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. Any desirable content may be pulled from the history for merging. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy Residence Hall[edit]

McCarthy Residence Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

university dormitory with no real claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Loyola University. No content needs to be preserved, except perhaps the name of the residence hall. tedder (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The LMU campus is a striking one, perched as it is on a hill overlooking west Los Angeles, and we could possibly benefit from more detailed information and sources about the design of the campus than is currently present at Loyola Marymount University. But this article gives no reason that this particular dormitory is notable, and my bit of searching found nothing to suggest that it deserves anything more than the one-line mention it currently receives at Loyola Marymount University#Residence_Halls (which would be an appropriate target if a redirect is preferred).--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect - Any useful content can be placed in the appropriate section of the parent article, and as stated by Arxiloxos there probably isn't sufficient information to warrant this article under WP:SPINOUT. Furthermore, this article does not establish its subject independent notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Loyola Marymount University#Residence Halls (with the history preserved under the redirect) This is a plausible search term. The history of this sourced article should be preserved in the event that third-party reliable sources that establish notability are found in the future. Cunard (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morningside Avenue (Toronto)[edit]

Morningside Avenue (Toronto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Morningside Avenue. No claim to notability; a standard suburban arterial road, of which there are literally a thousand of in the Toronto area; no traceable history to its construction of name. Barely even qualifies as a major road, let alone a notable one; no reason to keep as a standalone article. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note - Less than a week ago, List of roads in Toronto was a simple list with multiple wikilinks to articles of streets included in the list. It was only less than 7 KB long.
Here is what it looked like on February 3, 2011.
On February 3, the nom then took various contents from all of those articles and placed them in this list article and removed most of the wikilinks, including to Morningside Avenue (Toronto).[1] That article is now over 109 kb, way too long per WP:SIZERULE. I suppose this was all part of an effort to delete most Toronto street articles and just have summaries in this new parent one and add content from his own userspace for streets that had no articles and this AfD is an extension of that effort.--Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It took me about 15 minutes to find three different media sources talking about this road. With only a bit of research a lot more well referenced content could be added. Easily meets WP:GNG. - SimonP (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because it meets GNG doesn't mean it needs to be a standalone article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 17:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SK — the nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  To improve the structure of information regarding roads in Toronto to be on one or two articles instead of sprawled across many many many more. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you "improve the structure of information" by deleting over 90% of it? That doesn't make any sense. Wikipedia Articles exists for those who actually read them, not those who want them as short and pointless as possible. Dream Focus 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Because we're deleting pages here, not content. The content will not only be redirected and added to another article, which contains other streets in Toronto, but it will be preserved in the history of this article, should one day some editor with the time and investment be able to write an article worthy of being independent. Some streets in Toronto already meet this criteria, but Morningside Avenue in my opinion is the furthest from those. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. However many times I look at this, the deletion rationale still doesn't make sense to me. The only notability guideline governing roads is the GNG, which this would appear to meet through the sources already given. No verifiability issues, enough content to write a reasonable article, no particular reason to invoke IAR... Alzarian16 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Per nom. Dough4872 21:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Major Toronto street that, as pointed out above, easily passes WP:GNG. Too much topic-specific content to place into an already too long article that should be just a list anyway (see "Important Note" above). --Oakshade (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The article in no way explains why the road has any notability, and there's no reason not to list it on the page the nominator suggested instead. The argument that this article is needed because the list violates WP:SIZERULE is flawed; lists can be split into smaller groups, especially in one where there are easy geographical splits that can be made.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a clssic straw man argument. Nobody is arguing "keep" because the nom's proposed target article violates WP:SIZERULE, but because it passes WP:GNG and there's too much topic-specific content to be merged into another article.--Oakshade (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So is the "its got enough written about it so it must deserve its own independent article" argument. Let's review the article and see what is topic-specific, as you say:

Morningside Avenue is a north-south street in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and it is located in the district of Scarborough.

• Fair enough... But a list could point this out as well

The street starts at Guildwood Parkway, near Lake Ontario to the south, and travels along the former Lot 10 line northwards through the Highland Creek valley, to Finch Avenue.

• This relates to Guildwood Parkway and Finch Avenue as well, also roads in Scarborough that share a major junction at opposite ends of Morningside. Regardless, these are the terminii, and would also easily fit in a list

North of the valley, where the street once ended, it was named "Littles Road" after an early family in the area.

• Source? Or is this original research? The etimologies of all the roads is in the big list.

Following the development of the Malvern area, Littles Road was renamed into this community.

• Renamed into this community? I guess we mean renamed in this community. When, by whom, and source? Unsourced and unverifiable information should be deleted, not left to sit on the chance that a citation may turn up one day. Source your additions to the encyclopedia; there is disclaimer to this effect at the bottom of the editing window.

There are plans to extend through the Brookside and Morningside Heights neighbourhoods to Steeles Avenue and beyond as the Box Grove Bypass. These plans have since been cancelled due to concerns that the extension cuts through sensitive area of Rouge Park.[1][2]

• Some real information now!.. Except... are there plans, or have they been cancelled? In addition to the terminus and length, this piece of information is easily placed in the list article, without making that particular entry hefty. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The low 3.7 m (12.1 ft), narrow, one-lane railroad underpass at Finch Avenue, dating back to when it was a rural road, was replaced in 2009, allowing 4 lanes of traffic to pass below uninterrupted.[3]

• When I added this, it was the first sourced piece of information in the 5 year old article. This also applies to Finch Avenue and to the Malvern article, so its not topic-specific.

A second Morningside Avenue exists in Toronto, in the formerly independent town of Swansea. It is a minor residential road which runs from a cul-de-sac west of the South Kingsway in the west to Ellis Park Road in the east, on the shore of Grenadier Pond.

• In other words, niether notable nor noteworthy?
• What's left is a list of places with a Morningside Avenue address. Not a claim to notability. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confess 00:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable arterial road. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While there is a fair amount of referenced material on the page now, it amounts to little more than a geographical description. Just because information exists does not mean it should be compiled in its own article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it mean it should not. You not liking it is not a valid reason to delete something. Dream Focus 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one ever said either of those.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability has been established, so leave it be. Nothing gained by destroying all or the vast majority of it. Dream Focus 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable arterial road, and too much detail to merge elsewhere.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2011 (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 List of roads in Toronto#Queen Street. Sources not provided. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Street East[edit]

Queen Street East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Queen Street. Unlike Queen Street West, which is also a neighbourhood in Toronto, Queen Street east is the unnotable half of a possibly notable road. Article is unsourced and nothing more than a route description that can be copied verbatim to the target. No need for an independent article. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note - Less than a week ago, List of roads in Toronto was a simple list with multiple wikilinks to articles of streets included in the list. It was only less than 7 KB long.
Here is what it looked like on February 3, 2011.
On February 3, the nom then took various contents from all of those articles and placed them in this list article and removed most of the wikilinks, including to Queen Street East.[2] That article is now over 109 kb, way too long per WP:SIZERULE. I suppose this was all part of an effort to delete most Toronto street articles and just have summaries in this new parent one and add content from his own userspace for streets that had no articles and this AfD is an extension of that effort.--Oakshade (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just as notable as Queen Street West, though a lot more work could be done on this page. I do think merging into a general article on Queen Street (Toronto) might make sense, though. - SimonP (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Street West is about the neighbourhood more than the street. There is no Queen Street East neighbourhood; we call that The Beaches. Just because this is a continuation of Queen West doesn't make it all equally as important. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that a merge of the two spans into one article likely not appropriate, given that Queen Street West is/was everything from a neighbourhood to an arts scene. But let's be clear - Queen East is more than just the Beaches. It runs through Moss Park, Corktown, Riverside, Leslieville, etc. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 17:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SK — the nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Per nom. Dough4872 21:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Along with Queen Street West, one of the most notable and important streets in Toronto, in both Downtown and greater Toronto. Even has a subway station - Queen (TTC). Far too much topic-specific content to be merged into an already too long article that should be just a list anyway (see "Important Note" above). --Oakshade (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect No notable info that cannot or should not be put in the list proposed in nom.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - One of Toronto's most notable streets - historically served as the spine of the streetcar suburbs as Toronto expanded eastward. Serves as the main thoroughfare of a number of neighbourhoods. Surprised this is even an issue. To call it "just a continuation of Queen West" seems to ignore the historic, transport, public transit and community roles it plays.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same roles that Queen West played to the development of the western suburbs. This either merits one article, or that this information be placed in the history sections of the neighbourhood articles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because another road played a similar role doesn't mean this one isn't notable. And by your logic, we should eliminate Yonge Street because everything can be inserted into the history sections of neighbourhood articles.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No because Yonge Street has books specifically written about it, it has hundreds of sources which link the construction of the road to the future prosperity of Ontario as a whole, and its the first road in Ontario. Queen Street East is none of these and no sources which make anymore than a passing mention to it, since the commercial strip of the Beaches is on Queen East.

• Redirect this one. I wholeheartedly support keeping articles on notable roads, but this wouldn't appear to be one. Nobody has yet provided any significant coverage in reliable sources, and with the exception of this I could only find passing mentions online. Will change to keep if more convincing refs are provided. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SimonP. --Saforrest (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2011 (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 as per creator request. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Anti-illuminati songs[edit]

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

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

You can't keep control of something like this. And illluminati is not for sure for real. KzKrann (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Truly bizarre. Unsourced (unsurprisingly), and with a thoroughly-confused criteria for inclusion: "This is a list of songs that are against conspiricy theories of illuminati and the New World Order". Does this mean anti-illuminati songs, or songs that are anti-'conspiracy theories about the illuminati'? Either way, about as encyclopedic as a list of smells I noticed walking to the bus stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)\[reply]

Facepalm Someone created it. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 01:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and please, please don't post the smells list EEng (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2011 (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, G12 by Ronhjones. Non-admin closure. Blueboy96 13:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Weigel[edit]

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

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

Possible self-bio and irrelevant to wikipedia. KzKrann (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, G12 Cut-and past of bio page at jaywiegel.com. Blueboy96 22:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if the claims on the page are true, it seems to be a case of WP:SOFIXIT. I'll go and start having a look around now for sources and start wikifying the article. - ManicSpider (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, though is that the article itself is a cut-and-paste copyvio--which means it has to be blown up and rewritten from scratch. Blueboy96 23:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YOUFIXIT doesn't apply to copyvio. There's nothing to salvage here. Delete and start over would be the thing to do, except... on the evidence already there, which is presumably a complete CV, he's not notable even all claims are true. EEng (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply On the sources I can find, I am relatively certain he meets the notability standards for composers. If the article is deleted speedily at this point, may I ask that the closing admin userfy it for me and I'll fix it? I'm happy to get started on it, but these things take time to get right, and as I understand there's no deadline. - ManicSpider (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ricker[edit]

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

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

Non-notable US football player. Appears to primarily play at the semi-pro level. The only sources I could find on him are wikipedia mirrors and sites people can edit or upload articles. With most edits being made by two accounts with similar edit histories, might be an autobiography. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete profile

no references — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.204.225 (talk)

