for You"), the British supermarket chain had no actual shops in Howard's lifetime. It's a clever hoax but a hoax nonetheless. Note that there is a phony image in the article, which may require action by Commons. Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Electronic music in 1928? I don't think so given it was in its infancy a mere 40 years later. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've posted on Commons' version of AN/I and in response thereto, a debate has started for the deletion of all of Jspearmint's images. Looks like to me he had at least one more hoax in mind, the painter Spencer Gore.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The theremin was invented in 1924. The 1920s were actually a high-point of early electronic musc; see page 4 of this book. 85.92.213.195 (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant hoax. The creating editor needs to get out more! Jack1956 (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letchworth Corset Riot[edit]

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

This and the related article Garden City (album) seem to be hoax articles. I was clued into this by the discussion at here. This seems to be a sophisticated hoax by Jspearmint, even more so the Garden City article, which is backed up by text inserted at other wiki articles (generally by IPs) and also a user-created last.fm page here, with three musical tracks (one labelled "Morrisons: Fresh Choice for You"), the British supermarket chain had no actual shops in Howard's lifetime. The prime movant of the riot, Penelope Waldegrave-Houghton described as a moderately successful suffragist, doesn't show up on google, nor does her father, Hugo, a "local dignitary". It's a clever hoax but a hoax nonetheless. Note that there is a phony image in the article, which may require action by Commons. Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Masterfully written hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. It has all the elements-- authentic book titles just slightly out of reach; a picture of the marchers (probably suffragettes); truthful statements about the fact that the Spirella corset factory opened in Letchworth in 1914, and that there really was a "rational dress" society, and that a lot of people thought corsets were trashy. The only thing that you can't fake is a Google search. Well played! Author! Author! That's enough, get the hell out of here. Mandsford (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. I don't know the ultimate source of the photo of "Penelope" and her two friends, but it also appears at www.ehow.com/facts_5167128_flapper-dress-explained.html (WP-blocked domain), and as one can infer from that page, their hairstyles and garb are characteristic of the late '20s, not 1914. Deor (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beautifully done, with just enough sly winks to let the careful reader in on the trick. But fake. PhGustaf (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I saved a local copy. Printed sources on Corset Castle are totally silent about the "riot". What a shameful corset-mongering conspiracy, but wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth - who cares about it these days. NVO (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. There was a Spirella factory in Letchworth in the 1920s but some of the claimed references do not check out. Also a search has failed to turn up anyone by the name Waldegrave-Houghton. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've posted on Commons' version of AN/I and in response thereto, a debate has started for the deletion of all of Jspearmint's images. Looks like to me he had at least one more hoax in mind, the painter Spencer Gore.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. He really is rather good. Tempting to let him pull it off then delete teh article and finish him off. Crafty (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to ideas as to how to get him devote his talents to improving the encyclopedia. I know something about writing, I have 14 FA's. But this guy is good.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good? No. Oh, I think he started out good, in an Anakin Skywalker kind of way, but then began to use his powers for evil instead... Chances are, he probably does create legitimate articles under his main user name, but creates a sinister alter ego to create hoax pages. I can't blame anyone for making a hoax, considering all the legitimate articles that get voted off the island, but it only adds to the misgivings people have about Wikipedia reputation. Mandsford (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thinking, too. There are several million wikipedia articles that are worse written, worse laid out, and worse referenced than this one. (The references are of course all made up.) I suspect that the author has some legitimate editing to his credit. Not to mention great promise as a writer of fiction. PhGustaf (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mega/Speedy/Ultra Delete This hoax was well written though. 0 results in google search (-wikipedia) proves this is a hoax. $TheWeak$ $Willed$ (T * G) 22:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Supremely well done, though. Crafty (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant hoax, but nicely done nevertheless! Jack1956 (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would be hilarious at this point would be if someone were to add "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached". Mandsford (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This probably won't be Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached, since it seems like a consensus has already been made.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheWeakWilled

_{Note: If anybody finds this message to be deceiving, please delete it, it was meant only as humor.} $TheWeak$ $Willed$ (T * G) 23:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Openshaw[edit]

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

Another apparent hoax by User:Jspearmint (see Garden City (album) and Letchworth Corset Riot.) Google reveals nothing. Note that there is a phony image in the article, which may require action by Commons.Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. (Note also that "Openshaw" does not appear in the list of artists with works held by the Letchworth Museum, the supposed location of the pictured painting.) Deor (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although it appears this was a real person, 7 Ghits hardly passes WP:BIO (and most of those hits are either from Wikipedia or Answers.com). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answers.com derives quite a lot from here. More than likely a supporting vandalism insertion by Jspearmint or a sock )(one sock has already been blocked).--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've posted on Commons' version of AN/I and in response thereto, a debate has started for the deletion of all of Jspearmint's images. Looks like to me he had at least one more hoax in mind, the painter Spencer Gore.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rather brilliant hoax. Creator should be admonished for this impressive piece of naughtiness. Crafty (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brilliant hoax. I've lived in the area for 30 years and it nearly had me believing it! Jack1956 (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opensouls[edit]

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

Contested speedy of A7, claiming notability as "They are widely known in New Zealand There have received alot of coverage on New Zealand television for there two albums. They have had 2 charted albums in the Official New Zealand album chart." Neutral pending further research into references I'^mperator 12:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep evidence of third party coverage. [32]. including coverage in major NZ newspaper [33] and [34]. LibStar (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their two albums having made the NZ charts probably qualify them per WP:BAND. The references should be edited though. The main one (from infonews.co.nz) is written by "Isaac Promotions" which sounds just a tad too close to home. Favonian (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep charted [35] [36]. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The band's two albums have charted. Joe Chill (talk) 19:26, 6 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. There is very strong support for a merge to Freshwater drum, but this is not quite unanimous and valid objections have been raised. What is apparent from this discussion is that Lucky stone should not be a redlink on Wikipedia; discussions about a merge can continue on the relevant talk pages. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky stone[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if sourceable to Freshwater drum, otherwise delete. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Worth including in main article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The Freshwater drum article needs info like this to keep it interesting. Would that include a redirect, should someone search for "Lucky Stone?" SithToby (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be merged with the article on the Freshwater Drum. However, I believe it merits a stand alone article which could be named either "Lucky Stone" or "Lucky Stones." I have now enumerated various sources which point to the importance of Lucky stones in Ancient Native American Culture and in Modern Culture. Certainly, "lucky stones" merit more importance than recent articles I have read on Wikipedia regarding Pop Culture video games. The otoliths of the Freshwater Drum have been collected for centuries, especially along the main breeding grounds of the Freshwater Drum along the shores of Lake Erie and Red Lake in Wisconsin. Brow66Dani Brow66dani (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, but not being a native of the area, when I think of "lucky stones," this is not what I envision. Would a Merge and Redirect to the fish article be suitable for the time being?SithToby (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes this author that perhaps it is Ethnocentric or Eurocentric to consider that the topic of "lucky stones" is not noteworthy enough to merit its own article when I just read a new article on Wikipedia titled Rick Dancer about a minor celebrity/politician in Oregon (where I currently reside). I will plead guilty to my own ethocentrism as well as the article would be stronger with more research regarding the Native American link to lucky stones. Unfortunately, most references I have found give only vague references to lucky stones having been collected for centuries by Native Americans and that they have been found in "ancient archaeological sites" etc.... I do remember reading one article that gave a specific tribal reference. Others could help me strengthen the article by doing further research as well. The broader point, however, is that lucky stones are artifacts which have been collected for centuries and seem to this writer far more noteworthy than many other articles that appear on Wikipedia. Comments by others?? Brow66Dani 68.118.60.87 (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC) BroDani Brow66dani (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic of lucky stones is clearly notable and the worst case is that we would merge this article into Amulet which has much more to say on the subject. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is an article on otoliths, with no reference to these, nor the archaelogical significance. Perhaps that's a better home? SithToby (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Freshwater drum. The sourcing seems quite weak to me, consisting of small mentions alone the lines of "neato". Abductive (reasoning) 03:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pink Floyd tribute bands[edit]

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

Two notable bands? This list is pointless, or premature at best (and that's being generous. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary page, no need to have spun this off from tribute act, which has a list that use to include these two bands, but now has "→ See List of Pink Floyd tribute bands" in that spot. Articles like this are not at all helpful to the articles about the tribute bands themselves. Mandsford (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. agreed. The page is unneccesary, gives no information about the bands that cannot be found elsewhere and attracts a lot of non notable names to the list if you look at the history of the page --Godfinger (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't even need an explanation. Str8cash (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a Pink Floyd fan site. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 'Tribute act' Mrs. Wolpoff's reason is so bad, a venomous mix of IDL and OTHERSTUFF and trace amounts of other things, I thought I needed to weigh in. Insufficient content at this time to show a need in the foreseeable future for this article's name. However, as the other comments are concerned with the effect it has on 'Tribute act', I think it only prudent to redirect it there. Anarchangel (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Strictly by counting noses, this would be a straight keep, but some of the "keep" !votes were given somewhat less weight. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical frivolity[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of 24.22.141.252, who writes that the article "violates core policies, see WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOR - for all we know, this is copyvio or just made up". Skomorokh 11:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources exist in all the specialized Google searches. Abductive (reasoning) 19:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Abductive - the number of Google News and Books results are enough to demonstrate that this is a notable term. Robofish (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google hits seem to be 1) mirrors of Wikipedia 2) a few activist sites, e.g.[37], which don't meet WP:RS 3) a few passing mentions that some protesters used this term. It would probably be accurate to state, "Tactical frivolity is a term used by some activists to describe one method of protest…" but Wikipedia is not a guide to activist lingo, and I'm not clear that enough reliable sources exist to support an article. Here is where one might start, but all the sources seem to be quoting Pink Silver, not using "Tactical Frivolity" as a subject in its own right (though I don't rule out that you might find one that does). I really don't care if the title Tactical Frivolity is redlinked or not, but I'd like to see what is there supported by reliable sources, as it currently isn't, and some evidence of notability besides a few fringe groups.24.22.141.252 (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I rewrote the article hewing closely to the cited sources.[38] As we see, there simply isn't much there - in the first instance, the story doesn't even state that the (grand total of thirteen) protesters ever made it to Prague, leaving us with a term used by one hazily-defined group ("Pink and Silver bloc") for its unusual conduct at a single demonstration. If there's more here, by all means say so, and add it.24.22.141.252 (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm not sure yet if this is a legit topic. Is it really only one group that is responsible for all instances of the term? Abductive (reasoning) 23:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So far as I can discern, yes, it's just one group. I should add that the linked video shows (I think) that the group of thirteen mentioned in the first source cited did reach Prague, and they generally match the descriptions of the same group found in Genoa the next year.24.22.141.252 (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is the name of this group? Abductive (reasoning) 08:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first cited article (Vidal 2000) calls them "Carnivalistas";[39] it’s unclear to me whether this was the name of the group at that time (if there was one,) or if this is what Vidal decided to call them. The second (Hari 2001) calls them the "Pink and Silver bloc."[40] The third (Rae 2005) does not give a name,[41] though it seems clear - and you're free to label this as my original research - that he’s talking about the same crowd. The fourth, Hari (2005), gives Pink Fairies as the group's own name ("Or they were groups like - my favourite - the Pink Fairies (dressed as their name demands), who preached the doctrine of 'tactical frivolity.'")[42] Some books which discuss this, which I've not yet closely examined, call them Pink and Silver bloc, Pink Bloc, or Pink Fairies.[43] I encourage anyone here to follow up on these and add to what I've learned from the cited news items; perhaps a clearer picture will emerge. (We can also observe a discrepancy in Hari's own reports (2005) credits the Pink Fairies with the "mass laughing session," but (2001) attributes this to Situationists.)24.22.141.252 (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look at the books that use the expression. The 1917 revolution in Latvia‎ - Page 71 by Andrew Ezergailis - History - 1974 - 281 pages ... applied only to the unstratified peasantry.54 The usual assumption about Lenin's tactical frivolity on the peasant question in 1917 can be overstressed Dream Focus 14:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just a coincidence. The main usage is by people in demonstrations. Abductive (reasoning) 16:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we need an article on Tactical absurdity as well - just look at all the books that use the expression.[44]24.22.141.252 (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly important counter culture term some of our readers will be interested in. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete The fact that an adjective/noun phrase exists in several books does not make it a "thing." Is there a Wikipedia article on unbound enthusiasm or furious activity? It hasn't been established that this is an legitimate meme and not someone's attempt to manufacture a meme by way of Wikipedia. -PorkHeart (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into civil disobedience (as a new section, even!) or nonviolent resistance or even protest. It doesn't have to be forgotten via a delete, but it's not as if people are doing this everyday, either. SithToby (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are protests on offer on the streets of London every single day , and per improvements to the article supported by reliable sources, tactical frivolity is now a tried and trusted protest technique. Granted some of these daily protests are small beer, but have a look at the new BBC video to see the massive scale tactical frivolity is sometimes practiced on. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you added is, “By 2007, in an article by journalist John Harris about protests against the air industry, tactical frivolity was described as a "tried and trusted" protest technique.”[45] This sounds like Mr. Harris is calling "tactical frivolity…a 'tried and trusted' protest technique," doesn't it? But here's what the article actually says: "Meanwhile, a group of drummers bash out what may or may not be a samba rhythm - an example, says one protester, of a tried-and-tested technique known as 'tactical frivolity'." A single anonymous protester is not a reliable source for the tried-and-trueness of "tactical frivolity." What the article does establish is that at least one unnamed protester used this term in 2007.24.22.141.252 (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be clear that this article isnt about the phrase "tactical frivolity" - its about the humorous non violent protest method, which our sources show was undisputedly practiced on a massive scale around the scene of G8 meetings both in 2001 and 2005. Even if youre right about Harris, there was no risk of seriously misleading anyone, as it is a tried and trusted technique.