• Delete - WP:NSPORT#American football/Canadian football specifies that he needs to have played at a top level professional league. His particular brand of football being indoor football, the top level professional league was the Arena Football League. He played in a lower level league, and only got a tryout in the Arena Football League. There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish this person as notable through the general notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if anything he might have been notable for a college career, but it isn't even mentioned in the article. Only one source, and it doesn't meet WP:RS standards. Barring massive re-write this one should go.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Park Avenue[edit]

Victoria Park Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Victoria Park Avenue. Current article contains nothing more than a bloated description of the route. One of over 100 "major roads" in Toronto that supposedly deserve their own standalone article. Vague and incorrect history can be added to target until such time as I can make it accurate. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note - Less than a week ago, List of roads in Toronto was a simple list with multiple wikilinks to articles of streets included in the list. It was only less than 7 KB long.
Here is what it looked like on February 3, 2011.
On February 3, the nom then took various contents from all of those articles and placed them in this list article and removed most of the wikilinks, including to Victoria Park Avenue.[3] That article is now over 109 kb, way too long per WP:SIZERULE. I suppose this was all part of an effort to delete most Toronto street articles and just have summaries in this new parent one and add content from his own userspace for streets that had no articles and this AfD is an extension of that effort.--Oakshade (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per WP:SK — the nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's above your post. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Per nom. Dough4872 21:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Major and important road in both Downtown and greater Toronto, so much so it even has it's own subway station - Victoria Park (TTC). Far too much topic-specific content to more to an already too large article that should be just a list anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The subway station has its own article! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've done some significant reworking and expanding, so this article should stand alone well on its own now. - SimonP (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect per nom. All information easily could and should fit in the list mentioned.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:39, 5 February 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament Street (Toronto)[edit]

Parliament Street (Toronto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Parliament Street. Current article contains nothing more than a more brief history than the target, and a description of a bus route. One of over 100 "major roads" in Toronto that supposedly deserve their own standalone article. Target contains a sourced history of the name and can easily accomodate a summarized route description. No need for this brochure. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note - Less than a week ago, List of roads in Toronto was a simple list with multiple wikilinks to articles of streets included in the list. It was only less than 7 KB long.
Here is what it looked like on February 3, 2011.
On February 3, the nom then took various contents from all of those articles and placed them in this list article and removed most of the wikilinks, including to Parliament Street (Toronto).[4] That article is now over 109 kb, way too long per WP:SIZERULE. I suppose this was all part of an effort to delete most Toronto street articles and just have summaries in this new parent one and add content from his own userspace for streets that had no articles and this AfD is an extension of that effort. --Oakshade (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly. Most of the content at List of roads in Toronto is new and written by me. Only a handful of info is copied from the old articles. The purpose, however, was indeed to get rid of this convoluted mess of crappy articles and make one or two good articles (and yes, we can always split it in half. Until recently it wasn't 109kB). I'm not hiding this fact, this is an attempt to compress disjointed information into less space, without compromising the content of the articles. No important content is being lost, its just being moved to a central article (or two). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Floydian, I'm sure your intentions were good, but that is a list article. Per WP:LIST, list articles are supposed to be just that, lists which might include wikilinks to articles of some topics on the list, not full encyclopedic content about each topic listed. That's what non-list articles are for. --Oakshade (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a list. There is absolutely no guideline which even hints at that list having to be a simple list of items, with no details on those items. In addition, numerous featured lists prove otherwise. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The argument that this info can not be merged to the list due to WP:SIZERULE is flawed. The obvious solution to sizerule problems is to divide the list by category (something easy to do when it can be split by geography), not give individual elements their own article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yaksar, this wasn't an "argument" one way or the other but a description of events that have transpired. --Oakshade (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Historic street, not only for Toronto, but all of Canada. Site of the first parliament buildings. Very in-depth coverage from secondary sources were easily found. [5][6][7] --Oakshade (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Additional Comment - List of roads in Toronto#Parliament Street is already above 100kb. Per WP:SIZERULE, that is way too big and should be divided. Merging the topic-specific content of this article into that one makes it even larger and complete opposite of Wikipedia rules. --Oakshade (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A street named after the first parliament buildings (which, I should mention, have their own article and are mentioned in several) is going to have trivial mention in plenty of sources. It doesn't necessitate a stand alone article to state that lone claim to notability. The target can contain all of that information, and when a non-stub article on Parliament Street is made, it can be split out into its own article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Oakshade. - SimonP (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. While there are notable things on the road, the pavement that forms Parliment Street is not notable. AdmrBoltz 04:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a nice personal opinion, but in-depth coverage of this topic disagrees. Admrboltz, you're not stalking me, are you? --Oakshade (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not. I happen to be a member of both WP:CRWP and WP:USRD, which both of our recent conversations have been related to. I also follow the CAT:AFD/P category, which both of these articles have been listed in. --AdmrBoltz 04:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which doesn't seem to have anything to do with Dan Charnas, an article I just created and you just (temporarily) placed a prod on. [8] You motivation in this and another afd is suspicious. Please stop following me around. --Oakshade (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your "in-depth coverage" is a trivial mention and two books that are written as walking tours of the entire downtown area. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Trivial" is defined by WP:GNG as a "one sentence mention" in a work about another topic. The coverage is way beyond the scope of a "one sentence mention" and is in fact multiple paragraphs, both about its history and, as you just admitted, it being a tourist attraction. --Oakshade (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You'll notice the first book (which I have a hard copy of in my hands), several pages down (pg 19), has a long section on Small Street. The third is Henry Scadding's 1873 book that describes most of old Toronto to absolutely amazing detail. The second book is a tourist guide of Toronto... exactly WP:what Wikipedia is not. All three of these are mentioning as much about the street itself as I have at List of roads in Toronto#Parliament Street. Everything else is describing places of interest along Parliament Street. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • All confirmation the coverage is way beyond "trivial." Glad some editors are actually reading real books. --Oakshade (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • No! That's exactly the point I'm making. These books describe shopping and attractions, but are organized in a walking tour fashion, street by street. They don't describe the street itself, they describe places you can visit which are on that street. Toronto Street Names describes streets and their origin and history; Mike Filey describes streets and their origin and history; Henry Scadding wrote a description of every block of Toronto as it was in 1873. Can you not see the difference in the strength of these sources? Further, can you not see that the information is better contained alongside the history and origin of other Toronto streets, and not as a short two paragraph stub all by itself? One comprehensive article on the streets of Toronto is better than 50 disjointed stubs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Exclamation points aren't going to help your case. There's far too much topic-specific content to be merged in the already too long List of roads in Toronto#Parliament Street which is currently over 100k. Per WP:SIZERULE, we actually need to split that article up. And if you don't like the sources that give significant coverage to this street because the describe " description of every block of Toronto as it was in 1873", that has nothing to do with our notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If thousands of streets have detailed in-depth coverage, than we can have thousands of street articles. As as far as a travel guide [9] , it goes into detail what's on this street which you keep admitting. Coverage about what's on this street is in fact coverage of this street. That you want it to talk about the pavement or something is just silly.--Oakshade (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Agreed on that point. I made List of roads in Toronto in my sandbox. Now that it has grown, it may be appropriate to spit it in half by north-south and east-west roads. You're so very wrong in assuming thousands of minor streets deserve articles on wikipedia. They belong in a list that documents the etimology of street names in that location. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Per nom. Dough4872 05:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SK — the nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect per nom. All information easily could and should fit in the list mentioned.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've done a bit of book cite digging and created a short history section. In addition to its historic role as the thoroughfare leading up to Parliament, it apparently was cut under the orders of Lord Simcoe to link with Castle Frank on the Don. There's more work to be done but I'm satisfied that the street played a notable historic role in the evolution of what is now modern day Toronto. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shawn in Montreal. Amazing how a little work can improve an article. freshacconci talktalk 04:09, 8 February 2011 (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 List of roads in Toronto#Islington Avenue. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islington Avenue[edit]

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

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

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Islington Avenue. Current article contains nothing more than a bloated route description. One of over 100 "major roads" in Toronto that supposedly deserve their own standalone article. Target contains a sourced history of the name and can easily accomodate a summarized route description. No need for this brochure. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Per nom. Dough4872 05:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 05:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SK — the nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. --PCB 23:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2011 (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 List of roads in Toronto#Keele Street. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keele Street[edit]

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

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

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Keele Street. Current article contains nothing more than a directory (WP:NOTDIR) of locations along the street. One of over 100 "major roads" in Toronto that supposedly deserve their own standalone article. Target contains a sourced history of the name and can easily accomodate a summarized route description. No need for this brochure. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Per nom. Dough4872 05:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 05:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SK — the nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the other street articles. - SimonP (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avond Ploeg[edit]

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

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

Delete. Highly promotional article. Notability is not established through significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Sources provided include one press release and three social networking sites. Cind.amuse 21:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - see this page. Not notable subject about a program from a station that in itself barely exists in The Netherlands, subject of heavy promo pushing and vandalism, steered and directed by the radio station itself. Will cause lots of trouble when it stays. MoiraMoira (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Promo pushing and vandalism organised by radio station. Again, see here. --ErikvanB (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Reeson[edit]

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

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

The subject doesn't measure up to notability in any category. As an author, she doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:AUTHOR, as a historian she doesn't meet WP:PROF, and as a church person, she doesn't seem to be the equivalent of a bishop (who are considered notable) because the moderatorship is just a short-term thing. StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Oh, dear StAnselm. I fear that a Presbyterian has a little envy (or otherwise) for Uniting Church in Australia people. That is so 35-ish years ago, when some Presbyterians chose to remain outside the UCA! (Okay, they had a choice, unlike the Methodist Church of Australasia.) However, you do not, obviously, understand the polity of the UCA: otherwise, you would understand the important position and ongoing stature of the position of Moderator; Or, perhaps, you do, and choose to be obstreperous. Maybe you do not think an author of original work on the history of: women in war; the wives of Christian missionaries; the Pacific Ocean missionary movement and so forth; is notable. Or, maybe you just do not like women leaders in churches, a theological position for which the Presbyterian church in Australian is well known.- Peter Ellis - Talk 10:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, the AfD is not complete, as the Discussion does not link up to the article. There is an ugly red link on top of the article. Secondly, her position appears to be equivalent in her church to the leadership level of bishop in apostolic churches. (For disclosure purposes, I should mention that I am a member of the Episcopal Church.) Bearian (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now for substance. The Uniting Church in Australia appears to be a large denomination, the third largest in Australia, according to the article, so a leader in such a group is likely to be notable. Keep. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues here - one is that she is moderator of a synod, while there is someone else who is President of the Uniting Church Assembly. Secondly, the role of Moderator goes in a rotational system with fixed terms - so its not clear that it is equivalent to a bishop. StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew about the governance of the Uniting Church you would realise that it doesn't use the term Bishop. The President has national oversight of the National Assembly. The Moderator has jurisdictional oversight of the Synod. The NSW Synod covers roughly the jurisdictions of NSW and the ACT. Within bounds of the Synod there are a number of Presbyteries. A Presbytery has the role of the episcopal council where it is the body that ordains persons for ministry. The Moderator of NSW has a significant leadership and pastoral oversight role of a Synod with fourteen Presbyteries. However, it should also be noted that the UCA polity is NOT hierarchical. In the United Methodist Church (USA) they have Bishops who have temporary placements.Dean Tregenza (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: you says "likely to be notable" - but that doesn't mean she is. GNews gives zero hits. And so the question remains, are there indeed independent reliable sources giving her significant coverage? StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear saintly soul, you are aware that I have replied elsewhere about your call for this deletion. I will, here, repeat one part of that reply, to back up Dean Tregenza's reply to you: "Margaret's husband, Ron, is almost as notable, yet I could not justify to myself an entry on him just because he was a missionary minister and parish minister then regional (Presbytery) minister (equivalent to a bishop in episcopal churches) for some 15 years before retirement. As someone has said to me, that makes Margaret equivalent to an Archbishop in an episcopal church, and therein lies her notability." Furry has commented below on the ongoing role/'heft' of past Moderators; they are called on as "elder state(people)", in a similar way that retired (Arch)bishops are called on. GNews might not deliver any hits, but here is a hit on the first page of a search result in ABC.org.au: So, please, do not believe all that you (can not) read.- Peter Ellis - Talk 07:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually referred to the Margaret Reeson Wikipedia article and used the information and sourced material from the list of published works following requests from Papua New Guinea. Margaret is still making valuable unpublished observations regarding the history of the PNG highlands area and deserves recognition for her knowledge and understanding of that part of the world. BruceM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.239.134 (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think we have a problem about people who do not quite make it under category A, do not quite make it under category B and do not quite make it under category B, yet together have made a contribution that people will notice. I suggest that this article is one that will be sought by many readers and be helpful to many readers. There is no reason to delete it. Deleting it would not improve wikipedia, so ignore all rules if necessary and keep it. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As an author Margaret Reeson whose work has been referenced by a diverse range of people. A simple Google search will find a number of places. Her work is cited (not just reviewed) in academic papers and at conferences (historical and theological). The article could actually have a bit more content with regards to this. However, on the matter of the "notability" of the role of Moderator within the Uniting Church (and within the wider community) is significant - even though it is temporary. Just because a role is temporary doesn't make it notable - that is a dumb argument. The role of the Prime Minister of Tuvalu is temporary but significant. I agree with Bduke removal doesn't improve wikipedia. Dean Tregenza (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after reading debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. I have read the debate and fail to see a solid reason for deletion. As others have said, deletion will not improve Wikipedia. I have met Margaret Reeson but could not claim that I know her personally. What I do know, however, is that she has made and continues to make a significant contribution to the life of the Uniting Church through an extraordinary ability to conciliate between people with widely varying opinions — a case in point being her handling of the debate between those angered by the Uniting Church’s action (or lack of action, as they saw it) on the matter of homosexuality and those who supported (and even formulated) the church’s position. At this stage she was no longer serving as Moderator but displayed a wisdom and grace which, on their own, would have justified a Wikipedia entry. Such anecdotal evidence, of course, is impossible to cross-reference with academic footnotes; but that does not make it invalid. Furry (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I can see no compelling reason for deletion of this article. Sufficient academic achievement to merit coverage in WP. Carrite (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sources indicate notability. It would also be good if we could keep interdenominational bickering off of Wikipedia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Snow/speedy keep. Per above keeps. No need for further waste of time on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2011 (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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant[edit]

Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Rather Run of the mill Restaurant no indication of any notability except sparse coverage from local papers. Fails WP:CORP particularly WP:CORPDEPTH The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The restaurant is also currently closed. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about this an other matters regarding deletion. See Talk:Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant#Time_for_a_new_AfD.3F.Griswaldo (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Griswaldo (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Griswaldo (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Griswaldo (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As I stated in the first AfD, this business does not satisfy WP:CORP. It is an unremarkable restaurant with average level attention, and it now isn't even open for business. While there are a handful restaurant reviews in regional publications, this does not amount to "regional" level coverage in my book. Do not get tricked into thinking that the New York Times review was "national" level, by the way. It appeared only in the regional section of the paper. There is no evidence that it had national or international distribution. One of the problems with the first AfD stemmed from the fact that people equated regional/local restaurant reviews with "significant coverage". Restaurant reviews are not like normal news coverage, they are part of a PR game played by restaurants.Griswaldo (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Run-off-the-mill local restaurant with local coverage. --JN466 19:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I will respectfully defer to community consensus as obtained at the conclusion of this AFD process. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There has been no change in policy since the last AfD. We follow the sources, and the article already contains sources that are reliable as a matter of policy. For those who like bluelinked guidelines - WP:NTEMP says once notable, always notable and WP:RS does not allow for local sources to be given less weight for a "reputation for fact-checking" just because they are local. Nominator has presented no policy/guideline based reasons for deletion. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator says it lacks notability and WP:N, a Wikipedia "guideline" is pretty much the criteria used for determining whether or not to keep an entry. The sub-guideline for businesses, WP:CORP absolutely does weight sources and says "local coverage" isn't enough for a business. There is no indication that this restaurant was ever notable, and the last AfD resulted in "no consensus". WP:NTEMP does not apply in other words, unless the restaurant was every notable in the first place. I would suggest, that NTEMP actually makes it more obvious why a restaurant that is reviewed locally is not notable, since in the real world that type of attention is indeed completely "temporary".Griswaldo (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination is misleading in referring to the coverage as "local." Statewide coverage, in a state of over 8 million people, by New Jersey Monthly as well as the state's paper of record along with regional coverage in the New York Times is well beyond local. The nomination is either misinformed or misleading, or in bad faith. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Refactored Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please focus on the arguments and not on the editors.Griswaldo (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete see no real significance of notability - one of a myriad of local restaurants, I think we need to see a better claim to notability than that. We ask for significant and in depth coverage. The coverage is reasonably global, but still locally focused. More critically there is little of depth on there; we do have deep content... but they consist of reviews of the food. We don't have any depth about the history or significance of the place. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would only consider the 2nd hit of this gnews search in depth. otherwise not enough to pass WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Would be interested to know how jimbo distinguishes this one from mzolis.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, its the fact that its "closed for refurbishment," which in restaurant-speak usually means "gone gone gone".--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. Statewide coverage as well as coverage from another state (NYT) is sufficient to satisfy WP:CORP. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Brunswick is in New Jersey (about 20 miles from Newark airport), and we're talking about the New Jersey section of the New York Times. --JN466 20:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The restaurant was less than an hour travel from Manhattan. That the NYT happens to be in another state is not relevant. Also please note the first AfD did not result in a "keep" consensus... only "no consensus". Njsustain (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. With regrets to the author, I strike my comment. Looks like this one is a "no consensus" too. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hardly "no consensus". 14-4 Delete to Keep at the moment. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, Amatulic, but I disagree that this is "no consensus" at this point. Other than a certain person's repetitive sarcastic comments insisting that it meets notability, I think consensus is building quite clearly, i.e, most editors feel that the topic is not appropriate for a stand-alone article as per WP:SIGCOV: Presumed ("Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.) And WP is not a directory of old run of the mill failed restaurants. Njsustain (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising for non-notable establishment. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• double secret keep notability is not temporary, The restaurant closed (not sure how this would be advertising then...but oh well), but as of the last AFD there were enough sources to establish notability.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Same rationale of last AfD: Strong, multiple, continuous coverage by several undisputedly reliable sources means that it passes our general notability guideline with flying colours. No rational, objective reason exists to dismiss sources only because most of them are "regional", especially if the "region" includes millions of persons. The "delete" comments above seem to squirm into a personal interpretation of notability which isn't supported by any guideline apart perhaps for WP:CORP -in any case, alternative notability guidelines are supposed to extend GNG, not to replace it, so the requirement of CORP of sources not being local is completely moot. Reliable sources are reliable sources and significant coverage is significant coverage regardless of the audience. An academic journal on some exotic mathematics field would have probably much less audience than NYT, but nobody seriously argues to dismiss it as a RS. To pick up "local" as a proxy for "nobody cares about it" is deeply biased. Also, that it is now closed is entirely irrelevant for notability. On a sidenote, the nomination is done by proxy for Jimbo, and this somehow taints the process: why didn't he nominate himself? --Cyclopia^talk 01:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion on article talk page. I think Jimbo deciding not nominate the article himself only adds credibility to the deletion nomination process and to the questionability of this article.Njsustain (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You can find sources for each and every restaurant in New Brunswick. Many return more sources than Daryl. Google Maps provides a list of restaurants in New Brunswick. Going through this list, from the top, you get:
  • The Frog & The Peach: 21 sources.
  • Old Man Rafferty: 37 sources.
  • Hotoke Restaurant: 3 sources.
  • Old Bay Restaurant: 59 sources.
  • Panico's Italian Restaurant: 3 sources.
  • Daryl Wine Bar & Restaurant: 9 sources.
  • Makeda Ethiopian Restaurant: 52 sources.
  • Stage Left: 188 sources.
  • Catherine Lombardi Restaurant: 9 sources.
  • And so on.
• Some, or many, editors feel that it is not Wikipedia's job to have an article on every restaurant in New Brunswick, and every restaurant in every other American city. And that this material would be better housed at MyWikiBiz, which is specifically designed for such content, and achieves good Google visibility. --JN466 03:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely irrelevant, and possibly a variant of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. I think Wikipedia's job is to keep articles that have been written on subjects that pass WP:GNG and that have no other compelling reason to be removed. If restaurants are unusually well sourced among other objects in the universe, so be it. I don't have the slightest encyclopedic interest in restaurants, but I don't decide on articles based on what I like or I don't like. I see well sourced and obviously notable information here, and I see no compelling reason to remove it. If we will have 100.000 entries like this, so be it -this is a voluntary encyclopedia and our coverage depends on what our editors feel happy to write about. I'd prefer to see more good articles on biochemistry than good articles on restaurants, but it's not by slashing the latter that I improve the former. About MWB, well, first of all I don't see why do we have to refer to an external commercial service -in theory if one has to suggest an external target, I'd be for Wikibooks, which is WMF. Second, there is again no objective reason to remove an article with multiple independent reliable sources. If MWB wants to cover the place, they are welcome to do so, but this has nothing to do with us. --Cyclopia^talk 13:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except there are many on this project who feel that an encyclopedia ought to focus its limited manpower on certain subjects. We simply can't cover all the minutia out there, and we definitely can't do it well. Some of us want to be part of a project that knows its limits, and aims to do its best to cover the most encyclopedic topics, while steering away from blatant attempts at marketing and PR even if they do fit the letter of some guideline. You claim this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but every decision we make here, as a community is WEDONTLIKEIT, or WEDOLIKEIT. You're just making a claim to a certain kind of authority when you say that WP:GNG is completely on your side. I don't agree with your reading of of notability guidelines in the first place but if you want to get into policy wonkery, WP:IAR is a policy, while WP:GNG is a only guideline. The very pragmatic and context specific issues that have been raised by Jayen and others about restaurants and restaurant "coverage" should make anyone with common sense, resist the temptation to wikilawyer the untenable position that the literally millions of restaurants in the world with this kind of coverage ought to have wikipedia entries. What your particular literalist reading of the applicable guidelines tells me, after applying some common sense, is that specific guidelines for restaurants ought to be hatched so we don't find ourselves here repeatedly arguing over more useless PR on Wikipedia, and not that we ought to preserve every piece of restaurant PR that is supposedly "well sourced".Griswaldo (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice but flawed piece of rhetoric. We cannot decide arbitrarily on which to focus our limited manpower because we're not a company paying editors to execute orders. We're volunteers, and if our volunteers prefer to write about restaurants than biology or history, I am saddened just like you, but so be it: I am not so arrogant to judge what people should write on or not. If you don't want to deal with articles you don't like, just keep them off your watchlist and your manpower won't be wasted -nobody has an obligation to maintain all of wikipedia. I am not also policy wonking for the sake of it, nor I am a guideline-thumper -quite the opposite, my position (which is "untenable" only in your own POV) and my arguments come out of two essential philosophical tenets: 1)WP:NOTPAPER, that is, we are not technically bound by limits of previous encyclopedias and therefore we shouldn't fear to go beyond the tradition of previous encyclopedias 2)There is no piece of knowledge intrinsically more "encyclopedic" than another, that is, WP:UNENCYC is a known fallacy. The essence of GNG is that of giving an as much as possible objective and measurable criteria for notability: if something has been covered by multiple reliable sources, this means that sources have taken notice of the subject and therefore it is not only verifiable but notable. Oh, and finally, I am sure you will be equally enthusiast in invoking IAR if someone wants to keep an article which is not notable per GNG but that is liked by part of the community...won't you? IAR is empty without either 1)overwhelming consensus (and let's remember that local consensus doesn't trump global consensus) or 2)a very serious, objective and rational reason. IAR is not a free out-of-jail card: especially now, where there is a 10 year-long consensus on most practices and processes on WP, IAR is best seen as a lifesaver for emergency, extreme cases which aren't covered by other community-consensual policies and guidelines. So, if you have a problem with restaurants, your best course of action is what you also already devised: to amend GNG to cover this case, seeking consensus by process. --Cyclopia^talk 15:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More wiki-lawyering to no practical benefit to the project. There is no indication that your reading of policy is commonly held by the community. You can act like its the literal truth of the Wikigods, written in stone tablets all you want, but in the end, unless people agree with you, that's just you shouting in a vacuum. I'm not going to get suckered into another one of these endless pissing contests with you Cyclopia. Unlike you I recognize that you, the other party, have a legitimate POV, I simply disagree with it and feel that others do as well. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since first you said my position was "untenable", I am happy to know that now we recognize each others' POV as legitimate (please strike the "unlike you": I have always recognized yours is a legitimate point of view). As for the community reading, well, the fact that this article already survived an AfD, even if as "no consensus", is an indication that it is at least a viewpoint as common as the opposite one. About the "pissing contests", I don't really know what you're talking about, but well, no, I don't like pissing in public . --Cyclopia^talk 16:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant untenable for the encyclopedia in practical terms, not illegitimate. Your own argument, is quite literally, that my points, and all of those from people who oppose yours, are illegitimate vis-a-vis Wikipedia's sacred canonical guidelines. I will not retract. Sorry. Final transmission over. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess you're free to comically misunderstand my comments. --Cyclopia^talk 22:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Pissing contest, which is badly in need of an image. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - restaurant of no particular note. Article is 30 percent better after DGG removed 30 percent of it but its still a bloated promotional advert. I imagine we could have added a new section about the fantastic revamped reopening if there is to be one but even better is deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, coupled with the fact that it is now closed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we delete biographies when people die and books when they go out of print? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't relevant. You are going under the assumption that this restaurant was notable before it closed... it was not. The closure is simply another indication that this restaurant was not notable in the first place. Njsustain (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What does it matter that it's now closed? Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats the point, its not notable. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Either way, being closed doesn't have a bearing. If it is notable, it is even if it is closed. If it is not notable, it isn't even if it was open. It is simply an irrelevant information. Jimbo could have said "per nom, coupled with the fact that its name begins with a D" and it would have been the same. --Cyclopia^talk 18:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's entirely relevant that a restaurant of alleged notability closed in just three years. If the statements that had made the establishment allegedly notable were true, the establishment would not have closed so soon. Nothing significant has changed about the restaurant since those reviews nor the last AfD, so why did the place close its doors? Is it possible the reviews were not really adequate to establish the alleged notability in the first place? Yes. Is it possible that the first AfD discussion did not come to a proper conclusion? Yes... in fact it didn't come to any conclusion... it was "no consensus". Perhaps looking at this article in the clear light of day, so to speak, with six more months of evolution of the perception of the purpose of WP articles, and with seeing the that this restaurant clearly wasn't the cat's pajamas that it was painted to be by not entirely neutral sources in the first place, it is time for the debate to continue, and it is clearer now whether or not this article should exist. Njsustain (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. It's not the quality of statements that makes a subject notable; it's the existence of statements themselves. WP:GNG does not require coverage to be positive. To say that a closed restaurant is less notable than an open one is as ridicolous as to say that a dead person is less notable than an alive one. All that it counts is sources coverage, and here there is plenty. --Cyclopia^talk 10:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant coverage are *reviews*; I feel very uncomfortable basing notability off of reviews in such a way. Nothing else establishes a significance apart from "it exists". I'd say we want some reasonable level of significance beyond "it exists and was reviewed". Otherwise we're going to end up recording millions of these places :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We consider reviews from RS as good indicators of notability for artists; why it should be different for restaurants? And so what if we're going up to record millions of these places? --Cyclopia^talk 12:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such reviews are usually academic, and often draw attention to the importance or significance of the work (which is part of notability). A restaurant having good food/service is not necessairily notable or significant and in this case the sources do not appear to identify it is particularly notable or significant in it's "genre". I doubt that you would manage to keep an article sourced entirely to reviews of the artists work :) The point is; accepting a few reviews as satisfying notability criteria is troublesome because we then end up recording all the millions of restaurants over the world that have been reviewed a couple of times - and that is silly. I appreciate we are big and essentially limitless in capacity, but lets try and have at least some focus :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that not all artists which are reviewed on NME and Wire are "particularly notable or significant in its genre" but nevertheless they would be strong indications of notability. Again, it seems that the only reason here is that people think it's "silly" to cover objects which are covered by RS only because they are "millions". This is absolutely irrational. A restaurant is no more and no less of an object than an asteroid or a mountain, and there are millions of both, yet while we feel perfectly natural to cover the first, it seems editors here are uncomfortable with the second. The only thing that counts is that there are sources. About the focus: Again, we're not here to decide on what our editors contributors should focus. This is entirely left to the will of our volunteers. Again, I'd love that WP had more focus on ancient philosophy or molecular biology than restaurants, but 1)we cannot and should not force that: WP entirely depends on what our community writes about 2)removing restaurants doesn't help our coverage elsewhere -the two things are independent. --Cyclopia^talk 13:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to go in circles, I know, but one final word from me and I will let it lie - we do not have articles on all mountains and asteroids, what would be silly for the same reason. We are here to document human society and the natural world in a useful and encyclopaedic way. This restaurant is not relevant to that aim, and neither are most restaurants across the globe. Common sense is a good guide here :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you haven't seen my userboxes if you talk of common sense. Let's say that when I hear these two words, I reach for my revolver :)--Cyclopia^talk 14:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A review's relevance of being able to establish notability is in question if it is only showing whether it provides good food... hardly a notable feat. If the restaurant goes under shortly, I think that goes to show that the review didn't really predict whether the place was to become or remain an establishment of note... only that it provided a certain service at a certain point in time... again, hardly an encyclopedic act. And what evidence of notability was there besides reviews? The analogy with musical artists is not apt as the artist produces a work that it kept. There is no museum or archive of previously prepared meals. Also, I think the "common sense" factor is not meant to insinuate whether one contributor has it or not. It is meant to ask... if we apply the "rules", which we know are NOT engraved in stone, to this situation, do they make sense? Should we blindly follow the letter of the "law" (actually "guide") if it does not make sense to do so in this case? We need to use our common sense to do that, or to quote one person: "I wish people could see past this rigid reliance on RS and make better judgment calls." Njsustain (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean to "make sense"? That's where "common sense" fails utterly. It's nothing else than a nice name for our prejudices, habits and expectations. Now, our prejudices and expectations may play against this subject. But we ought to be rational, objective, and remember that notable does not mean "important" or "outstanding". It means "something worthy of notice" -a crucial difference, not as slight as it seems. How do you discriminate if a subject is worthy of notice? By the simplest and strongest objective test -if other sources have effectively already noticed it indeed. That's not the mere letter of the GNG guideline: that is the philosophical essence of the guideline. Now I ask to you: why doesn't this test make sense in this case? People so far only maked the case that it is not an important or oustanding place (thus confounding notability with importance or fame) or that if we cover this, then we are free to cover a lot of other similar subjects (but nobody made a case to understand rationally why this is a problem instead of a neutral open possibility). --Cyclopia^talk 15:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh*; rationally that includes the a huge number of restaurants in recent history. Rationally they are of low importance to an encyclopaedia. I really don't think your argument is a good one because it's implication is "we do not judge notability, just count the sources" - which is most definitely not the spirit of GNG. Our policy and approach is clear; we have a set of rough guidlines which essentially asks for significant coverage. It is then up to us to discuss and agree on what significant coverage is needed. Simple existence of sources is most definitely never enough. off topic; but the idea of "common sense" is pretty much the most crucial counter point to rationality. It is important to understand both; and to note that they are as complementary as they are conflicting - it is perfectly possible to be rational/objective and apply common sense, as in this case. Quips about revolvers is not helpful/useful --Errant ^(chat!) 15:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also, for some reason, are confusing Rationality with objectivity. They are different; rationality is about reasoning, you don't have to use objective criteria but it is often the most logical approach. Rationality is about logical reasoning and optimal solution; so rational decision making applied to the Wiki is about what is in scope and what is not. We are reasoning that out here --Errant ^(chat!) 15:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Rationally they are of low importance to an encyclopaedia.: "Rationally"? On the basis of what rational argument? Again, WP:UNENCYC is a known fallacy, and it is a fallacy because it is circular: "Subject X is unencyclopedic" "Why?" "Because encyclopedias do not cover it." "Why?" "Because it is unencyclopedic." Do you really have a compelling rational argument? If so, please share it with us, I'm open to change my mind. And no, I'm not confounding them: we ought to be both rational and objective. About common sense: No, it's just a fancy name for rubbish prejudice. In history "common sense" told us that the Sun rotates around the Earth, that time and space are absolute and that reality does not depend on the observer. All of these very reasonable and common sense prejudices turned out to be wrong. --Cyclopia^talk 15:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is no more rational by that standard. "This restaurant should be included in the encyclopedia. Why? Because WP:GNG says it should." Rationally speaking, falling back on GNG, is no different from falling back on some unstated standard of encyclopedic scope. The only difference is that encyclopedic scope claims its authority from "common sense" while "GNG fundamentalism" claims authority from the revealed truth of the wikigods, as transcribed by their mortal servants at WP:GNG, and as interpreted by the faithful (e.g. "rabid inclusionists"). Your claim to some higher rational ground fails utterly. The idea you presented above, that you are acting rationally, "without prejudice", while others are bringing their prejudices to the discussion, is absurd from a social science perspective. When you self-identify on your talk page as a "rabid inclusionist", you must realize that you are identifying with a variety of assumptions that are neither objective, nor shared by everyone else. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit it, Griswaldo. You are right. No need to fake anymore: I am actually not a human, but I am the mighty NyarlathoWales, the slimy servant of Wikiztoth, the "amorphous blight of nethermost inclusionism which blasphemes encyclopedia articles at the center of all Internet". "Ph'nglui mgBLPw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'NPOV fhtaGNG!" --Cyclopia^talk 17:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)But the same argument applies to your view; which is that appearance in sources is enough to negotiate inclusion. Just because that is a long held opinion does not make it logical or even rational. Basic reasoning should show that, logically, such an approach means there is a massive amount of "things" that meet that criteria, and so it is a useless objective criteria for inclusion (unless the point is "lets cover everything", which doesn't seem rational in itself). Hence, we have the option to discuss each article on its merits and decide if it (and the general area) is of significance to our encyclopaedia. "Subject X is unencyclopedic" "Why?" "Because encyclopedias do not cover it." "Why?" "Because it is unencyclopedic."; umm, this is terrible rhetoric because it is not my argument at all :) I think it is not significant for inclusion under our criteria because it is a trivial piece of knowledge without any enduring notability within the spectrum of human knowledge. Why? Because the sources are geographically very close, their contents are reviews and contain only trivial mention of the restaurant and it's background (and does not give any significance to them). There is nothing that identifies any point of interest or distinction this venue has other than "it exists". The latter part of my argument is that allowing a low bar for such articles is problematic; and logically, hundreds of articles about a restaurants is not of any interest for us to record. I could also cite NOTDIRECTORY, on the reasoning of "We are not a review site". And that, I think, puts it as plainly as I am able :) You are arguing rationality and objectivity, but to objective criteria you ascribe to a) is illogical when applied blindly and b) is intended as a guide to help specific decisions. No one here can claim to be more rational than the others, we are all being subjective at the moment (which is why you need to step off that high horse :) rationality's major flaw is blind faith and a deep misunderstanding...) We are talking about prime optimisation of Wikipedia as a useful and broad encyclopaedia. Do not imagine that just because I want to delete the article that means I am not "objective" :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because that is a long held opinion does not make it logical or even rational.: True. It is however a criteria which is more objective than others. It unfortunately leaves space to some fuzziness (what does "significant coverage" mean?) but at least it relies on data (the sources) and not pure opinions (like "importance"). And it directly and strongly addresses the question of "notability": that is, it directly measures if something has been already noted. That's why it is at least substantially objective (it does not depend strongly on editorial opinion) and rational (it is a rational measurement of notability). I know that in principle every criteria is arbitrary; however each criterion can be judged on its merits, and the alternative criteria herein suggested do not seem to have the positive properties of objectivity and rationality of this one. Second -on an entirely different note- it is not only a long held opinion: it is the consensual opinion of the WP community on how we judge notability. The two things are entirely independent but reinforce each other.