The stress of the sentence in the Harris article suggest it was the journalists who added the "tried and trusted" descriptor, the protestor merely saying his samba playing counts as an example. Its unlikely Harris would include "tried and trusted" if he didnt agree it was accurate, even in the improbable event that the protestor used the phrase. Still as you say there is a chance it was the protestors view, so I've changed it to take the emphasis off Harris. Maybe you can revert me if you agree with the above. I've also mentioned the lack of success, which is mentioned in the sources for both the 01 & 05 G8s.

That said , Im not motivated to spend much more energy trying to rescue this article if you remain determined to delete. This kind of tactic achieves nothing, unless the protesters are made use of by someone with real political insight. As discussed nothing was done for the developing world at the 2005 meeting that wasnt already agreed. By contrast, at the 2009 G8 in Italy, the Pope's recently released encyclical Charity and Truth played a major role in setting the agenda (see Financial Times ), and led among other things to an additional 5 billion of funding for a sustainable solution to hunger. Sincerity and Love always trump any amount of clever humour. There's no laughter in Heaven, only Joy, and what wont be settled by words is never settled by jokes, but by blood. It wont be a tragedy if we loose this article. Im taking it off my watchlist. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's clearly a substantial topic here and we even have our own version of this already - see WP:SPIDER which is based upon numerous notable examples. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:00, 12 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO - all of the sources are trivial mentions of her activities for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Now that organisation is notable but notability is not inherited. If it was, the sources just don't support the article - the only really informative one is from the SOPI website and that does not count for the purposes of notability. At best, a small bit could be merged to that article. Cameron Scott (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Fails WP:BIO. Crafty (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The 2 San Francisco Bay Times articles are more than enough to establish notability. Of course they talk about Sister Kitty as a member of the SPI, she is one and they're interesting. But both (fair sized articles) deal with her public health activism and use quotes from interviews with her. I wonder if the editor who found only "trivial mentions" actually read any of them. Of the other references the "San Francisco's 4th Sex Worker Film and Arts Festival" isn't independent of her as she has a role in it, but does anyone doubt this role or its notability? I haven't even bothered Googling, the stated references in the article are sufficient: something funny is going on here. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they are not about her, they are about the work of her within the organisation structure. Which is way, merging some of the content there makes more sense. And as I said on your talkpage, if you have something to say, say it, nothing worse than snide comments intended to poison the well. What's funny in my actions? How, where, diffs. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not true, the references document her work as a public health activist, as an artist and also as a member of the SPI (I have now found an academic ref which says she is an archivist for them). Articles do mention the SPI, but then if the subject is called "Sister Kitty Catalyst" an explanation is required: they do notdescribe her art as being the Sisters' work, but rather her own. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I have replied on my talk page.

:::: No they don't, you've just added 1) trivial reference from a book mentioning her in the context of her work for SPOI - literally a line that says "thanks to Kitty", 2) a trivial reference from an article written by someone in her organisation and 3) a trivial mention about her in a wider article - and that's the best source of the lot about her as a person. It's still a whole lot of nothing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word trivial is being applied here willy nilly. Two of the Bay Times articles and the Chronicle article, both describe her various roles (and she isn't some pornstar)and include interview material with her. The notability guideline does say trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability: so I suppose the very respectable supply of secondary sources simply have to be cast in that light to justify deletion. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my statement here. If there is any information, it would have to be merged into one biography of the subject behind each persona. The individual who is underlying both might be notable, but not notable enough to have two different pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's slightly problematical is that together as a single article, there is enough to make me vote keep. Really the articles should be merged and worked on together and then the single article should be considered. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I lack a name of the person underneath the persona, there is no place to merge to, which is why my vote is delete at the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any precedent for having a 'slash' article ? Kitty Catalyst/DJ Puss. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Now, in terms of "personas", a person like Christopher Smart had the persona "Mrs Mary Midnight". That persona is worthy of having its own article since there are books and books written about it. There is a much higher level needed to have a persona on its own page. The name should be on the individual behind the persona, which shouldn't be too hard to find. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the name from a bit of internet research, problem is, I know 'the truth' but have no way of providing verification. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put up what you have as long as it doesn't out any Wikipedia users and others can see what they can make of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; all combined this person is notable in my book, however if the subject doesn't want a biog I could be convinced to abstain or vote delete. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"All combined" seems to agree with my point that if there is information on Wiki, it should be at one place, no? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to see the Conflict of Interest problem that was raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination) properly addressed. That AfD turns on the same issues. Something or someone seems to be out of control here, and addressing the conflict of interest might be the way to simplify the whole thing. Smallbones (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barring any objection from the subject, Keep per sources sited by Simon. The article should remain at its current location, as this is the one used in the sources being used to prove notability. And could we please avoid doing our own OR on the individual behind the persona? Reliable sources only on this WP:BLP subject's birth name, if you don't mind. Email them to each other if you must share. No opinion on the DJ article except that, again, reliable sources will be required to link the two identities. -- Vary (Talk) 15:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be verification of the identity of Holmann, of the Spectrum, being DJ Puss Puss - "I also dj as DJ Pusspuss (mainly private events and awide variety of benefits) so I have an active and street knowledge of what people are seeking." It is reliable as it comes from the individual himself and is done as an official act in promotion of the column. The column happens to be used as reliable sourcing, mind you. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more skeptical about using an archived mailing list post as a reliable source in a BLP, but it's unimportant at the moment. Until we have a reliable source connecting A to B, it's irrelevant that we can connect B to C. -- Vary (Talk) 15:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vary, that is a reliable source because it is 1. official business as it is promotional for a business and has all of the business information on it, 2. from the person in question (thus falling under primary sourcing for use of blogs and the such), and 3. not controversial as there is no denial of it made in a public source. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, it's fine under our guidelines on self-publication. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. BLP mandates that we use only high-quality sources and I simply don't think this qualifies. As the DJ's notability is far more marginal it's unsurprising that there is no more reliable source for his real name. But for the moment that's a matter for the DJ article's AFD, as there has been no reliable source provided connecting the subject of this AFD to the subject of that article. -- Vary (Talk) 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from WP:BLP Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. - how does that not fit? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a weak source for the DJ article. At the moment, it's not a source for this article at all. -- Vary (Talk) 16:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how about this --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A caption on a photo from an old webpage only available on archive.org? No, Cameron, that is not a reliable source. All I've seen so far is little better than gossip. Googlestalking a persona and 'figuring out' their real identity is inappropriate. We need real sources from real publications. I've never understood the perception that this kind of behavior is banworhty when it's directed at a fellow editor but perfectly acceptable when some marginally notable BLP subject is involved. -- Vary (Talk) 16:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You better get over to IFD then because the photos on both articles are provided by the same photographer, we better delete both on them to be on the safe side. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DJ Pusspuss. It's blindingly obvious that both DJ Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst are personas of Benjamin Holmann. There's much more evidence on the other AfD. Keeping up the fiction that we don't know that DJ Pusspuss=Sister Kitty=Holmann is wearing thin. Fences&Windows 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Now disregarding the sekrit identity issue as the sourcing isn't up to Wikipedia standards, Sister Kitty Catalyst seems to be just notable enough as an activist and spokesperson for the SF queer community to have an article. The sourcing isn't the most brilliant, but there's just enough sources giving slightly more than a glancing reference to edge me into siding with keep. There's more sources out there than are currently included in the article, including three mentions in Google Books, and some more at SF Bay Times, SF Weekly etc. Fences&Windows 08:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean merge with DJ Pusspuss and form Benjamin Holmann, right? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Both together, maybe, but if you insist on having them as independent "personalities" then there simply isn't enough. Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources tying them together are not BLP-worthy. As a separate entity, I don't think there's enough non-trivial independent material. Cool Hand Luke 19:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources to the persona being connected to a real person makes me question notability. Brandon (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CHL above and per WP:BIO - Alison ^❤ 21:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was some discussion of identity & COI in the past. See [46]. But I will add that the COI and notability issues are not the same. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources here are either of questionable reliability or refer to fairly trivial matters, BLP quality sources are lacking, as is notability. The conflict of interest problem magnifies all these basic problems, but by itself doesn't mean we should delete. Smallbones (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly questionable notability.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
De;lete I don't think there's enough significant mentions in multiple reliable sources, even with the bay articles... I don't believe in or think that WP:GNG or WP:BIO support the concept of "additive" notability; multiple trivial mentions, et al don't combine to form a notable whole. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasoning by several editors above. Cla68 (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with DJ Pusspuss to Benjamin Holmann. -->David Shankbone 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources such as San Francisco Bay Times are sufficient to establish notability. Merging isnt even an option per the fact it would deliver negligible benefits to our readers and may put someone at risk of hate crime. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a good reason to not merge the articles at all, or even delete them by Wikipedia standards. We have tons of BLPs that put people at risk for hate crimes and it has never been a valid reason for them to be deleted if notability is established. Anyway, if these articles could put somebody at risk why are you voting to keep them? The standard practice for borderline notable people with possible BLP issues is to quietly delete them. The assertion that we should indulge a person's wish for publicity while at the same time protecting their privacy is just silly. Brandon (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folk often express contradictory preferences, and its often possible to address both concerns long as one looks at each case individually and is willing to be creative when necessary. This case is fairly simple, the same editor who expressed concerns over outing wanted to keep the article, hence my votes. I agree with you that if its known the subject doesn't want an article its best to delete even if its borderline notable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We only need one reason not to merge these articles: we have no reliable sources connecting them to each other or to any real-life identity. What we know about who wrote them, and what we think we know about that individual's real life identity, is irrelevant. Wiki gossip takes a backseat to our content policies. The fact that these are evidently autobiographies does not exempt us from following WP:BLP. We can not move this article to a different location until we have credible sources for a rename. -- Vary (Talk) 22:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now. These AfDs are hot tempered and I feel the articles should be given to time to be evaluated and perhaps improved over time, when everything has cooled down. There is no deadline. If necessary, the situation could be re-evaluated in a few months. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am cutting and pasting the following material from my talk page as I believe that here is a more appropriate place. I had added 3 more (IMO) good references to the disputed page. The anonymous editor is, supposedly, making their first contributions to Wikipedia. Just another funny thing that's going on. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Simon, John and Reintour. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm looking at this as being borderline - there's just enough non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, such as a piece in SF Chronicle, to make me think it is worth keeping, but for me the important issue is whether or not there's enough in reliable sources (as opposed to ones which also establish notability) to make the article viable. That seems to be yes, given that all major claims in the article are sourced now to an RS. So I'm going with keep, on the grounds that notability is close enough to be in the discretionary range for me, and that there is enough to work with in order to make something that would further the project. - Bilby (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be of very low notability and many rather questionable sources. The possible COI is also disturbing. - Schrandit (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start of cut & pasted material

Misattribution/mischaracterization of source[edit]

Simonxag, the author of the text you’ve cited here [47] is not Evans and Healey, but “Sister Soami,” formerly “Sister Missionary Position." Evans and Healey are the editors the volume in which an interview with Sr. Soami appeared.
Pseudonymous members of fringe groups do not qualify as reliable sources. Even so, if you insist upon using them, you must cite them. To do otherwise 1) denies the writer credit for his/her work 2) puts words into the mouth of the person(s) to whom the material is falsely attributed 3) deceives readers and other editors about the true source of the cited claim.
Finally, though Routledge is indeed an academic press,Amie M. Evans and Trebor Healey are not academics, nor is the book an "academic book," as you’d written.[48][49] Instead, it appears that Evans is a writer of erotic fiction,[50] while Trebor Healey is a novelist and poet.
In the future, please take care not to misattribute and mischaracterize our sources.24.22.141.252 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The authors are as I've stated them. The information does come from an interview in the book, but not from a piece written by Sister Soami. If my edit summary was inaccurate (which I think is debatable - not an academic book?), the citation in the article is 100% accurate. And I would consider the authors to be another independent reliable source to add to those already cited. Deletions, raised by sock puppets, now accusations by anonymous contributers. Things just get funnier and funnier. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the source actually state who asked the interviewer(s) was? I don't see it. If you cite a paper in a book, you should include the title of the paper, especially when the title makes it clear that Evans and Healey are not the authors of the text you've cited. But that would make it crystal-clear what a joke these sources are.

Here, you cite the "SF Bay Times" without crediting the author, "Sister Dana Van Iquity." In doing so, you likewise hide the very dubious nature of the source - are we to accept this as a serious journalist? - while denying Ms. Van Iquity credit for her writing.

Having reviewed the histories of several of these articles in detail, things have been "funny" for some time now. Here, for example, you insist that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are nuns, which you cite to a defunct porn site, contra WP:RS. Here, you restore the obviously inappropriate Category:Nuns.

Something funny is going on, alright, and it doesn't seem to have much to do with building a reliable encyclopedia.24.22.141.252 (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check google books:[51]

1) Evans and Healey are explicitly credited as editors of the volume.

2) It is a collection of papers by various people, each of whom is explicitly credited for his/her submission. Where Evans or Healey are the authors, they are explicitly stated as such (for example, if we were to cite one of Healey's submissions, we would do so as Healey, Trebor. 2008. "Title." in Evans & Healey ed.)

3) The author in this instance is shown as "An Interview with Sister Soami of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence." (p. ix).24.22.141.252 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least we agree on something! Something funny is definitely going on. I hid no source. Nor do I think a member of of a respected part of SF gay community, writing as herself (not anonymously!!!), in a respected local newspaper under editorial control (as all contributers must be) is any less reliable than any other journalist. And yes the Sisters are nuns: I think you'll find them described as such in most UK journalistic coverage of them, not ordinary, holy or pious, but "nuns" is the word used. Google cites Evans & Healey as both authors and editors of the work, if no other interviewer is credited then it is they. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the table of contents. In fact, the author is listed as "An Interview with Sister Soami of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence;" the paper is entitled, "Good Habits to Hang On To." If that seems unorthodox, well, it is.24.22.141.252 (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unorthodox yes - but the interviewer is not an interview: it is Evans & Healey's book and they are the stated authors. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing at all which indicates that the questions were written by anyone other than "Sister Soami" (a.k.a. "Sister Missionary Position") him/herself, do you?