Also: you say it is a "trivial" piece of knowledge: why is it trivial? Why is this piece of knowledge trivial and the size of the Itokawa asteroid is not? Do we have an objective criteria to say what is trivial and what is not? Or it is just because we have a prejudice against some pieces of knowledge and not against others? --Cyclopia^talk 17:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to blindly follow guidelines... guidelines made by other users who have no better or worse judgement than the ones discussing this article... what is the point of the pillar of WP that it does not have firm rules? Whether you call it common sense, judgement, rationality, etc., the bottom line is we know that regardless of what a few run of the mill, to be expected reviews from a few years ago say, this restaurant's fleeting existence isn't worthy of an article, regardless of whether if fulfills the checklist of RS... but that is not to admit that I think it does fulfill notability requirements, because it does not. We are not expected to be slaves of the guidelines, so repeating them incessently with no reasonable/rational/sensible/logical/based on human judgement reason for why it should be kept is pointless. Njsustain (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that I am not talking of "blindly follow guidelines" (the only one who thinks that is Griswaldo in his Lovecraftian delusion). I am talking of the deep question of what notability means and why the one put by the GNG happens to be not only a guideline that we should generally follow, but also a good general criteria. In any case the difference is that local consensus should not trump global consensus: see WP:CONLIMITED, which is policy. Finally, there is a reasonable/rational/logical reason to keep this article: It is about a subject which has been noted by multiple sources. This means that it is not an indiscriminate, irrelevant piece of information: it has been discussed by other sources, and thus it passes an objective criteria of notability. Therefore we have no compelling reason to remove this article, and there is no benefit to the encyclopedia in removing it. The burden is on you to justify why it should be removed, not on me to find reasons to keep it, once it is agreed that it passes all our policies and guidelines -this is articles for deletion ,not articles for inclusion. --Cyclopia^talk 17:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep plenty of non-local reviews. It meets GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This restaurant is within the "local" scope of the NY Times' regional section and other reviews.Njsustain (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - ephemeral eating place, not culturally significant. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not fulfill corporate notability. Also: WP:SPIP... Newspaper reviews are not entirely neutral... they have an interest in driving the high end restaurant business as a whole. Ephemeral piece. Continues to read as an ad, directory entry and/or puff piece. WP is not a directory. Restaurant is now closed. Assuming it remains so ("refurbishing" is ludicrous... it's only a few years old in a brand new building... and user reviews clearly show decline in service... it has not and will not make it in this city), will anyone think this is still of significance 10 or 20 years from now... NTEMP is entirely relevant here... it is not notable simply because it enjoyed fleeting recognition as a high end restaurant which happened to open a half an hour away from Manhattan. The motivations for keeping this article are entirely contrary to the very concept of WP. Njsustain (talk)
• Delete - reviews are (still) not independent coverage; they merely confirm the establishment exists. Whether it is currently closed or not (for refurbishment or otherwise) is beside the point - what really matters is that notability has not been established for this restaurant.  Frank  |  talk  12:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are reviews good enough for artists or software, and not for restaurants? --Cyclopia^talk 13:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  They aren't, at least as far as establishing notability, which is the point here. It is quite possible to have a number of properly sourced references from reliable sources; that doesn't make their subject notable. This applies to restaurants, academics, musical artists, software, financial planners, electronics products, and many, many other things. "Appearing in print" most definitely does not show notability.  Frank  |  talk  01:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but if significant coverage of the necessary information to support an article from multiple reliable sources is not the way to determine notability, what is our neutral, objective, not related to fame or importance method for doing so? Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 01:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's the definitions of significant coverage and independent of the subject that are important here. There are any number of ways to achieve GNews hits, reviews, press releases, and the appearance of notability. But they don't confer, imply, or establish notability. Restaurant reviewers live to review restaurants; if they don't do so, they don't have a job. That doesn't mean that every (or even any) restaurant they review is notable. If it wins awards, if its proprietors are profiled multiple times, if it makes actual news outside its own region for some reason...these things indicate notability. 61 Member Reviews, The food is delicious, there are 60-plus wines by the glass, and the experience is joyful and communal, and The restaurant was designed by Riscala Agnese Design Group, which has also been involved with Daryl’s Wine Bar, New Brunswick (to sample just three of the actual references from the article) don't fall into any of those categories. I know this is a sort of reverse-OSE, as in "other-stuff-doesn't-exist", but here is an example of what would probably qualify as a notable restaurant that doesn't have a Wikipedia article: Generous George's Positive Pizza Place, a Northern Virginia institution for at least the last two decades. Call this last bit a minor point, because I could always go create that article if I feel strongly about it, but I'm saying that even that well-known, easily-sourceable restaurant doesn't have an article...and if it were created, it would probably meet some resistance. Daryl's doesn't approach it in terms of longevity, breadth of coverage, or...in a word, notability.  Frank  |  talk  02:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of reviews not being enough in general, you are wrong. WP:ARTIST explicitly cites reviews as an indicator of notability. In software it is long standing common practice. I can't understand why for restaurants this becomes magically wrong. --Cyclopia^talk 11:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of artwork are vastly different from restaurant reviews, and are usually academic in some way. Independent critical review of an artwork is about as different from restaurant review as you can get :) Software; I doubt you could establish notability purely through reviews. It is worth pointing out the issue here is not so much use of reviews as a source for notability, but the use only of reviews as the significant coverage. It is simply not compelling :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclopia: The word review does appear in WP:ARTIST. However, context is important: 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.. That is very far from "WP:ARTIST explicitly cites reviews as an indicator of notability." Two immediate reasons why: 1) Multiple and independent; since restaurant reviewers live to review, that doesn't qualify as independent; and 2) the reviews are listed as being reviews of a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. So, to interpret that as saying that WP:ARTISIT explicitly cites reviews as an indicator of notability does not really tell the full story.  Frank  |  talk  12:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Yes, once notable always notable. It was never notable. As I pointed out the last time we went around this track, very few restaurants (in the U.S. at least) are not "reviewed". Keeping this article now implies that it's appropriate for Wikipedia to cover not only just about every existing restaurant, but any restaurant which once existed too. And if that's what the policy says, the policy needs to be changed.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
• Delete Not persuaded by the Keep arguments. This article sets a bad precedent. Next thing every ephemeral eatery in the world will be clamoring for their own article. Rumiton (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I personally don't think articles like this hurt the project, but I agree that it doesn't meet notability standards.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV that establishes notability beyond an isolated regional scope. Any restaurant can get the same amount of trivial coverage in regional news sections and sources. It is a farce to the global readership of Wikipedia to say that such "local-centric" coverage makes the business notable enough for a global encyclopedia. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the tens of thousands of restaurants in the New York Times area, it reviews one or two exceptional ones a week. We accept the New York Times review of books and off Broadway to establish notability, why not with restaurants? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this kind of mention - its clearly promotional without assertion of any specific notability. Off2riorob (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Note those are all within the "local" purview of the NYT. These aren't in Peoria, Oklahoma City, Walla Walla, or Rangoon. Clearly all of those restaurants in that promotional piece are not of "regional" importance just because a NYT reviewer went on a LOCAL excursion to a bunch of restaurants of varying quality across the river in New Jersey. Njsustain (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of depth in referred source coverage, insufficient level of notability for encyclopecic usefulness and WP not being an indiscriminate listing directory. deMURGH ^talk 23:07, 7 February 2011 (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 g7, requested by author - next time, just blank the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Buchholz[edit]

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

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

erroneous redirect (done my me - apologies) Mayumashu (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. P.B Kader[edit]

Dr. P.B Kader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I've declined the A7 speedy on this as there's enough there for A7 (significant contributions to this and that, publications), but probably not enough for GNG. Doesn't appear to be notable, a quick search didn't turn up anything, though I may not be looking in the right language GedUK  19:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can find no reference on Google to any of the publications, which doesn't us leave much evidence of notability, unless article creator can find more references.Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can find only two mentions of P.B.Kader on Google, one is the Wikipedia article the other is his linked in page, it's not looking promising.Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete might be notable in local country but without citations it's impossible to say. Google doesn't throw up anything much for the book titles either, for all we know they are vanity press. No evidence of notabillity so delete--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have my doubts about this one, but since the book titles are purported to be in Mayalayam, it is likely they won't show up on an English language search (or even a Latin script seach). I don't have the wherewithal to search in Mayalalam. Hopefully, someone from India will be able to do the necessary research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOENG an english translation of citations needs to be provided, but I'm not holding my breath anything will emerge within the span of the AfD.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I come from Kerala, India and have never heard of this person, at all. And the books, from what I see, seem like $1 books (that are usually sold in small stores). Anyways, no coverage or notability at the moment. Novice7 | Talk 03:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2011 (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 g7, author agreed to deletion, see below. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cort and Fatboy Show[edit]

The Cort and Fatboy Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Recreation of a speedy deleted article about a show on a local radio station. Fails to credibly demonstrate notability through reliable sources - all the external links are blogs. PROD was removed by creator without improvement. Kudpung (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The template said to remove it from the page if I disagreed with it, so I did, along with a note on the talk page regarding why. I apologize. I am further attempting to demonstrate notability, but it's taking some time for find more articles of credibility on my own. Please also do note that the links from oregonlive.com are from The Oregonian themselves, the preeminent newspaper of Oregon. Centrifuze (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do the links to Oregon Live not give it enough credibility to stand as it is yet? Centrifuze (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is only inherited from tangential sources. External links are blogs with little/no editorial oversight and therefore not WP:RS Reliable Sources. No cited assertions in the article. Reads like copy from the show's "About Us" section (if it exists) and odd inside joke is off putting. Does not demonstrate anything more than local importance. Hasteur (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a couple of mentions in the local paper aren't enough to make this a notable podcast. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, go ahead and delete it. I've backed up the page, and will resubmit it at a later date once its been better polished. Centrifuze (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2011 (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

Bottle toss[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:Hoax and WP:Made up. No sources. Safiel (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Textbook example of WP:MADEUP--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete No sources can be found anywhere - 'Bottle toss' does indeed appear to be entirely fictitious. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, made-up; not clear if db-G3 applies (WP:Made up isn't a speedy criterion) but this clearly doesn't need to sit around for a week. Hairhorn (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that WP:SNOW probably applies here, I can't imagine we're going to see anything other than a string of deletes.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Adding to the string . . . . . . a perfect case of WP:MADEUP. Cullen328 (talk)`
• Speedy Delete basically what everyone else is saying. JDDJS (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Either a hoax, or completely made up. Blueboy96 22:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: What folks before me said - complete and utter WP:MADEUP. --Ezhuks (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2011 (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. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie the Giant Chicken[edit]

Ernie the Giant Chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Decision of previous discussion was to delete Soxwon (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That was an older version, and while I can't see it, this version has plenty of 3rd party coverage, including a book, to meet WP:GNG CTJF83 16:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I'm not certain that any of the references listed constitute enough coverage for the article's subject to be considered notable, but am willing to be overruled. Yeah, there's a book listed, but isn't the book -about- Family Guy? If so, that argument would seem to suggest that any character mentioned in a book about the show in which the character appears is notable...I can't support that notion. Doniago (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point about the book....CTJF83 16:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I try. (smile) Doniago (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the character is given non-trivial mention in a book NOT created by the same team, even if it is an official tie-in, that would indeed be one source supporting notability, but I don't know that that is the case here. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete, as prev discussion - not independently notable outside of the show itself; lacking coverage in independent sources; hence original research. Add a redir to List of characters in Family Guy afterwards, I suppose. But - not notable enough for inclusion as an article  Chzz  ►  17:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G4 Has apparently been deleted at AfD twice now.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Or redirect, whatever. Dumb fanboy cruft whose notability is not supported by independent, reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are sources to IGN, TVSquad, and even Forbes. CTJF83 21:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Forbes link is dead, but from the title is just a review of Blue Harvest. All the others are just episode guides and similar. No one is disputing that the character exists (which is what those citations show), what is missing is evidence that the character is notable in and of itself to need an article, and none of the refs shows that.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything new and useful to the List of Family Guy characters entry, (which may amount to nothing more than a redirect...) but there does not appear to be enough here for independent/standalone article notability. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't speedy — this article is completely different from the one deleted at the previous AFD, so it doesn't qualify for G4. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Nyttend. Gage (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, I don't believe Nyttend actually said "keep", though, only that since it was sufficiently different from the previous version that was deleted, it is ineligible to be speedily deleted without a discussion. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Besides, if the issue is the basic notability of the subject, a rewrite doesn't make any difference as the problem is not in the article. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Still no independent, third-party coverage (episode guides and Family Guy tie-in products certainly notwithstanding). The only grounds I can see for a Keep is consensus on fictional character notability having changed, which I don't think has happened. Yet. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject of the article does not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline since it has no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, only trivial mentions in reference to the episodes where it has appeared. None of the references in the reception section of the article treats in detail "Ernie the Giant Chicken" as a subject, but rather the references are reviews of Family Guy episodes or a single mention in a trivia-like article, so no reference in the article shows notability for "Ernie the Giant Chicken". Jfgslo (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Either keep or merge, if the current sources aren't enough to justify Ernie's own article, then they could still be useful in the list. Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alright, I just found another source, IGN's favourite Family Guy characters, that is independent from his appearances in episodes. Any other help finding sources would be appreciated. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found this as well. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently he also appeared on a t-shirt. I separated "Appearances" into it's own section outside of "Role in Family Guy", as a list of all of his appearances really isn't related to his role, at least not in its current state. Alright, I think that's it for now. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article and this article from IGN provide nontrivial coverage about Ernie the Giant Chicken. These third-party reliable sources do, in my opinion, address the concerns raised by Jfgslo (talk · contribs) — "None of the references in the reception section of the article treats in detail "Ernie the Giant Chicken" as a subject, but rather the references are reviews of Family Guy episodes or a single mention in a trivia-like article, so no reference in the article shows notability for "Ernie the Giant Chicken".

  The articles each provide three paragraphs of coverage about Ernie the Giant Chicken's role and history on the show. A short quote from the latter article:

  Ernie is as consistent as he is unrelenting. His MO is as follows: Interrupt episode mid-scene, furrow his brow, narrow his beak, and proceed to beat the living hell out of Peter.
  ...
  For a rivalry that started over a coupon, Ernie has become a welcomed addition to the Family Guy brand of funny. Sure, he's one-note, but, again, you = wrongness if that one joke doesn't make you laugh every time.       

  I believe there is enough material here to justify a stand-alone article. Cunard (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm less than impressed by 2 blurbs (from the same site) in a Top 10/25 countdown of favorite characters. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic justifies a stand alone article, no valid reason to delete. Ronk01 talk 05:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That amounts to a WP:ITSNOTABLE vote, which will likely be discarded in the final analysis. Do you have a substantive reason? Tarc (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The Reception is largely criticism to due with the structure of the scenes - this is an article about the character in the scenes. "Ernie" does not influence the criticism, nor does he influence the praise. Basically, aside from a couple references, it is all to do with the pacing and length of the scenes rather than the character himself. While it is an admirable effort to try to make an article of this character considering how articles such as Meg Griffin and Chris Griffin are in a terrible state of affairs (and probably worse off than this one), I do not see any way that this will develop into a notable subject. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:06, 12 February 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Progri[edit]

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

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

Lack of citations and content.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 15:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Recepient of the title Merited Teacher of Albania highly prestigious award, and also recepient of valor medals for his participation in World War II. There are some sources on him, notably this obituary, which claims that he is considered as one of the founders of the University of Tirana--Brunswick Dude (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No citations (the obit ref in the article is a dead link). The linked Albanian wiki article has no refs either. If you can provide a translation of the ref above it might establish notabillity but as it stands its a delete.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the re-write certainly aserts notability, and it looks to be cited. Of course I can't read the citations as they are in Albanian but I'm happy to assume good faith that they say what they claim to say and have switched my vote accordingly.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:I assume the improvement and consistency of this article myself, with proper sources and references. Empathictrust (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:My work is done, i finished with the improvements. You can check the article and eventually remove the template. All the best. Empathictrust (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep, as above --Vinie007 20:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above, his mention in the obituary establishing he did something quite notable, one of the founders of a notable university. Dream Focus 07:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This article was tagged for rescue by the same editor who nominated it for deletion. I don't get it. SnottyWong ^confess 18:28, 8 February 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Butler[edit]

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

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

Best known for being married to someone famous - notability is not inherited. Other sources are limited to her IMDB page. Comments on the divorce are in Bill Murray's page. Some of the pages linked to this page are intended for a different Jennifer Butler. Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Costume designer. Article seems mainly to consist as an opportunity to spread gossip about Bill Murray. Herostratus (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article tells us all we need to know right there: "she is known for being the wife of Bill Murray" EEng (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Good thing he hasn't been married eight times, like some other people, or we'd be scrubbing these Murray-wife articles off here all day and night. Qworty (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Her work as a film costumer does not meet the criteria for WP:CREATIVE. Being married at one time to a notable person is not good enough either. --Crunch (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2011 (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. I'm sorry Ashershow but the delete !voters have the stronger argument here. However, that ABC news source you provided is a reliable source and if 1 or preferably 2 more can be found then that might make it. I'll be glad to incubate or userfy this article on request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity (Home exercise program)[edit]

Insanity (Home exercise program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article about a home fitness program has been reviewed dozens of times online, and is currently a very popular workout system. Just as notable as P90X or any other fitness program.--Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 14:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When one comes across something like this, one's spidey-sense starts to tingle: is this article perhaps intended as publicity for an unnotable entity? In this case, I would say: yes, it is. There are no good references - three references, two to sites connected to the entity and one to an obscure website dedicated to reviewing systems like this. We need some actual indications of notability, and they are absent. The previous poster alluded to P90X, but that article has a couple of good references - Washington Post, CNN, Bloomberg. This article has nothing like that. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, spidey sense is a good description of it. Just doing a google search suggests lots of notabillity, but when you start to read it its feels like Astroturfing.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. Stacks of G-hits, but many of them are of dubious quality, e.g. obviously sales and promotional based sites. I read quite a few reviews and they were all very promotional in style rather than being objective third party assessments. I have a feeling that the people behind this system are very good at web promotion and generating buzz (as evidenced by their P90X scheme being the most shown infomercial in the US). Coupled with the promotional style of the original version of the article (which was speedy deleted under G11) I'm not convinced the subject is notable enough. The sheer volume suggests it may be, but I'd like to see some better quality sources that are more obviously indepedent. e.g. articles in mainstream press discussing its popularity (as was provided on the Beachbody article). If such citations were added my vote would probably change to keep.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If you're looking for sources in big news agencies, then Insanity was featured on an ABC News segment here. It was also reviewed by an expert on WebMD here.--Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 16:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, might do the trick but both still have that same promotional feel. I'll be interested to see how other users rate this.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am convinced this is likely astroturfing/shilling. Simple as that. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This article has legitimate sources from both the mainstream media and bloggers. Simply because many reviewers liked the program doesn't make it inherently biased or "promotional." If ABC, WebMD, numerous bloggers and of course the official primary source Beachbody.com/Insanity aren't good enough sources, I don't know what is.--Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 17:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When all the reviewers who liked it use similar phrases that ape the promotional material of the company then it looks dubious. Note that bloggers and the company's own website are not good enough sources--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I will make one final point before this page is discarded. Insanity unfortunately got off to the wrong foot with sources that were too primary for WP, but now has perfectly reasonable sources that would not be questioned for their "promotional tone" if they had not been apart of a deletion discussion. The majority of the sources at the P90X page are written in supprt of P90X. I don't believe a good review, despite what some may consider a "biased attitude," invalidates a source for inclusion. I hope administrators will see sources such ABC news and WebMD and reconsider the deletion of this article.--Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 21:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Vote and reply below copied from article talk page in case they are unfamiliar with the deletion process)--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I recently wrote this same article and "the paintedone" had it deleted. It really is unfortunate that the moderators are so ignorant. Mine was deleted on the grounds that it lacked significance however this is a multi-million dollar fitness program with an aggressive ad campaign. It is significant to people who exercise regularly or are trying to get into shape. It would seem though that a few of the moderators do not fall into that category and are committing grievous fallacy of composition errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amplus imperium (talk • contribs) 00:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version of the article wasn't deleted for being unimportant (A7), but on criteria G11 for being promotional. I've copied the relevent guideline below for ref.