As with "SF Bay Times", it seems we'll do anything we can to hide the fact that our purported academics and journalists are really just various pseudonymous members of this fringe group.24.22.141.252 (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done nothing to hide anything. My name is Simon Speed, what's yours?!!! I have found some reliable sources, which seems to be a problem, for some. I don't know anything about Evans & Healey, except that their book is published by a reputable academic publisher: I suspect (from the subject) that they may be gay and members of the Roman Catholic Church. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we're just going to pretend that your source isn't "Sister Soami"?24.22.141.252 (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretend what you like. The source is Evans & Healey as stated and as can be verified by anyone checking it. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I invite anyone reading this to verify for him/herself: the front cover, publication data, table of contents and the "interview" are all available for preview.[52]24.22.141.252 (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have improved on those two refs by using ((cite book)) and ((cite news)), filling in the details and using "quote=" to record what is said rather than paraphrase. Also, the old eros-guide zine mentioned above can be found at archive.org. None of those sources are spectacular venues of indisputable information, resulting in a biog riddled with dubious information. If we do use this type of source, it is important to show the reader the dubious nature of the information by properly describing the sources. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End of cut and pasted material

Comment: I'm afraid the anonymous editor is factually correct. Since Sr Soami is listed among the contributors to the volume, and did not contribute any of the other articles, it is perfectly reasonable to assume the interview is Sr Soami's work. There is no basis for inferring that the editors of the volume conducted the interview. That doesn't, however, automatically make it unreliable. The volume is published by Routledge, and was itself edited.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Delete I see several passing mentions and some quotes, but nothing that discusses the subject in depth. For any BLP our sourcing must be excellent. This sourcing is not. AniMate^draw 22:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. I don't like the notion of several articles about one person of disputable notability being created and maintained by that person, if this is indeed how it is. It seems to be that at tge very least these articles should be merged into one article where any COI issues are clearly manageable.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing mentions and the odd quote doesn't constitute anything like significant coverage in my book. The more in depth sources do not look like what we would expect of reliable sources. If anything, the 'notes' given in the references section just backs up that this person hasn't actually received much notice. Quantpole (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A text-book case of trivial mentions in local newspapers not adding up to notability. 85.92.213.195 (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads like a promotional piece, no clear evidence of notability of this persona. Also per CHL, Alison, Smallbones, et al, who have made cogent points that I agree with. perhaps this could be merged with material about all the other personas if it could be identified who the actual person behind them is, although I have my doubts, but not clearly independently notable. ++Lar: t/c 11:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As others have said, it reads as a promotional piece, and lacks any serious reliable sourcing. Passing mention in the local paper does not make one notable. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G3, obvious vandalism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald (album)[edit]

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

No ghits or google news results for this apparently highly controversial yet commercially successful album. No appearances in the music review sites that panned it so critically, the second worst reviewed album at metacritic is something called 'Hefty Fine by Bloodhound Gang' and not this album as claimed. Nothing to support the existence of this song, fails WP:V and is quite possibly an outright hoax and written as an attack on or to otherwise disparage Travis Barker. Benea (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An obvious hoax. –Merqurial (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, possible speedy per G3. Pmlineditor Talk 09:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is factually accurate and representitive of the album recently released —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlb1000 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC) — Tlb1000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do Not Delete I personally think the aricle should be left as it is for a while. I have heard of this before and think the article should be left in place. Boxcar90 (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC) — Boxcar90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I agree with Boxcar - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious hoax. Several of the review links are to Hybrid Theory reviews. Also, if the album was so commercially successful, I'm sure it would have some coverage in news artcles. It has none. In addition, the arguments by Boxcar and Tlb1000, both of which appear to be single purpose accounts controlled by the same person, are not valid, and I'm sure the closing admin will disregard them. Tim meh (review me) 15:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Jebson[edit]

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

See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime stories. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly in the news, and that is all. But we are not a news source. Delete. Dominic·t 05:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nidrosia (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in that I think serial killers (especially those in the UK [53]) are notable; however, I would be OK with a redirect to Babes in the Wood murders as that is how the murders were frequently referred to in the press. Location (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No lasting notability. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Location (talk) 04:00, 12 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. The article is going in the right direction at the moment. Keep it this way. Tone 10:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of zombie novels[edit]

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

Pretty much an unsourced list of non-notable books and authors. This would be similar to creating List of albums and listing all of the bands which fail WP:BAND. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or prune drastically and Merge to Zombie#Further reading Wikipedia is should not be not a card catalog. Wikipedia is not a directory of related reading materials. When a list becomes quite long and has vague criteria, it becomes indiscriminate. Wikipedia is not a collection of pointers to external works. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novels and comic books are not valid items for a Further reading section, so merging wouldn't make sense. DreamGuy (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep nominators only argument is that it is unsourced, which is a non-argument, because these books can be sourced, those that cannot can easily be prunned. Nominator made no effort to attempt to fix this article, violating WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. "Wikipedia is not a card catalog" is a non-existent policy. RE: Wikipedia is not a directory, some of the best articles on wikipedia, featured articles are lists. Vague criteria? Pretty specific: zombie novels, how much more specific does anyone need. Ikip (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:Book of the Dead (anthology), Talk:Cell (novel), Talk:City of the Dead (novel), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror, Talk:World War Z page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

Or, in other words, you violated WP:CANVASS by going to articles of people you thought would support your side and by avoiding any place that would likely have people disagree with you. Yet another example of you trying to game the system. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, he did not... and your accusation is in no way supported by guideline or policy. He did nothing sneaky. He did not try to encourage others to support his point of view. he was neutral in the extreme. He simply posted notices in a very few places where this discussion might receive input from knowledgable editors. Editors coming here becasue of the notice are just as likely to agree with you as with anyone else. If the messages told others in how they should comment, you'd have reason to cry foul. But this is not the case. I read WP:CANVAS several times to be sure... his message was quite specifically Limited AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open. It most definitely was not Mass posting OR Biased OR Partisan OR Secret..... so nope, he did not violate CANVAS. Wrong queue. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He simply posted on articles where people more concerned with trivia about a specific topic than encyclopedic standards gather. the Wikiproject would be resonable, specific novel articles clearly are not. DreamGuy (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of trying to fix this article, in which case the only fix would be to remove every single entry that isn't linked, and then try to find reasons why every single linked novel and author would be considered notable. Despite WP:BEFORE, which I find specious, I have no intention of doing such a thing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appeared as if you had no intention of fixing this article, in violation of WP:BEFORE, now your own words confirm it. There is a good reason why there is Google links above each afd, it is for research. I have begun doing what you refused to do before this AFD, find valid references and collaborate with editors. Whether you accept WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE doesn't change that they are both guidelines, which you ignored. Ikip (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and guidelines are not policies, and when they say dumb things, or when people twist what they say to try to wikilawyer their own side, they should be ignored. If your main argument is this, then you do not have a valid Keep argument, just some tangent you want to focus on to game the system. DreamGuy (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or prune. I think the issue is more that most of these books will never have articles - it looks like there's a lot of self-published self-promotion in there, making the notable works much harder to find. Wikipedia "list of..." articles should be lists of links to existing articles; we should see what we have left after we've tried wikilinking everything. --McGeddon (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely this is what cats are for?--Cameron Scott (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CLS which explains, "each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other". In other words, categories are not superior to lists and do not supersede them. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But since the article is just a spam trap and the use of categories would prevent this (because you'd need an article to add the category for), I consider this the optimal form for this information. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Spam trap" I think we need a definition here: Spam is the abuse of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately. I am still scratching my head, a list of published books is not spam by any sense of the word. 01:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing nominator I have begun to remove all of the books which do not have sources, [54] something that the nominator never did, per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Ikip (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...of course the nominator never did this: if he thinks an article or list should be deleted, why should he be cleaning it up first? Before nominating, one has to check if the article has potential and can be turned into an acceptable article: if one is convinced that this is not the case, it can be nominated for deletion (or merging, redirecting, ...). There is no requirement, no expectation, and absolutely no logic in editing an article when one has decided that it should be deleted anyway. On the contrary, I have seen nominators blamed for removing entries from a list before putting it up for deletion. Fram (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fram, good to see you again, I notice how you always zero in on my particular AfD arguments, and I am touched.

Believe it or not, there are quite a few options in our wikipedia tool belt other then deletion, many editors here have talked about merging and redirecting, which could have amicably been discussed on the talk page first.

Per WP:BEFORE: Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.
Read the article's talk page...If there is no discussion then start one, outlining your concerns. Then watch for responses from interested editors.
When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.
...Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator or notifying an associated wikiproject, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

This is just BEFORE, we can discuss WP:PRESERVE later it you like.