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.

The current deletion proposal is because there does not appear to be sufficient quality, third party references to show that this is a notable scheme. Note that just being on sale does not make it notable, nor the size of the budget the company has put into it or the size and notabillity of the company. The kind of coverage required is stuff that demonstrates, independently of promotional work from the company, that this is a popular and well subscribed system. So a major news organisation doing an unprompted piece on how popular it is (and not just what appears to be a paid advertising segment). I've voted weak delete, because there is a fair bit of buzz around the system, but a lot of it looks to be the direct result of promotional work by the company, so not really independent notabillity..--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Without wishing to assume bad faith, I think it worth noting that Amplus imperium's only edits to date, other than the comment copied above, were the original version of this article which was speedy deleted under criteria G11 as blatant promotion. That version of the article included details of where to buy and the price of the system, hence it was viewed as an advert and speedied. As such I think it reasonable to consider that this may be a single purpose account with possible COI. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a useful page and in my view notable. Dougransom (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 February 2011

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Man in Black: His Own Story in His Own Words[edit]

Man in Black: His Own Story in His Own Words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While the book has served in making a film on Cash's life, it does not seem to have any notability worth mentioning beyond this that is not already neatly summarized in Cash's page or on the movie's page. It has remained as a single sentence saying only that the book was used in the movie. Yaksar (let's chat) 14:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - [10] - one of the top ten most sought after out of print books, Book was published in 1975. That is about 15-20 years before the internet. Reviews would be in hardcopy at a library in the media of the time. Taking a look at Wikipedia:Notability_(books), "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:", and then "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture" (of which there are several references indicating this). I would even go so far as to say it meets "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. ". Can the article be improved? Yes. Is this reason for deletion? No. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Turlo Lomon's reasoning. The book was made into a notable film, so its notable. Dream Focus 15:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I disagree with Dream Focus' statement that being made in to a notable film automatically makes a work notable, but Turlo Lomon's reasoning seems sound, and I have changed my opinion on the article to keep.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He quoted the part from WP:BOOKS which says "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." It was made into a notable motion picture, and thus significantly contributed to it. Dream Focus 17:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. General agreement with other "Keepers." A search on WorldCat showed only 33 libraries had copies (not a clinching argument - I'm just adding to the discussion with another piece of info). Zondervan press (the publisher) is a Bibles and Christian books publisher which is probably why there aren't more copies in libraries. I'm a pinko liberal progressive who recognizes existing biases by library purchasers against certain publishers and Zondervan is one of those publishers. Given the subject, the relationship to the movie, the cite from the Washington Post about being in the "Top 10 Most Sought After Out-of-Print Books in 2006" I lean to keeping this. Needs improvement. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - since the nominator changed to keep, does this count as nomination withdrawn, and thus, speedy close? Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and Close per withdrawn nomination and the lack of deletion requests. SanchiTachi (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special state-to-state relations[edit]

Special state-to-state relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article does not establish notability; it seems to simply be a certain prominant figure's description of PRC-ROC relations. Although it is used on numerous pages (59, including project, talk and user pages), most cases in encyclopedia articles are because of its inclusion in the transcluded "Cross-strait relations" template. The remainder merely establish that a Taiwanese figure used the term and the Chinese didn't like it. Certainly the topic behind it does not seem separate from cross-strait relations and I don't believe notability could be established for this particular term alone. I don't think a redir is appropriate because it doesn't seem to be a "term of art". —Felix the Cassowary 13:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I forgot that I probably should point out that the article has existed in largely is current form for five-plus years and has had a "notability" template on it for over a year. Despite being in the template, no-one has seen fit even to edit it the slightest in that period. (Aside from deletion-related edits.) —Felix the Cassowary 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my own nom. —Felix the Cassowary 13:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia used to take just about anything, and this 2005 contribution is a good example, about a phrase that didn't catch on. You wouldn't know it from the title, nor from the title of the article where it might rate a mention, Cross-Strait relations. Luckily, the common sense title China-Taiwan Relations is a redirect to the "let's not offend Beijing" alternative. Mandsford 16:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Scratching my head on how to rescue this and can't come up with anything. No apparent defenders. "A phrase that didn't catch on" sort of says it all. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at most could be a few words in the Lee Teng-hui article. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This doesn't seem to be in wide usage by anyone in this dispute. Per those above, it could be mentioned briefly in some other article.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hancock-Child[edit]

Michael Hancock-Child (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

My searching doesn't turn up enough to meet our criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There doesn't appear to be any reliable independent sources to confirm notability criteria at WP:Music or more generally at WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would have to agree. I can't see how this would pass any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. What sources are there were added by me. (It was originally proposed for deletion as an unreferenced BLP. [11]) The references now there were all I could find, including searching under Nik Hancock-Child, Nicholas Hancock, etc. (the names he performed under in the past). There is one commercial recording for Marco Polo (a sub-label of Naxos), which was reviewed in Gramophone although, no comment was made on him in the review and what appears to a review of the same recording in Fanfare (Google books snippet) which does appear to mention him briefly. [12] The second Naxos recording is simply a compilation of previous recordings by many singers and included five of the tracks on the Marco Polo one. It is not a new or separate recording. All the rest are self-published and none of them have been reviewed. Apart from that, zero press or journal coverage. And no reviews (professional or otherwise) of any of his recitals. None of them appear to have been in major venues. His wife, Ro Hancock-Child is marginally more notable, but even there the supporting references and claims are pretty thin. Voceditenore (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the cogently-voiced reasoning of the tenor. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree, fails notability. JohnInDC (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply not notable per Wikipedia criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The quote cited at the subject's own website, which is the first Google hit, says it all: "one of the undiscovered voices of the 20th century". If he's undiscovered - and the complete lack of significant substantive independent coverage in reliable secondary sources would seem to confirm the accuracy of that statement - he is definitely not notable. Fladrif (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO spectacularly. ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2011 (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. Ironholds (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge architect[edit]

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

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

Page is primarily a list of firms, with many firms who might meet the description missing. It seems a matter of pure subjective judgement as to who would be included, and if it is useful, better dealt with via the existing Bridge architects category. The definition at the top is essentially spurious - I doubt there are many practicing bridge designers who would agree with it, it is not in common use and indeed I have never seen it anywhere other than on this page. Kvetner (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd say to keep it until someone has made an article for the history of bridge design that can stand by itself. At that point you could basically split this page into 2: Bridge design and Category:Bridge architects. In that case, there should also be an article on each and everyone of the people listed here ... it might take some time! 12:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If they're not sufficiently notable to merit an article of their own, then why are they notable enough to mention within this article? -- Kvetner (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see the harm in keeping it. It is informative and since I know nothing about the subject it became actually interesting. I don't see the problem with the title, googleing it does not show much (yet still knows something), but should Google be the one and only meter to decide whether something exists in this world? :D On another note, Mandsford, how can you compare someone who installs an elevator to someone who actually design some of the most amazing and admired structures in the world, someone that with his design shapes the world and the way we move on it? 22:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.180.24.6 (talk)
  • The harm is that poorly referenced, non-notable entries detract from Wikipedia's reputation and value. What was informative about it? It's clear that bridge architects exist, but that doesn't merit their inclusion in an encyclopaedia. -- Kvetner (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Maintain it is a notable topic. There is no reason for deletion. It is very useful in fact. It would be nice if there was some more history abour bridge design, but I can't see any problem in knowing who's who in the bridge design today. 20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.177.228 (talk)
  • Wikipedia is not a directory of firms or individuals, it's an encyclopaedia. "Usefulness" is not relevant, notability is. What is your argument for its notability, other than that it's handy to have a list of firms, a function already served by the bridge architect category? There also seems to be some confusion here - if you want to know who's who in bridge design, surely you want an article on bridge designers, not on bridge architects. -- Kvetner (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify a quick Google search shows this to be a notable topic. The current page is sub-par but that is no reason for deletion. Remove the extensive list of firms and start over. -Atmoz (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This should be an article on the designers of bridges, across all times and cultures. Instead it is about some professional jargon that nobody outside the field cares about. Obviously all bridges are designed so redirect to Bridge or History of bridges. Borock (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What to make of this one? It's actually a "List of bridge architects" (or list of architectural firms) without the "kick me" sign on its back, and an unsourced and not very useful list at that. I can't say that it's an advertisement either ("We selected you for our multi-million dollar project because you were mentioned on Wikipedia"). Certainly, persons who do the designing, engineering and construction of bridges are important, though I could say the same thing about the persons who install elevators. An article that crosses all times and cultures is a tall order, but there certainly is room in our fun encyclopedia for a good article about a topic in the less exciting topic of infrastructure. At the moment, this isn't it. Mandsford 16:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite a very few google hits, the term "bridge architect" is not in wide use by any means, and the obscurely referenced bizarre definition cannot be taken as a basis for an article. The content of the list is random, unreferenced and useless. Bridge engineering [13] would be a far more useful and notable article. --Elekhh (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The majority of google hits on the combined term "bridge architect" are either to "bridge, architect" or simply to refer to someone who is the architect of a bridge. Neither shows the term to have any currency beyond the article here on Wikipedia. Google hits for "bridge designer" would not demonstrate that to be a term worth an article. "Landscape architect" is a useful term with widespread currency - "bridge architect" is not notable in itself any more than would be "railroad station architect" or "skyscraper architect". Regarding Borock's comment, I am a bridge design professional with many friends who are architects who design bridges, but they just use the term "architect", not "bridge architect", even when they are specialists. I think an article on bridge design or architecture of bridges could find room to cover this topic, but it just doesn't stand alone on its own merits. If the list of firms were removed, there is nothing left to say - the Arup definition cited does not, so far as I can tell, appear in any secondary source and is certainly not used in the field of bridge design. I should note that I see no problem with Category:Bridge architects as it can simply serve the function of listing architects for whom the design of bridges is a significant part of their practice, something that may be genuinely useful where the architects are notable enough to have an article anyway. Kvetner (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Bridge and pare down to eliminate the list of individual designers. They can have their own articles if they pass notability guidelines. This is a case where blindly counting Google hits is silly. For one, the customary term is "Bridge designer," not "Bridge architect." Second, it doesn't give a good indication of the notability of the topic. --Crunch (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2011 (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. While the company has plenty of indicators of its importance, proper sourcing has not been provided to establish its notability. lifebaka++ 15:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dovico (company)[edit]

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

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

This software company appears to be non-notable.