The nominator has said that, "I have no intention of trying to fix this article" above, it seems like there is no effort to discuss any option except delete. WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE both policies, are not there to be ignored. They are there to help editors avoid the controversy and drama of AfDs. Ikip (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't always zero in on your particular AFD arguments, only when they are patently ridiculous (like twice in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangel) or when you canvass an AfD first (like you did for this one at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#List of zombie novels, where the message was definitely not neutral but praising the article) and then make another bizarre reasoning. I don't reply in all AfD's you are around, and don't reply exclusively to you (even in this AfD). As for your arguments: if a nominator is convinced (rightly or wrongly) that there are no alternatives and deletion is the only option, it would be quite stupid to first spend time editing the article only to nominate it then anyway. And there is no "drama" in AfD if you don't want it to be there, there is only drama when people don't discuss rationally and with solid arguments. IF AfD regulars make poor arguments (giving extremely irrelevant but high Google numbers, like you did, or offering essays time and time again as if they are rock solid policy, like one of your colleagues does in many AfD's, or stating that "growth is the purpose of Wikipedia", like yet another ARS colleague of yours does in this AfD), then I may comment on that as I see fit. Fram (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And since when is WP:BEFORE a policy? As you can see on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Upgrade WP:BEFORE to a guideline?, a discussion you participated in, there is even serious opposition against making it a guideline... Fram (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be no difficulty finding good sources for this. For example, in a brief search, I soon found Ontological Anxiety Made Flesh which has some good discussion of zombie novels with numerous examples. Such a list clearly has value in assisting navigation to and construction of articles about such notable zombie novels. The rest is a matter of content editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator made no effort to attempt to fix this article, violating WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pointless argument, and certainly not a valid reason to vote Keep on an AFD. BEFORE and PRESERVE are being used as clubs by anti-deletionists with absolutely no understanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or prune drastically Most of these books aren't notable, and those that are can probably be merged into the Zombie article. AniMate^draw 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A category works just as well for me. AniMate^draw 18:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~Strong Delete I was a weak keep, but Cameron Scott has a good point. I'm convinced this could be done with a category. At the very least the article should only contain notable books, and books by notable authors (the second might be hard with categories?). I've made a proposal on the article talk for criteria. If that proves fruitful I might switch, but I really don't see a need for the article, and per the nom it jut looks like a way of getting material that fails our criteria into the project. I feel this damages the project. Verbal chat 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to my concerns above, per WP:LIST as noted by Who then was a gentleman? below each entry in the list requires an article, therefore considering Zombies in popular culture already exists, the work of this article can be done by a category and that article. Despite attempting to improve the article then, I change my opinion to a very strong delete. Verbal chat 18:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Verbal stated: "WP:LISTS says that entries in a list must meet the same requirements as if they were individual articles." No one is arguing that, this is why I removed a good portion of the talk page. But your repeated statement: "each entry in the list requires an article" has absolutely no basis in current wikipedia rules. Where is this policy Verbal? Where? You told me to look at RS last time I ask, where in RS? If you don't come up with an answer, your argument should be ignored by the closing admin. Ikip (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It works as a category, but as a list its too inclusive, as too many books in this list are nonnotable by any of our criteria. Films are usually more notable as they have bigger budgets, and are rarely vanity releases. lists of books on more unusual subjects that are not likely to be the subject of anthologies, star trek like series w/o notability, fancruft, etc, would be interesting. if we allow this, where do we stop? eventually, if you had a list for every theme in every book, you would have every book ever published referenced thousands of times throughout WP. and, of course, what is a zombie? the voudon legend, any animated corpse? if its not magically animated, its alive, not dead. brief mention of zombies? the criteria for inclusion are actually nonrational to me.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I'd like to point out that the nominator has stated on this page that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. The article should be saved and improved. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that's not what I said. But I did go to the village pump and asked opinions there prior to coming here, so it's not like this nomination came out of the blue. And you yourself have not explained why you think the article should be kept, so, of course, your "vote" will be ignored. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My ¬vote was influenced primarialy by Ikip and Colonel, and my comment, directed at you, by Ret.Prof. Since you insist I rehash their arguments they are as follows:
  1. Sources are easily available and the article can be improved
  2. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive, and the list assists users in navigation, benefiting the encyclopædia.
  3. You stated you did not try and improve this article and would not do so in the future, this kind of attitude harms the encyclopædia. You are not here to build an encyclopædia if you wilfully disregard policies and guidelines. If you think a page is bad, you must make some effort to improve it. (Pages meeting CSD naturally excepted.) Irbisgreif (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding Ikip and Colonel's arguments above most persuasive and to add my own thoughts as well, the article passes Wikipedia:Lists as it is discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, navigational, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs to be more then just a simple list, but that does not mean it needs to be deleted. The article Vampire literature is a good example of what this article should look like, with the list only being a minor part. So maybe it should be renamed Zombie literature. That being said I firmly believe that lists should be limited to items that have their own articles and not become dumping grounds for items that are not notable enough for their own articles. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It strikes me that the nominator's concerns are being addressed, the article IS being 'pruned' and improved even while it is being discussed here, and multiples of multiple sources exist that show notability. Per WP:POTENTIAL the article serves to improve the project by remaining and continuing to be improved. Growth is the purpose of Wikipedia... and not its bane. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, no, growth is not the purpose of Wikipedia, nor its bane. Being a good, easily accessible encyclopedia is the purpose of Wikipedia, and being good includes both the creation and exapnsion of articles, and the deletion or shortening of others. Fram (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then let us agree to disagree. Wikipedia is far far from being completed... and please forgive me Fram, as no slight is intended... but editors acting like all we need to do now is clean up what is already here runs contrary to what I believe Wikipedia is all about or why it was started less than a decade ago. To me it does indeed seem that growth is its purpose, and too often I see that growth treated as if it were an infectious disease. Wikipedia needs a contatant supply of new articles and a steady stream of new editors... willing to (often) put aside matters in the real world to concentrate on what goews on in these imaginary pages. I know that WP:WIP is only an essay... but its a damn fine one. Certainly, being a good, easily accessible encyclopeida is a fine goal... but its not the only goal and there's no need for editors to think or react as if we have no room for more. So yes... growth has been, and should be, the continued goal. So far over 3 million articles and over 17 million pages. I hope we'll be having this same discussion when it's 10 million articles and 40 million pages. WP:PAPER? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Growth is a goal, obviously, or I wouldn't be creating new pages. Growth is not the purpose of Wikipedia though. Not deleting a page because Wikipedia should grow is completely wrong, just like deleting a page because Wikiepdia is too large is besides the point as well. Pages should be kept or deleted because they are maintainable, clearly defined, verifiable, about notable subjects, neutral (subject itself, contents can be corrected), ... Introducing the argument that articles should be kept because growth is the purpose is fine if you want to be the largest website in the world, but not if you want to be the largest good encyclopedia in the world. Fram (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing nominator the article has gone through vast improvement since nomination.[55] with at least 8 references being added, and the article being "pruned". Nullifying the nominator's original argument: "unsourced list of non-notable books and authors" in which he admitted candidly, "I have no intention of trying to fix this article" Ikip (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidly, he shouldn't have to have any intention of improving the article if he thinks it should be deleted. Pointless arguments like that have no business being argued here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also candidly and with respects, yes... if a nominator is of an opinion that something does not belong in these pages, it is unlikley that they will bother to improve the article or give consideration to WP:BEFORE or WP:ATD. Those that think they should do so will bump heads with those that think they should not. Guideline should be rewritten to remove any such responsibility from those who nominate articles for deletion. Why should guideline instruct something that they are not being expected to do? I have so far myself 'saved' over 150 articles from deletion that would not have been at AfD if ATD and BEFORE were followed... and yes, there are rare exceptions. But again... why have guidelines that are impossible to enforce, not expected to be enforced, and only cause dissention. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia list articles aid in navigation, there plenty of blue links in it. Not every notable book has its own Wikipedia article of course. As long as it has reasonably high sales figures, attachment to a notable series(books based on a video games), or otherwise establishes notability through common sense, its fine to have on a list. Dream Focus 14:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to active improvements; I'd like to see where they can go further. In any event, the article now contains about a dozen references, and non=notable is too subjective of a term to count toward deletion. Good job getting the ball rolling! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fundamentally opposed to what an encyclopedia is for -- we are WP:NOT for indiscriminate collections of information. Much of the content isn't even novels. It's just a random collection of trivia and used as a place for people to promote nonnotable books. People who want this kind of information should go to Wikia or a fanlisting site instead of here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as a follow up, we ALREADY have the article Zombies in popular culture, which covers the notable works of fiction. All the split off articles should be redirected to the main topic. DreamGuy (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't include many of the books in this list. In case you didn't notice, there is a further tag under the Zombies_in_popular_culture#The_modern_zombie_in_print_and_literature section. This is an expanded section. Ikip (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a "further tag" is not a valid reason to keep the article. I know you and some others weighing in here vote Keep on every AFD that comes up and have a basic problem with encyclopedic standards, but I wish you'd give it a rest and go find a more appropriate web site to spend your time on. DreamGuy (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:LISTS says that entries in a list must meet the same requirements as if they were individual articles. If you can't prove that an unlinked name or title is notable, then it should not be in the list. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then all the spinouts should be merged completely back into the main article, where they have context, no matter how huge and unwieldy the main article becomes. The current article has several various sections where a few paragraphs mention a few books or films. The article can support lots more without having spinouts. If it makes the article difficult to navigate for those with dial-up or slow connections.... so be it. Let them upgrade. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your reasoning here, but to say "so be it let them upgrade" certainly doesn't seem to have the best interests of the encyclopedia's readers at heart. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes... you caught me in an attempt at irony. The whole reason guideline allows spinouts that rely on the notability of the parent article is because when articles get too large, it places an undue burden on users who do not have high-speed internet access. Heck... I remember a few times when my own server was down and I had to rely on dialup... sheesh... took many minutes to open even a moderate sized article. So when an editor performs a guideline suggested spinout and then it gets nominated for deletion.... and then others opine that all the article's spinouts should be deleted and set as redirects... I see that loss of easy accessibility to the information and the (unintentional) disregard for the work of others to be a grave dis-service to the encyclopedia's readers, as it's about them.... and not us. So if THAT dis-service is condoned, we may as well put the information back where it came from and let the overly large and cumbersome article be the dis-service instead (more irony)... as at least it keeps the information someone might have been hoping to find. Truely, as I opined above, I believe keeping and improving the article using the many, many available reliable sources, improves the project to the benefit of all. If absolutely required, all an editor need do is go to the articles of the various novels listed, and bring sources in for them from those other articles. Now it seems like an awful lot of unneccessary make-work... but it could be done and the list have its notability sourced. But somehow this has yet to be mentioned in this lengthy discussion. Is it trees for the forest or is it forest for the trees? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note the advantage to the reader of a list over just having a category in this case: a list of books can contain redlinks and be sorted by criteria such as date, author surname and title in a way that a category can't be. So there is a prima facie case for having a list, possibly in addition to a category. I don't wish to comment in depth about the validity of the particular items in this list, or how tightly "zombie novel" can be defined, but the suggestion of expanding this into an article on zombie literature in general seems sensible. TheGrappler (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Kuralyov (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better as a cat & hence an unnecessary list that is simply a magnet for bad content. Eusebeus (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SALAT, this is much too broad of a list topic to develop an encyclopedic article about the list of zombie novels. The topic of zombie novels as a genre is notable, but the topic of the list of zombie novels is not and, as with most never-ending lists, constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a case where a category is all we need and a list creates problems. Them From Space 23:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This narrow interpretation of WP:SALAT would delete these Wikipedia:Featured_lists. Broad? Please. This is a small subgenere of horror novels, which has only existed since Night of the Living Dead in the late 1960's, and has only bloomed in the past 5 years. There are very few books, and now that the grand majority of the non-sourced books have been removed, there is less than 30 novels, about 10 of these can be removed also. Per User:TheGrappler, "a list of books can contain redlinks and be sorted by criteria such as date, author surname and title in a way that a category can't be" you can't see the year of the book, you can't see the footnotes of the book with a simply category. Ikip (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant broad not as in the topic of zombie novels, which is well defined and notable. I meant broad as in a list of all zombie novels ever written. Writing about zombie novels is one thing, writing about every zombie novel is another. We can't pretend to create lists of all things that exist; the idea is laughable and the result is usually embarrassing. A category works superbly as it identifies every article we have on a particular topic, including those too broad and too narrow for encyclopedic articles to be developed. Them From Space 01:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List_of_zombie_novels#Removed_to_talk These have been removed from the talk page since the AfD. Only articles with blue links and references are in the article now. Less than 30 books. Ikip (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colonel Warden, too. I immediately thought that there had to be a slew of books that are about the history of Zombie literature (this article that should exist as well). Zombies are an important, expansive topic, and a list of the novels that have dealt with the subject is an excellent aid for anyone reading up on Zombies. Varks Spira (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list should be about a topic that has existing coverage, have a clear scope, its entries based on independent reliable sources, and some form of encyclopedic content beyond the list itself. While some of the entries lack sources, it otherwise passes all of these criteria. I suggest tagging the unreferenced entries and removing them if citations are not found in a reasonable time. Chillum 03:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Didn't look at the old version, but it's going in the right direction now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cull every book that deservingly doesn't have an article. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and, for the books that don't have articles, check first if they are well known enough to have them . Redlinks in a list like this can be used to indicate missing articles (of course, some of them will undoubtedly not be appropriate, & should be deleted). A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. This is not too broad in scope, and fits very well within the list guidelines. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 13 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. Cool3 (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iranites[edit]

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

Not notable, information lacking citation WilliamC24 (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless improved substantially during AFD period. NB the external link does not refer to the subject matter of the article, but to a website for Iranians or concerning Iran, though the article subject may formerly have owned the domain name. If kept it should be renamed to Iranaeic Fellowship of God. 71 Ghits most of which are repeating the same text; apparently no functioning website. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Website was apparently functioning through 2006; here's what's at Archive.org: Last substantial version, Last (tiny) version -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking around on google, I'm failing to find evidence that they were ever notable. I agree that if an editor finds dead tree sources the article should be renamed as Peterkingiron recommends. Arguably, we should have here a disambiguation page distinguishing between a fossil genus of the cephalopod family Xenodiscidae (currently redlinked there as Iranites (fossil))[56], and the mineral Iranite (copper decalead hexachromate bis(orthosilicate) dihydroxid) (currently redlinked as Iranite)[57]. However, I'm not certain if Iranites is still the recognized taxonomy for the genus; this PDF copy of a journal paper suggests that for some genus, possibly a different one, Iranites is the former name and Sirtina is the currently recognized taxonomy. If it is the same genus, then the disambiguation page should say describe this as a former taxon, while if it is a different genus then we have another listing for the disambiguation page. This PDF copy of a journal article would be a good source for an article on the mineral. GRBerry 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luftwaffe bomber crash near Kingsdown, Kent in November 1940[edit]

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

Kingsdown lies directly beneath the Luftwaffe's route from Germany to London. In 1940 aircraft being downed in this area was an almost nightly occurrence. I suggest that the East Kent Mercury did not report it because even then they deemed it non-notable. No pressing arguments for why this is more notable than hundreds of similar events. (See author's arguments on the talk page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)))[reply]

Delete crash deserves a mention in an appropriate list (List of World War II German Aircraft crashes in the United Kingdom?) and nothing more. The details of the grave might merit a sentence in the article about the church if it has one, I doubt it would merit as much in an article about the village. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hundreds of German aircraft crashed or crash-landed in Britain during that period, and individually they won't be notable, if only because of their sheer volume. Skinny87 (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's not like, of the hundreds of crashes, this crash is any more notable than the others and deserves its own article. Maybe a mention in a list? Cheers, I'^mperator 13:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As others have said 100s of aircraft were shot down or otherwise crashed in WWII. This is a subject on which detailed research has been undertaken and is no doubt available in specialist publications or websites. That is the place where such material should appear, not in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any info that can be verified into the Kingsdown article then delete. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An interesting story, but not particularly notable. A short extract from this could usefully form a sub-section in the Kingsdown article. Lynbarn (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant verifiable material to Kampfgeschwader_4#Battle_of_Britain, Kingsdown, Kent, and Deal, Kent. Ty 23:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 7 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. There is enough consensus in seven days among non-SPA members that it can be closed as a keep JForget 23:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posterous[edit]

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

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

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

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

Was originally going to CSD it but it doesn't fit into any of the categories. I ran a google search and found no other sources showing the site other then the site and twitter. Non-Notable. SKATER ^Speak. 04:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Wordpress has a page here: [58]; Tumblr has a page here: [59]; Twitter has a page here: [60]. It makes sense for Posterous to have a page, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.221.98.167 (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC) — 199.221.98.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That's not how it works: WP:OTHERSTUFF --Cybercobra (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Just in the top google hits are several articles going towards notability, and these are mostly just about their new iPhone app. Surely one could find more if they looked:

[61] [62] [63] [64] [65] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.44.216 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC) — 76.119.44.216 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Don't delete Lots of references in a search for "posterous" site:wsj.com OR site:nytimes.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.15.148 (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC) — 18.111.15.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Don't Delete Huge article and how to on Mashable [66] A company with over 1 million users should NOT have their wikipedia page deleted!!! The Austin News paper uses it to interact with their readers [67] [68] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fla030 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC) — Fla030 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Don't Delete Tech Cruch Article [69] Posterous Finally Has An iPhone App, Could Have Been Way Better —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.210.199.233 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont't delete There's extensive coverage in Mashable and more in Techcrunch. I think Skater may need to check his Google settings. (edit conflicts) -- Alun Salt (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be significant coverage in ComputerWorld & TechCrunch --Cybercobra (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their media coverage is significant enough. --Dan Leveille^TALK 22:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This service is getting a lot of attention very quickly. It could likely become a major competitor to Blogger and Wordpress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.127.212 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC) — 96.42.127.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That's not how it works either (see WP:CRYSTAL), though references others have already mentioned may be sufficient to establish notability anyway. —Umofomia (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides having significant media coverage, the user base for this service is big enough and continues to grow rapidly.

--Xrecar (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC) — Xrecar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep It's clear to me that Posterous meets the requirements of notability and verifiability. Steven Walling 08:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin The "don't delete" headings might make it obvious, but please note that there has been canvassing outside Wikipedia. Steven Walling 08:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This service has been covered in multiple editorial news articles since the service was launched to the public. A google news search [70] documents coverage of posterous by major metropolitan news papers (Chicago, Minneapolis/St Paul, Belfast Ireland, Washington DC). I have seen several reviews that state posterous is one of the best current tools for blogging due to its simplicity, design and ability to integrate a posterous blog with other well respected services (flickr / facebook / twitter). Here is one such recent review. [71] Bmike8 (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this book Joe Chill (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really wanted to !vote one or the other here but this one is a real toss-up for me. I won't !vote delete because there are several hits for the book on search engines. I won't !vote keep either because I am not quite convinced of its notability. Has it won any awards or have anything else that would make it notable enough for a Wikipedia article? I have my doubts on both sides of keeping and deleting.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 03:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources and per the lack of significant awards. This book was authored by Mary Elting and Christopher Santoro. I was able to uncover this book review from Publisher's Weekly; however, this is a review of a different book, which is written by Ian Jenkins. Several searches fail to return any sources that could confirm this book's notability. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sigh, i know whats happening. i do it myself. look in my bookshelf and create articles on books. however, i use one other criteria: notability. golden books are almost never notable (some are though). this is not. of course, an older book of apparent notability without web refs is a different story, im hopefully not a rabid deletionist, but in this case, again, no reason for an article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by User:Neutrality --JForget 23:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cup[edit]

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

An IP contested my prod. This is a made up drinking game. For some reason, a few editors are trying to speedy delete this when it doesn't fit any criteria. Joe Chill (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Because the IP was most likely the creator of the article as it was its only edit. Doesn't reach notability and is made up by someone who is not notable. –túrian^patois 02:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator is able to contest the prod so that doesn't matter. There is also not a speedy deletion criteria for this. Joe Chill (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NFT, has no reliable third party coverage. Q ^{T C} 02:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Q ^{T C}. google search on "Ben Welsh" cup brings this wikipedia page as the only relevant article.--Work permit (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at all.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another non-notable drinking game. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no problem with this clearly notable (not to mention exciting) game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3rico (talk • contribs) 04:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any valid claims of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Monkey Island (series)#Characters. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Toothrot[edit]

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

Also nominating Stan (Monkey Island) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wholly insignificant minor character. No claim of notability and no citations to reliable third-party sources. No attempt to offer a real-world treatment of the topic; article is merely a regurgitation of his appearances in several games, covered sufficiently in the very brief blurb about him in the franchise article. --EEMIV (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to a new article List of Monkey Island characters, along with Voodoo Lady [72] and Elaine Marley. Fences&Windows 15:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather suggest Monkey Island (series)#Characters or World of Monkey Island#Primary Characters, no new page should be made. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absent citations and a real-world, encyclopedic treatment, these characters' coverage at World of Monkey Island is sufficient; none of the current content is in any way worth merging. World of Monkey Island itself already is in sorry state, but at least the character blurbs offer appropriate brevity for such insignificant topics. --EEMIV (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge plot analysis either in Escape from Monkey Island or pages I suggested to Fences above. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herman's plot analysis, I mean. Not Stan's. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a merge for Herman. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stan. He's just a minor character. Although he may be funny and memorable, he's not really important. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herman has some (although still little) potential to be notable, because of major story inconsistencies. There is nothing special about Stan. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete - Either way, the articles do not assert notability, so they don't need to exist in their current forms. TTN (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That link it used for something like "It's not notable", not "the topic does not assert notability", which is a shorter way of saying "the topic does not meet the criteria set by WP:N, so the article does not need to exist." You should at least attempt to use such links properly. TTN (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - The article does not have to outright say, "Herman Toothrot is notable." The coverage in sources and common sense significance is sufficient. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (both) per above as non-notable, unsourced fan-service material. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, TTN. (no independent sources can be adduced to establish notability, no real-world significance.) Eusebeus (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both (less the inconsistency original research in the Toothrot article) into World of Monkey Island#Secondary characters, they're going need redirects at these names as plausible search terms if deleted anyway. These two are a bit too minor in the franchise, despite being reoccuring characters, for sources to cover them in great detail. -- Sabre (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge no reason not to have some information and a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 13 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. There is support for a merge, and some for a redirect, and discussions about this may continue on the article's talk page; but it's quite apparent from this discussion there is a strong consensus that Elaine Marley should be a bluelink on Wikipedia. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Marley[edit]

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

Wholly insignificant minor character. No claim of notability and negligible reference to third-party source. Negligible real-world treatment of the topic; article is a regurgitation of her appearances in several games. Original research on "inconsistencies" in the franchise to boot. --EEMIV (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not just a character in an obscure game, but the deuteragonist and primary heroine of an entire series of very well-known adventure games (Monkey Island). To echo User:Jclemens in related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeChuck (and see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guybrush Threepwood), "AfD is not for cleanup." —Lowellian (reply) 06:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of MI Characters. While I can see Guybrush and LeChuck being kept, this character, while the only other major recurring one, does not have the same level of significance in the games, as she usually kidnapped or incapacitated in some manner for 90% of the game, and almost would be considered a minor character if she didn't recur so much. The present article only has one source and this is to establish something as part of a time line, not about the character's creation or reception. Sources I've seen aren't demonstrating any more about her either. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "list of characters" is already a component of World of Monkey Island. Itself a collection of plotcruft and NFC abuse, it offers appropriate blurb/brief treatment as appropriate for this minor character. None of the content in this article -- uncited, plot regurgitation -- warrants merging anywhere. --EEMIV (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Masem. Fences&Windows 15:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and remove needless plot summary. Merge Inconsistency section to Escape from Monkey Island. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth would you suggest moving the "inconsistency" section -- which is both entirely trivial and entirely unreferenced original research -- anywhere? --EEMIV (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that if the article is merged, the Inconsistency section would not be important enough to mention in a list of characters, but could be included in Escape from Monkey Island, which the section is mostly talking about. But you're right, it is OR. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a likely search term. merging as necessary. Protonk (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable as well as that character is verifiable in multiple reliable sources as seen here. In any event, I have added out of universe information on this notable character concerning her production and reception, i.e. the article is not merely plot anymore, contains information verified third-party sources, i.e. not original research by the peculiar Wikipedia definition of the term and reveals the importance of this major character from multiple noteworthy games. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A gratuitous copy-and-paste from a single source does not establish notability. While you're whacking at these articles, please trim/paraphrase your bulky block quotes. --EEMIV (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the character is mentioned in multiple reviews, previews, etc. for multiple games does. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, how do "mentions" help us build a decent article? Nifboy (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! I'd forgotten about WP:HOTTIES. Fences&Windows 17:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, since when has That Guy with the Glasses been considered a reliable source?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'd like to say there's enough development and/or reception information to warrant an article out there, but really...there doesn't seem to be. I could see Daphne from Dragon's Lair ending up more plausible for an article to be honest.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perfectly fine existing article. No need to delete. --AStanhope (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Looks like there's enough coverage in published sources from reviews to justify the article. Most are reviews, but they're acceptable (offhand, this Good article) for instance has almost nothing but, and not a single external reference which focuses directly on the subject itself). --Monere (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Just too much splitted on notability criteria here. Tip: Please add some references in the second half. That would be helpful in the event of a future AFD (if this happens). JForget 19:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manon Batiste[edit]

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

Wholly insignificant character; player's character in the MOH/COD games might as well be nameless avatars. No claim of notability and zero citations to third-party sources (currently, article is referenced only to the games themselves). This is merely a regurgitation of game plot and a listing of "awards" (i.e. military recognitions) garnered by this make-believe fellow. Easily/sufficiently covered in main franchise article. No attempt to address the subject in an encyclopedic manner, undoubtedly because no significant third-party sources responding to/scrutinizing this might-as-well-be-nameless character exist. --EEMIV (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements. I did some searches on Google News and Google Books and was able to address the various criticisms of the article above. The article is indeed a significant character who appears in multiple well-received mainstream games, including as the main character in one game who is additionally notable in the real world as being based on a historical figure. The article is not solely plot and I am not opposed to condensing that aspect of the article to make it more balanced, but in any event, the article now contains out of universe development information and some reception information. Looking at reviews, I expect to be able to add even more out of universe context, but just wanted to note the progress thus far. But as we have seen the article is being addressed now in an encyclopedic manner, because significant third-party sources regarding this fascinating character do indeed exist. If the nominator can live with a redirect, then per WP:BEFORE a discussion concerning the redirect should have been discussed on the article's talk page and if the article's referenced content can be covered elsewhere then per WP:PRESERVE and Wikipedia:Merge and delete we would still at worst redirect with the edit history intact. As there is no pressing need to redlink here and no one is really calling for that, this discussion really should be speedily closed with a merge/redirect discussion taking place on the article's talk page. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence about real-life inspiration and a blurb about developing the soundtrack (note it's not a third-party source) are not evidence of significant third-party coverage. The article remains a bastion of trivia, plot summary, unreferenced speculation and other cruft. --EEMIV (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when the article contains non-trivial referenced information. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see what my "cruft" link leads to. Hint: I anticipated you once again tossing up your "don't call things cruft" boilerplate. Please stop responding to me on AfD discussions; I find engagement with you frustrating, and I think we can mutually agree we won't change each other's mind, much as we're confident in the soundness of our own arguments. I'll similarly refrain from acknowledging your existence or relevance in AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you replied to my keep argument first... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page currently stands as entirely in-universe description. Not enough real world content for a standalone article. Shii (tock) 19:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is actually totally not true given the out of universe Development and reception sections... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to excellent improvements of out of universe context. Very well referenced article. On the list of the best selling video games of all time. Ikip (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Note that Ikip has !voted below.~~ John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the correction! I removed the one below. *Blush* I am so embarrassed, thanks again for pointing this out! Ikip (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though the principal character, a proper merge might be bertter, but there is the difficulty in getting a merge to a. be sufficient, and b. to stick. I'm thinking right now of World of Monkey island,; a number of combination pages were merged into here a year ago, biut the entire merged section was edited out at [73] just been removed earlier today, along with a good deal else, and with the edit statement for one of the deletions, at [74] , that " these sections are going to be turned into bullets." I think it's much better to merge, but not if things like this are going to happen. Until we have a way of preventing this, the only alternative to loss of content is to keep the separate articles. Combination articles was the one viable compromise, but it is only viable if done in good faith. I am not happy feeling it necessary to support keeping individual articles than I would really like, by people who are taking an truly extreme position on removing content outside of AfD DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a single article might have a better flow in general. Shii (tock) 21:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Without prejudice to merge however) I'm sorry but there doesn't seem to be enough real-world information to warrant a full article here...what there is is being blown out of proportion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but that argument is support of a merge, not delete DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Regardless, in addition to there being enough real-world information to warrant a full article or at worst to justify some kind of redirect, the content has already been merged and as such, we cannot delete per the GFDL. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay could the two of you please get off my case? DGG, I respect you, though in this case I don't think too much could really be salvaged if anything. However with that said I'll agree there's no prejudice on my part for a merge if it goes that way. And A Nobody...let me vote how I want. You can disagree with me or you can spend that time actually fixing what you rush to rescue. Leaving a bad article after a closed afd still bad is a hollow victory and setup for another AfD down the line by someone else.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The character is does not assert true notability (actual significant coverage in reliable sources), and the content is not worth salvaging. The content that was "merged" is part of an attempt to force the article to be kept, so the edits should be deleted as well. TTN (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The character is indeed notable and anyway WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. Sourced out of universe content is indeed worth salvaging. We are here to build an encyclopedia and so no reasonable admin would ever delete merged edits that actual improve other articles. Look, I know it annoys some who for whatever odd reason are bent on deleting to have something merged, but that is what we are supposed to do per WP:IAR and WP:PRESERVE and so upon doing actual research I discovered that Manon is based on a real and noteworthy French resistance fighter and was able to use some of the information from the Manon article to both improve the article on the actual game, which had no real references, and write an article on someone of actual historical importance. How could adhering to some snapshot in time AfD somehow trump using content to improve articles that pretty much no one would reasonably dispute? If we are really here to build an encyclopedia then it is not about forcing anything, but about making the most of the available content and in this particular case we have information that regardless of what you think of her article does actual help two other articles. Moreover, given that she is one of an overall minority of main characters in a game series based on a real world historical figure she is worthy of coverage in some capacity, whether it be continued improvement of this article or further merging, but clearly there is no pressing need to red link here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now has out-of-universe material, and notable as main character from important game. well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re disruption of this AfD; see:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AManon_Batiste&diff=312242721&oldid=185007402
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AManon_Batiste&diff=312248708&oldid=312242721
Talk:Manon Batiste now asserts that
- Manon Batiste "must not be deleted so long as Hélène Deschamps Adams exists"
- Manon Batiste "must not be deleted so long as Medal of Honor: Underground exists"
See: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion where it says:
- You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of Wikipedia's licensing). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy.
This is blatant disruption with the aim of subverting the AfD process.

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; this is unencyclopaedic ~~trash~~ material. Wikipedia *is* a fansite, but it's not supposed to be. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above, performing the necessary revision deletion through deletion of the target page and selective restoration. Disruption of AfD through merging in order to force an attribution problem is unacceptable. Protonk (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not provided any actual reason why this verifiable out of universe content concerning a main character based on a real historical person is so detrimental to the project that it must be outright redlinked rather than even redirected and why content from this article that actually improves an article on a major figure of the French resistance and of a notable video game would be better off removed thereby diminishing the quality of those articles. Seriously. Are we here to build an encyclopedia of actual content or play games? I am a volunteer. I have the information now; I could use it now. Using it improves two articles that no reasonable editor would want deleted. This article is not a hoax, not libelous, not a copy vio, i.e. not something that we must prevent the public from seeing and certainly not something anyone can provide a reasonable reason why at worst would not be redirected. Why on earth would anyone NOT be WP:BOLD and do what we are allegedly supposed to be here to do? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you haven't done anything except gainsay points made above by inverting phrases and spout platitudes about building the encyclopedia. When I want to have a conversation with you, I'll drop by your talk page. As for the article, this was covered in the ample nomination but the article subject is not covered in detail by independent sources (even including the large number of game reviews which mention the title character incidentally), the article itself is a recitation of plot points, and a redirect placed over a deleted article works just as well to bring readers to a notable subject as does a redirect over a history. I'm not against redirected rather than deleting. Where I get my hackles up is when the redirection is forced by virtue of a merger undertaken during the AfD. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article contains information on development ranging from noting that it is based on a real historical figure who served as a consultant for the game as well as interview information on the music chosen for the character as well as reception information noting the character's inclusion in a list of best female video game characters. There's actually more available from the Google Searches, but I, as a volunteer, thought it more important to a) focus on the historical figure she is based on for now and b) spread some wiki love by giving my colleagues Happy Labor Day messages. Anyway, none of that out of universe context is simple "plot", i.e. not plot cannot apply to something that is not entirely plot. Yes, the majority of the article may be plot and a case could be made for compacting that aspect of the article further, but certainly not the whole thing, ergo not plot is not valid in this case as the article is not all plot. And if anything, where I and many others get frustrated is when on something that does not have a deadline we volunteers are "forced" into acting urgently to do something to save the article while arguing with those who are not helping in that process. Instead of being able to gradually improve things, we are forced into kicking things in gear in a mere week to impress, to be honest, some who no matter what we do will still just keep arguing against us and I know that after I saw at least one participant here try to get rid of the article on a character from a work of classic literature that has been adapted into nearly TWENTY films. What I did to improve this article and to use information from this article to improve others is what should happen through normal editing. It does not require an AFD and if a redirect is valid, then there is no need when something that does not appear to be a vandalism magnet should not maintain its edit history as when additional sources become available, editors can have the basis from which to work without having to trouble any admin to undelete. I am not forcing anything on anyone. The article can still be merged further or redirected accordingly or if additional sources emerge outright kept. And anyway, how is that any worse than the usual half dozen accounts who happen to be there for a week or so discussion determing the fate of something that may have lasted for years and been edited by hundreds or thousands who just happened to miss that five to sveen day discussion? We have to be reasonable in these discussions. When we actually have material that benefits other articles, we should not have to wait to improve those articles and certainly not when the article under discussion is not something controversial that needs to be deleted for legal reasons. We are supposed to try everything we can to improve our articles and only when all else fails delete. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plot information belongs in the plot synopsis of the relevant game articles. The remainder (an extensive fictional biography? Good grief) is not within the scope of this project. The extent of reliable, independent coverage appears to be "this is the character you play in the game." Marasmusine (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article contains out of universe information that is being expanded and cannot be deleted anyway do to merge that improves two other articles. Please be honest. The following:

- - She is based on Hélène Deschamps Adams, a real life member of the OSS,^[1] the forerunner of CIA, who also served as a consultant for the game.^[2]

- - Michael Giacchino explains that for "Manon, I wanted a theme that could convey one emotion at a particular moment, and then a completely different emotion the next without having to rely on two completely different themes. As a result, Manon's two main themes are very similar and yet very different. One version of the theme stays the course in a major tone, conveying a feel of great national purpose against the Nazi menace, and the secondary theme dips into a minor 6th chord which describes Manon's more intimate and emotional feelings as an individual and a woman who is pitted against the fascist war machine. Both of these themes are bookended with what liner notes author Paul Tonks has aptly named 'the resolve theme'. This theme was meant to represent the moments where Manon is called upon to steel her nerves and gather the courage to continue on with the fight....Manon travels to places that are not quite so militaristic as Jimmy Patterson. Her journey was a bit more 'scenic'."^[3]

- - Producer Scott Langteau offers that "Manon used petrol bombs and also used her femininity to gain access to restricted areas. We used the freedom of telling her backstory- she was in the French Resistance, then joined the OSS-to give the game its own flair and widely varied missions that took us all over Europe: Greece, Italy, etc."^[4]

- - and

- - RealPoor ranks her among the 12 Best Female Characters in Video Games.^[5]

- is more than just she is playable in the game. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Medal of Honor: Underground, where 95% of the real-world relevance is duplicated yet none of the plot is. This is a classic case of one articles' worth of content being split/forked across two articles for no good reason, and without any rhyme or reason as to what content goes where. Nifboy (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - typically sterile fancruft (and yes, A Nobody, I know you don't care for that word; no need to remind me). Utterly fails to respect WP:RS - aside from quoting the game itself, we have a blog, a forum, and self-published sites with no editorial oversight. What part of "[material] published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" is unclear? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to make honest and valid arguments in AfDs. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a legitimate reason for deletion, especially when the article is referenced through reliable sources, i.e. sourced through reputable sources with appropriate editorial oversight for our purposes. And again, as the content has been merged to improve two other articles, this article cannot be deleted per the GFDL. No editor with the project's best interests in mind would want to interfere with our ability to improve those article and no rational case can be made for why at worst we would not redirect this valid search term with edit history intact. "I don't like" it doesn't cut it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1) Like I said, we know of your aversion to the word "cruft"; no need to remind us every time. Cruft is still cruft, though, whether you like it or not. 2) Ah, the old "keep this or else!" trick. Sorry, but nothing in the GFDL prohibits merged text to be cut, augmented, otherwise altered or, yes, deleted at some later date. There's nothing sacrosanct about some junk about what some cartoon character did, which doesn't actually "improve" the encyclopedia one bit. 3) Let's cut through the fog and pose some direct questions. Where's the editorial oversight here? How about here? Here? Here? Let's have answers, not palaver about this being "sourced through reputable sources with appropriate editorial oversight for our purposes". - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Cruft" is a nonsense term no real academic would ever use and thus precludes discussions from being, well, serious. Most importantly here though is that you refer to the main character of a video game with multiple appearances in a game series, who is based on a real historical figure and who is covered in third party reviews and previews of the game a "cartoon" character is revealing enough. I encourage you to focus on discussions concerning subjects for which you have expertise. Cartoons and video games are two different media and both have their legitimacy for coverage and should not be dismissed out of hand per personal preferences. Moreover, you really don't think GamePro has editorial oversight? And no, we do not remove sourced content from articles that actually improves them to humor such uninformed viewpoints concerning another article. Thank you and happy Labor Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - 1) I can do without the sanctimony, thank you very much. "Cartoon" was merely used as a way to disparage "Manon Batiste"; I am aware of the difference between the two media. 2) Even if we concede GamePro has editorial oversight, that still leaves this, this and this afoul of WP:RS. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Just as I reckon you probably know more about say Romania than I do, anyone with any actual knowledge on video games can recognize that Manon Batiste is a notable character, possibly one of the top 100 female video game characters of all time as she serves as the focus of one noteworthy game and appears in another. In addition to GamePro, she is also verifiable through a few other reliable sources as confirmed on Google News and Google Books. Thus, this article is not a hoax, not libelous, not a copy vio, etc., i.e. there is absolutely no pressing need whatsoever to redlink it on the paperless encyclopedia for everybody. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        First of all, having the ability to go through three search engines is not evidence of any big expertise, so I would stop playing that card if I were you. Secondly, you're constructing an ad populum and ad hominem discourse that really bogs down this discussion and does not advance your claims in any conceivable way. Now, to the point. I for one find the issue of GamePro and its reliability very unconvincing - its appears to be merely a fanzine among the thousands. That aside, the links you keep flashing about are flogging a dead horse. The google news search only mentions her 7 times in all, of which 6 are direct reviews of the game in specialized magazines, and even those, as focused as they are, mention the character in passing (when a wikipedia article on the game already exists). The remaining one is a tidbit in an overview of WWII-themed games. Not one of them appears to be mentioning her name more than once. That you would still be citing the google books stuff after my comment below is quite astounding: there are 4 mentions of her name in all, of which two are in textbooks you cited against recommended practice, one is a video game almanac, and the remaining one is a patent for the game (primary source, trivial etc.). And I can make neither heads nor tails of your "there is absolutely no pressing need whatsoever to redlink" argument. Dahn (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You find one of the leading game magazine's reliability unconvincing?! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - [Edit conflict] Oh, for Christ: "I encourage you to focus on discussions concerning subjects for which you have expertise. Cartoons and video games are two different media and both have their legitimacy for coverage and should not be dismissed out of hand per personal preferences." For the last time, nobody is objecting to these articles because they are "cartoons and video games", and you, A Nobody, know it. No one suggests deleting Medal of Honor: Underground or its main subsets. The issue here is an article about a minor character in its own genre, when we wouldn't even have/need articles on secondary characters in world literature classics (in general, I mean). It is also quite evident that, unlike this article here, articles on secondary characters in world literature classics have been subject to critical commentary in prominent secondary sources, and don't rely on fabricated or utterly marginal references in some of fanzines. It is therefore not the delete votes that are asking for an exception, it is the keep votes, so please stop your negative campaigning. The slogans are getting really old, really fast. Dahn (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The issue here is about a major character, one of the 100 or so most notable female video game characters of all time. No one has presented anything even remotely compelling as to what urgent desperate need there is to redlink this. This is where people lose me when a main character is falsely dismissed as minor. No, she is the heroine of a major game, appears in another, and is notable as well for being based on a real life heroic figure. There is a reason why people care enough about her to give her over 700 Google hits. Why on earth would we not want to do a service for our readership and at least have a redirect? Moreover, reliably sourced content from this article was used to improve two other articles that no one contests. Thus, no reasonable editor would want to diminish those articles by getting rid of this one. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "one of the 100 or so most notable female video game characters of all time" - assessments in various blogs don't establish relevancy; it is role in the narrative that ultimately does, provided of course the narrative itself needs that kind of detailing. Google hits, the relevancy of what she is supposedly based on and other such sophistry don't weigh anything in other discussions, and they sure don't weigh anything here. I see no biggie in redirecting the title, but I see nothing at all worth keeping from the text. In fact, I would salt it to prevent future attempts at recreating the content. Dahn (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We only salt libelous or hoax content, not stuff actually covered in notable magazines. I see nothing here that we urgently have to protect the public from by deleting. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "Notable". Yes, the circular argument. I'm done here, unless someone needs me to comment on something else. Dahn (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content and Merge title into Medal of Honor: Underground. There really is no reason for a monument to fandom, with overfocused detail on episodic appearances of a secondary character, particularly since the sources are very questionable. This edit, which is advertised as a "rescue" added two google book snippets (the "snippets" part is itself indicative fir the negligence of sourcing here) from two textbooks (which we are not supposed to be using as sources) and the so-called Soundtrack Review which, by the looks of it, is a self-published site and personal project ("Soundtrack Review.net is finally closing down. My time is taken up with other pursuits and my desire to continue the site has waned to the point of extinction. (...) Many thanks go out to all of my readers.") Dahn (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not opposed to a valid discussion about merging and redirecting, for which someone could make a reasonable case, although most evidence points to an outright keep with further improvement also being a sound way forward. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merging what? The superfluous profile? The ridiculous and sloppy "sourcing"? Let's be reasonable. As for "further improvement" - the potential sound of a falling tree in the forest should not prevent an article from being deleted. Dahn (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The out of universe content from reliable sources is indeed mergeable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You don't seem to have a clear understanding of WP:RS. Dahn (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Published books and GamePro count as reliable sources that verify this information and because it is addressed in multiple of them it is enough to justify at worst a merge and redirect of the content sourced from those books and magazine. These serve as relaible secondary sources. Moreover, an interview with the actual game's composer serves as a reliable primary source. The mixture of these sources is sufficient to justify something other than redlinking. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe I've already answered to these points, please don't make me repeat myself by stating the same over and over again after I've answered them and stated that I don't intend to continue this conversation. It's a cheap tactic of diverting focus. In short: the claim about the article being sourced from reliable sources is debatable to say the least; the primary source is utterly irrelevant in proving notability (WP:PSTS); and, no, not all published sources are reliable sources. Dahn (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This particular published source is. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with Jimmy's article, please keep in mind that we are discussing one of the two main characters from the 30th best selling video game franchise. Surely the two main characters, who are even featured in the game's cover art (see Medal of Honor: Underground), from such a successful franchise are at least worthy of a redirect with edit history intact. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only refer you to my comment above, and only add that your entire claim about notability through someone else's notability is a fine sample of association fallacy. Dahn (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By being one of the 12 best female video game characters of all time, who is based on a real person, appears on a major game's cover, etc. she is notable in her own right. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean being called "one of the 12 best female video game characters of all time" by a guy named windshell in an internet forum... This type of "referencing" is what you base your claim on. Dahn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That and common sense, i.e. the cover girl of a major game, based on a significant real world person, also verifiable through reliable reviews and preveiews, etc. all add up. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's call a spade a spade: 1) the one "source" ranking the character in any way is a guy in an internet forum, whose opinion you cited as a reference in defiance of wikipedia policies; 2) that type of reasoning is not common sense, it's a fallacy; 3) if you base the claim that the subject is "one of the 12 best female video game characters of all time" [sic] on the personal judgment that it is "the cover girl of a major game, based on a significant real world person, also verifiable through reliable reviews and preveiews" [sic], you're not only in breach of WP:OR and WP:POV, as in introducing your own ranking, you're also doing it in the most ridiculous manner I have seen so far. Dahn (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this article would go against everthing this project stands for by being the comprehensive encyclopedia anyone can edit. If we call a spade a spade, then we would rightly call this article notable and its subject verifiable through multiple reliable sources as confirmed by Google News and Google Books. Suggesting otherwise is a ridiculous logical fallacy, because the subject is so obviously notable by any reasonable standard that no one can present any evidence that it is a hoax or libelous or that it does not have a valid redirect location or that no one finds it relevant. Rather, it concerns a cover character based on a real historical figure who is confirmed through published books and on magazine sites who is part of the 30th most successful video game franchise of all time, i.e. it represents unorginal research from multiple perspectives. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. A merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page as guideline instructs. Yes, the content might benefit from trimming.... but that's a matter for cleanup through the course of normal editing, not outright deletion. I note that even though this not-so-insignificant character is the MAIN character in Medal of Honor: Underground, and not some background throw-away, she is spoken of in only one meager sentence in that entire article... despite her being in books and in multiple reliable sources [75]. It should make no difference if it is a fictional character or not... no difference if you like the game or not... no difference if one likes the article or not... If a subject can be shown to meet the criteria of WP:GNG, the subject merits an article. If no option is considered other than outright deletion, the project is not being well served. Time to consider acceptable compromises... and a merge that fleshes out the skeletal coverage of her in the main article is definitely worth discussiong. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again the same link to google news... Look, as I've said above, of the seven titles linked there, none address the subject in more than one sentence. This is the same for every source that was "cited" or quoted here, except for some of those that are unreliable - they may into whatever detail they want, but they're unquotable. the sources you mention simply state that the character exists, and this, I gather, is not up for debate. Since wikipedia is by definition less detailed and more synthetic than the sources it uses, and since not even parroting the reliable sources would make the entry grow in size (individually or as part of another article), your claim that something more could be said looks like inclusionist wishful thinking. Dahn (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not simply the link, but the multiple reliable sources with those link and after all Google News and Google Books are NOT the end of reliable sources. The most relevant sources would be articles in other magazines that do not necessarily show up in the online archives and that none of us volunteers can reasonably be expected to have to scroll through in a mere week's time and on a holiday at that. Moreover as indicated above, the sources go beyond just that the character exists, but to confirm as well that she is based on a historical person, how the music was chosen to represent her, how she is one of the best female video game characters of all time, her role in the game with regards to character backrgound, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't debate with esoteric claims about what "else" should be out there but isn't. And all the existing sources have to say about the character goes into a sentence or two, whichever way you look at it. Full stop. Dahn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they do not. The following is more than a mere sentence or two: Michael Giacchino explains that for "Manon, I wanted a theme that could convey one emotion at a particular moment, and then a completely different emotion the next without having to rely on two completely different themes. As a result, Manon's two main themes are very similar and yet very different. One version of the theme stays the course in a major tone, conveying a feel of great national purpose against the Nazi menace, and the secondary theme dips into a minor 6th chord which describes Manon's more intimate and emotional feelings as an individual and a woman who is pitted against the fascist war machine. Both of these themes are bookended with what liner notes author Paul Tonks has aptly named 'the resolve theme'. This theme was meant to represent the moments where Manon is called upon to steel her nerves and gather the courage to continue on with the fight....Manon travels to places that are not quite so militaristic as Jimmy Patterson. Her journey was a bit more 'scenic'."^[6] Some of the reviews from not mere blogs but magazine websites verify the plot information concerning her specifically in full paragraphs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that one is an alleged statement from a primary source, republished by a venue with no real reliability. That presuming that the information has any relevancy to an encyclopedic coverage, which it appears is not the case. And also presuming that, if it has, it cannot be summarized in a few words - which it could. This is another thing to which I had already answered. As for the equivocation in "some of the reviews from not mere blogs but magazine websites verify the plot information concerning her specifically in full paragraphs", I have to say simply: nonsense. I and several other users have combed through your precious sources, and showed that this is clearly not the case, no matter how much you blur the issue at hand. Between that and your manifest ignorance of WP:RS, there's really nothing more to discuss here. Dahn (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are allowed to use some reliable primary sources when we have other information verifying the rest of the article in reliable secondary sources. Anyone with any practical knowledge of video games and video game sourcing is arguing to keep or merge this article and that is the bottom line here, because even an amateur with regards to video games knows this character is worthy of at least a redirect with edit history intact, just even someone with only cursory knowledge of this subject recognizes the interview and magazines and books as reliable sources for this subject. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it could be referenced better, it is much to large to merge into the main article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching through google books and other google searches I could find no claim of valuable history or major significance, every link I could find simply mentioned the name, and there were very few mentions, nothing reliable to verify meaningful notability and this proves the character is too trivial to merit it's own article.- Josette (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you kidding? As pointed out above, Google News and Google Books both demonstrate that the character appears in multiple games, as the main and cover character in one, is considered one of the best female game characters of all time, is based on a real historical figure, etc. Moreover, as the content has been merged, deletion is not an option. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would also like to note that like any other editor in good standing, I have the right to state my opinion at any AfD and do so without being harangued. I have read this entire thread plus done my own research as I am supposed to do and I still remain unconvinced that there is enough value in this character to have it's own article. I do not appreciate your disparaging remarks against me and I respectfully ask that you agree to disagree with me and leave it at that. Thank you. - Josette (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a discussion. In a discussion editors interact with each other. I am totally unconvinced that there is any reason to delete here, because there is no reason. The article contains reliably sourced content concerning one of the most notable female video game characters who is based on a historical person of enough importance that she also has an article and who appears on the cover of a game in which she stars as the heroine. She is covered in out of universe context in interviews and reviews. Even cursory research reveals as much. We can reasonably disagree about whether the article should be improved further or redirected to one of the merge locations, but as the lone participant in this discussion who actually shows real evidence of what sources I found, who actually added them to the article, and merged them to improve other articles following WP:PRESERVE, Wikipedia:Merge and delete, Wikipedia:Before, Wikipedia:BOLD, and WP:IAR, I cannot allow factually inaccurate statements to go unchallenged. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup – could be much better sourced and prose cleaned up, but it looks like a valid spinout. Perhaps a merge could be discussed in the future, but perhaps it should be best put on hold after a good cleanup. MuZemike 19:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character gets plenty of mention in reviews. Cnet's editor review[76] speaks of her notable role in a game which really built on her history, and whatnot. She isn't just some static character. And she is the main character in a notable game. Dream Focus 18:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Plot cannot be discussed without discussing characters, and every version of NOT PLOT thatn has ever been proposed requires the discussion of PLOT--the extent to which plot is to be described varies in the different versions, but they all say its an essential component. This will lead to: "In this game, a character whose name we don't think important enough to tell you, engages in various adventures" -- or possibly not mention it at all, and have the article deal only with the production and distribution, and not say what the game is about. I guess that's the way of approaching fiction if one doesn't think the contents of it are of the least importance. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meticulously well-written article on an arguably popular subject, at least within a certain gaming sub-culture. A lot of work has clearly gone into this article - and gone into making it adhere to Wikipedia standards. This should be an easy KEEP. --AStanhope (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Medal of Honor: Underground. Real world content already exists in the main article, and without knowing which came first, GFDL would seem to indicate it should be redirected. Much briefer plot summary could also be merged to the main, which currently lacks any. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Medal of Honor: Underground. This article is really just a glorified content fork.Singingdaisies (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Patterson[edit]

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

Wholly insignificant character; player's character in the MOH/COD games might as well be nameless avatars. No claim of notability and zero citations to any sort of sources. This is merely a list of appearances, gameguide weapons trivia, and a listing of "awards" (i.e. military recognitions) garnered by this make-believe fellow. Easily/sufficiently covered in main franchise article. No attempt to address the subject in an encyclopedic manner, undoubtedly because no significant third-party sources responding to/scrutinizing this might-as-well-be-nameless character exist. --EEMIV (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Excessive fictional detail per WP:GAMECRUFT. Character's fictional relevance would be adequately covered by a series plot summary. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it is the major character from a major franchise and is covered in multiple reliable sources means it is notable. Moreover, WP:ITSCRUFT is not really a reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I was pointing out the cruftiness as a reason not to merge, not as a reason to delete. The games are covered in multiple sources, the character himself is only mentioned as part of the plot summary for those games. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cruft is never a reason to not do anything. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You seem to be confused. Appealing to WP:ESSAYS are not valid justifications for doing or not doing things. WP:Guidelines, such as WP:GAMECRUFT, are. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:IAR with regards to needlessly restrictive nonsense non-academic terms no one need take seriously. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If kept, nothing of the article could be salvaged anyway. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sourced out of universe content is indeed salvageable. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another main character of a significant game. How that gets to be called an "insignificant" character is something I do not understand--I think the nom. means to say an uninteresting character, or one without much depth. He may be right, but then the thing to do is to find a source that says it and add it to the article. A character with relatively little to say about him would usually mean a shorter article, but not zero. I'd be satisfied to merge this into the main article for the game, only if there were some guarantee that the material would actually be merged, and once merged, would remain. Since this can be be securely specified, and attacks on merged material are ongoing, the only option for now is keep. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being significant to a series of video games is so far from being a significant character. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:Medal of Honor (video game) and Talk:Medal of Honor: Heroes page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Delete - The article does not assert notability, and it is very unlikely that the character can actually be developed into anything decent. There is little use in salvaging any of the content, as the the bulk of the article is written like it's documenting a real person. TTN (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; this is unencyclopaedic ~~trash~~ material. Wikipedia *is* a fansite, but it's not supposed to be. Jack Merridew 05:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main character of significant game, should be able to be referenced. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re disruption of this AfD; see:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Patterson&diff=prev&oldid=312318043
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Patterson&diff=prev&oldid=312318153
Talk:Jimmy Patterson, Talk:Medal of Honor (video game), and Talk:Medal of Honor: Heroes now assert that
- Jimmy Patterson "must not be deleted so long as Medal of Honor (video game) exists."
- Jimmy Patterson "must not be deleted so long as Medal of Honor: Heroes exists"
See: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion where it says:
- You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of Wikipedia's licensing). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy.
This is blatant disruption with the aim of subverting the AfD process.
Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
moar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medal_of_Honor:_Frontline&diff=prev&oldid=312389351

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJimmy_Patterson&diff=312389309&oldid=312318153

Jimmy Patterson and Talk:Medal of Honor: Frontline now assert that

Jimmy Patterson "must not be deleted so long as Medal of Honor: Frontline exists."

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 14:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and there's Ikip and DGG editing TTN's comments, above; see history ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 14:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I have gone through the entire edit history of this AfD and do not see anywhere that TNN's comments here have been edited by anyone other than TNN. I do see editor's tweaking their own comments... such as [77] or [78] or [79] or [80] or [81] and there is IKip's removal of whitespace in an A Nobody coment [82]... but no where on this page could I find either A Noboy or Ikip editing TNN's AfD comments. Your allegation has me quite confused. Could you share the diff I missed? Please? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is thinking of another AfD discussion on a related topic. Easy error to make. --EEMIV (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually he did what we should do per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE if not WP:IAR. Supposedly, deletion is a last resort when no other options exist for improving an article. So there's no need to get caught up denigarating the editor. We are volunteers and if we can do something with content, we should do it. Growth is the purpose of Wikipedia, and not its bane. Though not prolific, I for one have writen a few articles and done what I could to improve a few others for the project. Is that not why we are here?? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being serious? Can we drop the inclusion/deletion bit right now and just ask ourselves if we want a process that works or not? Because a process which is broken simply by forcing an action isn't very robust. Right now you are telling me that even if every single person in this debate voted to delete the article in question, we would have to keep it because one person's actions bound our hands...and that's good? What if, right now, I just deleted the article because I felt like it? I could argue that IAR lets me do that, or maybe pick some related CSD. Would that be appropriate? No. Also WP:BEFORE is before, not WP:DURING. Protonk (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion/deletion bit? I am someone who quite often opines a delete for the unsalvagable. Does that make me a deletionist?? I also try to improve those that have merit so as to better the project. Does that make me an inclusionist? I also have written a few minor articles. Does that make me a creationist? I reject use of those terms. We are all Wikipedians together here... hopefully striving to help Wikipedia grow. Labels act to treat others as stereotypes and distract away from the matters at hand. Yes, per WP:ATD, BEFORE should have allowed consideration of placement of materials where they have greater context and notability. WP:Preserve should not be treated with distrust as if it were some evil inclusionist mantra. If editors striving to save articles use the term, that usage should not be used to belittle their efforts. Preserve should be the watchword of all who edit this project, as each edit to each page represents time and thought and effort... sometimes lots of time... sometimes lots of thought... sometimes lots of effort... from those here working to make Wikipedia better for our readers. I feel we have a duty, spoken or not, to ensure that the contributions of others are cherished. If not suitable in one article, they may be well suited for another. And no... lets not devolve into discussions about vandalism, as that is not what he has done... and yes, there are contributions made to Wikipedia that do not belong. These are not those. Its the denigrating labels that hurt Wikipedia.... and the world had enough problems already with folks slapping labels on those with whom they disagree. Protonk, you are a fine editor. With respects, the above is simply my opinion. And I will always continue doing my best to improve the encyclopedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of what you said above is what I hoped to avoid. I want to eschew labels. I am not interested in broad accusations. the question I pose is this "Is it legitimate or laudable to merge content during an AfD with full knowledge that a successful merge will prevent that AfD from being closed as delete?" A followup question would be (since it appears you would answer in the affirmative) "Does this deciding vote (as it were) extend to the deletion of content? If not, why not?" My contention is simple. Merging is something any editor can do, but only an administrator (borrowing words here from the discussion at WT:AFD) can undo and only with some effort. You can merge something but if I disagree with that merger, I need to delete the page and restore only portions of the revision history which do not contain your edits. If someone who is not an admin disagrees with you, they are powerless (individually) to reverse your action. If the closing admin of a deletion debate is not interested in performing an action like that (or the targeted page has many revisions making the process cumbersome), then the merger vetoes a deletion debate. The debate must be closed as redirect, keep or merge. Is it fair that an editor may veto a deletion debate? Protonk (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in spite of the merge and remove the deleted content from the merge targets through deletion and selective restoration. I'll be pretty pissed if I dig through recent AfDs and find out this is a common occurrence. Protonk (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manon Batiste, too. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isola (fictional island), evidently. Protonk (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Williams (The Young and the Restless). Protonk (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand, and further source. Jimmy Patterson is not so insignificant as is being asserted [83]. Retaining the article and allowing it to be improved through normal editing also improves the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as major character in major game series who is verifiable through reliable sources. No pressing need to redlink as content is not a hoax, not libelous, nor a copy vio. Moreover, useful material from this article was merged following WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:IAR in order to improve two other articles that no one would reasonably question the notability of. Thus, given that myself and any other article editor is a volunteer who is only able to edit when he or she has time, no one concerned with the actual improvement of the project would rather focus on process wonkery rather than allowing what actually improves article content of article's no reasonable editor would contest, i.e. the main game articles. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not play games. When we have content that can be used to improve other articles and the article under discussion is not one of dangerous content the public must not see, there is no reasonable cause not to be bold. And certainly no reasonable editor would want to diminish the quality of other articles just to adhere to something that need not be adhered to anyway. In this case we have reliably sourced information that benefits those articles and given that in the worst case scenario this legitimate search term would be redirected anyways per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, no legitimate or honest reason exists why we would urgently need to be rid of the edit history. Also, Happy Labor Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is literally one sentence at this time, one sentence, being used to prop up an entire article on the grounds of notability. There's no reception, and no real character development. This is a mess, and when cleaned up, there's nothing left.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As he gets over 70 Google News hits, I am working on the development and reception information now. I will do what I can before relatives arrive and we party for the holiday. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - the extent of information from reliable, third-party sources is "this is the character you play in the game." - but somehow from this we've extrapolated extensive fictional biography and trivia sections. Knowing what grade he got in Fluid Dynamics at the University of Michigan goes way beyond WP:VGSCOPE and WP:WAF - this almost looks like a Something Awful parody. Any relevant plot information belongs in the plot synopsis of the game articles. Marasmusine (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please factually describe the article. The following is not mere plot:
  - Michael Giacchino explains that in "Medal of Honor, Jimmy Patterson was represented by two different major themes - the main Medal of Honor theme, and his own more personal theme which was used during the tougher moments of his Journey."^[7]
  - For Medal of Honor Frontline, "EA LA decided to make Patterson the star of the D-Day level in order to streamline the plot and eliminate the confusion of switching main characters."^[8]
  - GamePro contends that "Frontline revolves around the heroics of Lt. Jimmy Patterson (Medal of Honor's original star)...While the overall goal is the HO-IX, Patterson frequently stops to help out as Operation Market Garden (the Allies' infamous paratrooper assault) takes place all around him. He storms Arnhem alongside British airborne troops, infiltrates a German armored train, rescues a prisoner from a Nazi-held manor, demolishes a U-boat, and much more. You truly get the sense that you're a cog in a much bigger machine, and it's both refreshing and enjoyable that, for once, you're not the caricatured hero with the only chance of saving the day."^[9]
  - Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your first two sources are not third-party, they are claims made by people involved with the production. Your third source is an in-universe plot summary from a review for the game, not coverage of the character himself. Any mention of the character is apparently dependent on coverage of the individual games. There is no significant coverage of the character himself. His relevance (and verifiability) does not extend beyond the games in which he appears. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The second source is from IGN, a reliable web source for gaming. The third source is a reliable sources, because for that information, who better than to explain the musical themes for the character than the composer? The fourth and fifth sources come from gaming magazine GamePro. The character is also verfiable through many others as confirmed by Google Books and Google News. As today is a holiday, I only have limited time. I merely got the ball rolling, but there is absolutely much more out there that we can use to expand the article further. Please keep in mind as well that we are discussing the main character from the 30th best selling video game franchise. Surely the main character from such a successful franchise is at least worthy of a redirect with edit history intact. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Reliability of a source, even assuming that it is as such, is not what determines whether an article should exist for a subject, nor does it change the definition of what a first or third party is. Please stop using straw arguments. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that it is the main character of a major series who is discussed in numerous reliable sources does. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep, merge, or redirect There has been some really promising good work on this article, [84] adding a lot of good sources. Ikip (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main character in a notable series of games. Dream Focus 14:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable character with no cultural impact outside the game. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason fro deletion, especially when not true due to the character's cultural impact outside of the game. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please never reply to me - I have *no* interest in what you have to say. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This a discussion, not a list of votes. And in these discussions, I strongly encourage you to make factually accurate statements, because generally speaking if not me, then someone will challenge you when they are not. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then they are welcome to do so but I am frankly sick of your badgering patronising tone, OCD manner and your habit of repeating the same fucking comments to me and other people every time we say something. I am not interested in debating with *you*, I'm happy to take on anyone else. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think I feel when I am actually improving the articles under discussion and accounts who make no effort to improve the articles show up with rapid fire copy and paste WP:PERNOM, WP:ITSCRUFT, and WP:JNN that reflect no effort to actually look for sources, no real knowledge of the topic under discussion, and in many instances are just plain false? I don't mind arguing with editors who are actually making good faith efforts with regards to the subject, it is another thing when it is with those who are uninformed about the subject and are so inconsiderate of their colleagues that they don't even bother to help or make truthful statements concerning others' volunteer work. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a standard biography of a fictional character, that needs a better referencing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Medal of Honor (series) - essentially an entirely in-universe plot summary with no real-world notability. The 'development' and 'reception' sections could be merged to Medal of Honor (series), which is where this should probably be redirected to, but I see no reason why the extensive fictional biography is worth keeping. Robofish (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Robofish. This character is not notable per our standards, WP:NOTE. There are keep !votes as smokescreen without any valid reason given. Drawn Some (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has presented any valid reason for deletion, because the atricle is notable per our standards by any honest interpretation of them. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. JForget 17:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placebo button[edit]

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

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

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

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

I don't think a button deserves it's own article under WP:N when there are so many imaginable things that could act on the placebo effect. I already moved everything to Placebo#Non-medical_Placebos, which I think is the best place for it. Habanero-tan (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 independent articles meet the criteria. 216.80.135.50 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It doesn't look to me that the placebo article adequately covers the placebo button. I don't think that the placebo buttons work by the placebo effect anyway. Placebo effect is when you get a real improvement of a real disease with sugar pills or other inactive treatment like homeopathy or whatever. That not what happens with placebo buttons so far as I can tell. The article also seems to be adequately sourced, and probably could be extended. In short, in my opinion this article has independent notability from placebo.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a merger to placebo is that dummy thermostat controls aren't placebo buttons, that they aren't even buttons in most cases, and that what there is to say about them is really better placed (since it's how the sources place it) in the overall subject of thermal comfort. (A quick search reveals that there's a fair amount of HVAC literature on the subject of thermal comfort that deals with locked and dummy thermostat controls, including relevant building regulations, good industry practice for such controls, psychological and energy efficiency factors that they involve, relations to other occupant-controllable items, and so forth. It treats them from the perspective of the overall subject, though — in context and without the narrow focus on simply dummy controls alone.) Uncle G (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets multiple references that are valid. Speedy keep eligible, not merge. MECU≈talk 04:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had never thought of the idea before but now you mention it ... — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable concept, article has valid sources. JIP | Talk 07:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with deletion. As Wolfkeeper mentions, in the context of the author's article, the placebo effect is actually opposite to the desired one as users gets more nervous and angry when a button doesn't produce its expected result. --86.175.59.63 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Placebo Button doesn't need to be a placebo or a button. It's an independent concept and the article defines it well enough. Expand with history, examples, uses, etc. Dav30032≈talk 22:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.16.11 (talk) [reply]
What a stupid article delete it, this isnt urban dictionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.206.222 (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Though it shares its name with the Placebo Effect, Placebo Buttons function differently from placebo pills. The article is a stub, but has multiple valid resources and should be expanded, not deleted. JIP | Talk 10:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.24.67 (talk) [reply]
Keep, Sigh... Users of a placebo button would NOT become upset when the button does nothing; since the lights do eventually change, the user assumes their action has led to a result. Dimwit.
Keep, needs expansion but doesn't deserve to be deleted. --xkoalax (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT KEEP. This is urban dictionary material. Has no place on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.231.78 (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Informational. DarkoNeko x 16:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a fascinating concept, and much to my surprise, the article has a diverse range of sources already, indicating that this is a robust and researched concept independent from medical placebos. --M @r ē ino 04:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Livido[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Joe Chill. I don't think can either.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 03:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only reference is self-published. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 21:37, 6 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. Despite the impressive Google count, there is not enough info from reliable independent sources. Three sources about the same minor event do not indicate that the Barbadian-Turkish relations have received significant attention, or that there is enough here to warrant an article. Keep suggestions based on hopes or wishes that it can be improved someday and that something can be done with the info are not really convincing. In the end, those wanting to delete the article have the stronger arguments in this case. Fram (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbadian–Turkish relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbados–Turkey relations

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

most of the keep votes in the last nomination were saying wait for outcome of centralised discussions. well 4 months have elapsed and nothing on that front. there is a distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations looking at the first 70 of these [85]. yes the article mentions a vague intent "the desire for expanding a bilateral framework for possible cooperation in tourism" and "they could "provide support to each other" with no actual evidence of trade deals etc. those who like pure synthesis could use [86]. LibStar (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources for any meaningful relationship between these countries. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Barbados and Turkey have opened negotiations on Double Taxation treaty which benefits businesses between their nations. CaribDigita (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there have been many cases of 2 countries with double taxation treaties that have not survived AfDs. an actual agreement rather than one in negotiation carries far more weight. LibStar (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would be better to rename to Turkey-Caribbean relations. And restore all the stuff in history that was erased. (E.g. that Turkey is an Observer to the Association of Caribbean States. It is on the Caribbean Sea Commission. And in 2006 the Government of Turkey celebrated that year as the "Year of Latin America and the Caribbean" in Turkey.) It is all still in the revision history of this same article. CaribDigita (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Barbados. Ikip (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CaribDigita. Well referenced article. Ikip (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BlueSquadronRaven 06:21, 1 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) 00:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other page I believe that this page should be consolidated with any others pertaining to Turkish relations with other Caribbean nations - if none exist, I think this article should follow suit and be deleted.Waylando91 (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search for Barbados Turkey returns 72,400,000 hits. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so far as this AFD is concerned. That would the enable the material to be retained and the page should then be moved to the broader heading suggested above about which much more can be written. Another source that should be considered is here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I understand that we have so many random pairings of Country A-Country B relations articles that are made but I think we might be able to work with this one.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where is the evidence of significant third party coverage? LibStar (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly notable, although a bit stubby (I personally don't agree with the idea that articles need to have substantial length in order to exist). Country A-Country B relations articles seem fine to me so long as there's something to put in there (e.g. Laotian - Andorran relations is a stretch at the moment, but this isn't). The randomness that Skyattacker refers to is inevitable. Certainly an encyclopaedic topic.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where is the evidence of significant third party coverage? LibStar (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of merge Nearly no content. It basically says that T and B met once shook hands, and left. Delete or merge with carribean.ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 12:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Futile delete Geez, I can't believe that this is going to survive a second time as a "no consensus". The article itself concedes that the economic trade is not very significant, that there's been little more than some talk. I'm glad that sources have been attempted, but they don't confirm anything that couldn't be in the FRO articles. I did get a good laugh out of the 72,400,000 hits for articles that contain the words "barbados" and "turkey". I imagine that I'd get the same for the names of any two nations, or for that matter, the words "barbados" and "beef". Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica and Barbados gets over 25 million google hits. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have an embassy yet, but I hear that "March of the Penguins" was very popular in Barbados, so that's almost the same thing. Mandsford (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Slight interactions do not satisfy notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nidrosia (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If one lives in the United States of America then it is totally irrelevant what relations any foreign country has with any other foreign country. However, if one lives in Barbados or Turkey then one may wish to know the relations between the two countries. Do I need a visa? Are there import tariffs? Are there citizens of one country living in the other? While this information may be of no interest to Americans it may be of information to people who live in either of these two nations. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a travel guide nor directory of every single bit of info as per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOT#TRAVEL, WP:NOT#GUIDE. LibStar (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable bilateral relations, nor minor embassies. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 05:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per complete lack of significant coverage of the topic in reliable, independent, secondary sources--i.e. it fails WP:GNG. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:21, 10 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 Withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Park Baptist High School[edit]

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

~~Advert for a non-notable school. Only references to it are trivial mentions in the Austin American-Statesman local newspaper.~~ Nomination withdrawn as apparently all high schools are inherently notable. Perhaps something to do with the American fixation on high school? ;-P Fences&Windows 18:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I love the misinterpretation of "colors" in the infobox, which is supposed to be for the school colours. Someone has entered "All Races". Yeah, you'd hope so. Fences&Windows 00:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per longstanding precedent but this thing needs a major rewrite. It reads like a brochure not a Wikipedia article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I attempted to fix some of the more glaring errors...I think the article should stay up, if a neutral tone is maintained. Waylando91 (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This could be the first time I've ever had to disagree with Fences & Windows in regards to an AfD discussion. The guidelines for article inclusion work a bit different to most articles when your dealing with schools. There is evidence to suggest the school DOES exist, so that takes out perhaps the only real threat when articles about schools are created. This articles does need some serious cleanup and INLINE CITATIONS! A few more internal links to other articles would be nice too.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 03:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent of keeping virtually every high school in existence. I have made some edits to remove things like the mission statement that don't belong in a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the WP:GNG doesn't apply to schools? How nice for high schools to be inherently notable. I don't do much editing of schools articles. Nomination withdrawn. Fences&Windows 17:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 23:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candyfloss (novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable novel. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with stipulations Who are you to decide whether a novel is notable or not? I do think that the article needs revising; more in-depth analysis is needed, as well as information about the printing of the book (ISBN, publisher, year published, etc.). If revisions are made, the article should be left up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waylando91 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All novels on Wikipedia have to meet the notability guidelines set by WP:NB. Cheers, I'^mperator 01:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Second Google hit for "Candyfloss wilson" is a Sunday New York Times Book Review review of the book. In practice, being reviewed in the NYTimes Book Review demonstrates notability for a book (it's not absolute proof, but the odds against the Times being the only substantial coverage are about 100,000:1). The Times also says that Wilson is the most library-borrowed author in the UK, beating out Rowling (probably because she's written many more books, and because more Rowling readers run out and buy the books, but that's not too pertinent to notability). Notable author, significant review of book, article that reads like something I'd written coming out of anaesthesia. Article can be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) .Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book has been reviewed by Publishers Weekly, the School Library Journal and the Horn Book Magazine — as well as the New York Times, as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz mentioned above. It therefore passes criteria #1 of WP:BK. (As Jacqueline Wilson is not only the most borrowed author, but also a former Children's Laureate and a Dame, you could even make a case for her books passing criteria #5.) You may also find it useful/interesting to know that this book was a bestseller and had sold over 130,000 copies by September 2006; also, this article explains her inspiration for the book... all real-world information that could be added to this article. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per KittyRainbow. Joe Chill (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability.--Judo112 (talk) 13:02, 12 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.