A number of external references are currently provided in the article, but none of them attest to notability:

1. A review of their software product on toptenreviews.com, which includes a "buy now" button with an affiliate marketing target URL. There is a financial relationship between toptenreviews.com and Dovico, so this cannot be considered a neutral source.
2. A case study about an unrelated software product which was integrated with Dovico. This article does not talk about Dovico in any signifiant way - the word "Dovico" is only mentioned twice.
3. A student masters thesis which used data extracted from a Dovico installation. It does not discuss Dovico itself in any depth.
4. A bachelor student project about construction project management. Its entire coverage of Dovico is this sentence: "Dovico is an industry standard time sheet software."
5. A reference to a 2006 panel discussion which had a Dovico representative present. It does not discuss Dovico at all.

I initially came to this article when I saw it in the speedy deletion list; I recognized the name since I am a very happy Dovico user at work. However when I tried to find significant, independent coverage in reliable sources to add to the article, all I could come up with was press releases and a few forum posts.

I therefore believe that Dovico (company) does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORG, and that the article should be deleted. Thparkth (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thparkth,

DOVICO meets GNG in terms of coverage. There are now various case studies, all of which either focus on or discuss Dovico at some length or another, all referenced correctly. There is also an About.com (which, again, is a reliable and independent source) review by an independent author, detailing Dovico. There is a blog article detailing Dovico called '7 Time Tracking Tools To Help You Manage Your Time.' Under WP:ORG, it states that "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice."." To appear in lists noting it as a top contender in its' software class, various case studies detailing how it has been used in various situations, press releases and information replicated across thousands of websites, in my opinion, shows notability.

For that reason, this article does not warrant deletion. It stands in line with not only all other pieces of software in the same league, but in line with all other company pages on Wikipedia.

Addition - Another Editor made a revision at 20:48, 2 February 2011 removing the A7 as he believed notability had been asserted.

Iammatty (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my points made above, please explain as to why an article that a genuine effort has been made to prove notability and to remove bias and to stay in line with Wikipedias requirements has been repeatedly hounded from every angle possible, and the following articles have not?

* SwipeClock

* SyncTime Express

* ITimeSheet

* True Time Tracker

Iammatty (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another notable article added detailing Dovico as a winner of the 2002 KIRA Export-Product of the year.

Iammatty (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further notability. Proof that Dovico is a Microsoft Certified Partner has been added. Link comes from Microsoft's website.

Iammatty (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
• Delete, advertising: a software company that provides multiple products to small and large companies that have need to track their employee time, expenses and effort for project management, project scheduling, costing, billing or productivity improvement. DOVICO is also a Microsoft Certified Partner. One of many, many "project management" software businesses, each of which imagines that they and their products have the kind of historical, technical, or cultural significance needed to rank an encyclopedia article. Winning minor and local trade awards does not confer that kind of significance, either. Thanks for the leads on similar articles, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - the according to the general notability guideline, a subject needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to be considered notable. The About.com source discusses the subject in detail. The paper by Sidenko also discusses the subject with more than just a passing mention (see section 5.7). Thus the article is notable per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:CORP. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe this may overstate the coverage in the Sidenko paper[14]. The entirety of its coverage of Dovico is the following text:

"The data are derived from Dovico Timesheet database. Dovico Timesheet is a project management application. Managers can control tasks assigned for projects, time of each task and expense of projects with Dovico Timesheet application. Dovico Timesheet is based on MSSQL database".

This is pretty much the definition of an incidental mention. The about.com reference[15] is a single paragraph in a larger article. It carries some weight but in my opinion it is not sufficient to establish notability.

Thparkth (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that the Sidenko paper appears to be a university master's thesis, which may not be the sort of publication that confers notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the masters' thesis may be omitted.

The subject is one of the five software the About.com's six-paragraph article discusses, and the discussion is more than a passing mention. The information can be extracted without original research, so it is significant per WP:GNG (bullet point No.1).

Wikipedia's notability guideline on companies says that "notability can be established using the primary criterion" using "sources ... such as Hoover's". The subject has a Hoover's profile, and I believe that this, along with the About.com reference, is sufficient to establish notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua - the passage you quote from WP:CORP relates to public corporations - not privately held companies like Dovico. Thparkth (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, Hoover's, along with About.com, can be used to establish notability by the primary criteria for notability and/or the general notability guideline. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The About.com issue is arguable, but the Hoover's entry is merely a directory entry and does not constitute "significant coverage". I do not understand your argument that it attests to notability. Thparkth (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you admit that the About.com article is at the very least arguable in terms of notability? It is not just a passing mention of the company as it appears at the number one spot for "Top Time Tracking Software Programs," showing that the company in itself is well established in its' field. The primary criteria sets out that About.com and Hoovers are deemed reliable sources, and thus the Dovico article is notable. Any other argument is down to a personal opinion as to whether the Dovico page should, in fact, have a place on Wikipedia, as notability has without a doubt been established. Iammatty (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The company has been made notable with various case studies and links detailing where Dovico has been used and how it integrates with other products. They are official Microsoft Certified Partners which, again, has been referenced. There is now a reference to a pending Patent application. The history of the company, which dates back to the late 80s, will soon be updated significantly. A page about Dovico on Microsoft, mentions/company profiles on various reliable sources such as About.com and Hoovers, a Pending Patent application with CIPO (Canadian Intellectual Property Office) are all more than enough to show that this company is more than your run-of-the-mill local software provider. References, links to and profiles about Dovico across this wide a base of relevant and trustworthy sources is enough to even establish notability. Iammatty (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only one of those sources which carries any weight at all for notability is the About.com article. None of the case studies are even about Dovico. Being a Microsoft Certified Partner in no way demonstrates notability by Wikipedia standards - the huge majority of such companies are non-notable. Having filed a patent doesn't demonstrate notability. For a private company, having a profile on Hoovers doesn't demonstrate notability. None of these things amount to "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". Every word of that phrase is important!

The about.com article isn't about Dovico either, and devotes only one paragraph to the subject. In my opinion it is not "significant" enough to demonstrate real notability. A truly notable company has been profiled in-depth in newspaper and magazine articles, written about in books, or has made a cultural impact; relying on a single paragraph mention on about.com is almost evidence of non-notability.

Thparkth (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph in the About.com article does constitute significant coverage. The subject "need not be the main topic of the source material" (WP:N). Almost 20% of the About.com article is to do with the subject in question, and it addresses the subject directly. This is more than a trivial mention (WP:GNG, bullet point 1). --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage those reading, and especially the the AfD closer, to examine the Hoover's profile[16] and consider whether it is anything more than just a directory entry, and the About.com article[17] to consider whether its 74 words is significant enough to hang the notability of an entire article on. Obviously I believe the answer is "no" in both cases. Thparkth (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also would encourage the AfD closer to examine not just the two articles being discussed here (Hoovers/About.com) but the article as a whole, and the other references listed. To examine the length of work that has gone into creating the article, the rest of the articles referenced throughout the page and to also see that even just the about.com and the Hoovers page attest to notability, being reliable sources. Iammatty (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Just to reinforce the point above, the article provides notability to an extent that a lot of other pages on Wikipedia haven’t. Again, being linked with Microsoft/About.com/CIPO/KIRA shows that Dovico has a long-standing and illustrious history, and as a result, any question as to whether notability has been asserted has been answered. Bellg458 (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Bellg458 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete per WP:N. Applying for a patent does not make a company notable. About.com is not a reliable source of product reviews. KIRA is specific to New Brunswick. Mention in Daptiv case study is unsubstantial (and doesn't describe the company or identify which product it's about). Sidenko mention is unsubstantial. Guha paper is an undergraduate thesis and therefore self-published. I searched for other sources but didn't find any. It belongs in Wikipedia after there's substantial coverage in reliable sources. --Pnm (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Dovico’s software (old and new) has often been used as reference in articles and papers, that is notable. The software has been mentioned in many “top 10” lists which shows notable success. There is also mention of a Dovico partnership on Reuters as a key development for Intuit Incorporated. --Didia25 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC) — Didia25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note Smashinghub (the site for the "top 10" mentioned) publishes promotional posts on behalf of advertisers[18], and so is not an independent source. Thparkth (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The coverage in the Hoovers source is basically a directory listing. The coverage in the about.com source, while nontrivial, has dubious reliability and is not by itself sufficient to allow Dovico to pass WP:N. The Sidenko paper is a passing mention and as a master's thesis, not a source that establishes notability. The other references in the article are either passing mentions or primary sources.

  A Google News Archive search returns tangential coverage and press releases.

  I agree with the analyses of Thparkth (talk · contribs) and Pnm (talk · contribs) and concur that Dovico does not pass Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (companies). Cunard (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2011 (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 per WP:SNOW Mandsford 23:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yougothassled[edit]

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

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

A neologism with no evidence of use anywhere. Created by User:Yougothassled indicating that they made it up themselves. (PROD was removed) SmartSE (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neologism, that's it. EEng (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability; WP:MADEUP. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced neologism that's really disguised spam for a website. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What NawlinWiki said. — Satori Son 15:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per nom. ttonyb (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NawlinWiki. Novice7 | Talk 16:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't figure out whether this dumb expression was pronounced "You go the sled" or "You Goth a sled"-- turns out it's neither "You got Hassled"-- a prank buried among the billions of videos on YouTube. Come back when it goes viral. Mandsford 16:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Of course it's made up.--Zokniaw (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Move along, nothing to see here. --Ezhuks (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2011 (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.   -- Lear's Fool 12:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kippax Uniting Church[edit]

Kippax Uniting Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This fails WP:GNG. Obviously an active church, but when it comes down to it, just an ordinary church and non-notable. StAnselm (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable individual congregation. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no coverage in gnews fails WP:ORG. and not all churches are notable so that argument doesn't work. LibStar (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm wondering why previous respondents have not added deadlink templates to the 13 references. Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per nom and per LibStar. WP:ORG isn't met here. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added several references from the Canberra Times.  The church provides services to 1400 per week, which puts it closer to a megachurch size than non-notable size.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess an Australian megachurch would indeed be notable. The List of the largest churches in Australia only lists 17 above 2000. The key thing is what "1400 people who use services at the church each week" actually means - it may mean 1400 use the church premises. In any case, see WP:BIGNUMBER for the concept of "non-notable size". StAnselm (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agree with above, the number of attendees is irrelevant, significant coverage is what is required which this sorely lacks. LibStar (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm, I agree with everything you said in your last post, the only problem is that by pointing me to WP:BIGNUMBER instead of relevant previous AfD discussions, I don't have any feedback on the current consensus for what amounts to a preliminary presumption of a non-notabably-small church.  My thinking on this is that any large church, 301-2000 weekend attendance, has a preliminary presumption of being notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"My thinking on this is that any large church, 301-2000 weekend attendance, has a preliminary presumption of being notable" is not an established criterion in WP. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more references, one from the media office of the head chief minister of the ACT government, and another from the Australian federal government, each under policy I think constitute strong indications of notability, the ACT would be regional media, and the federal government would be national media.  Total references for article is currently twenty.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to disagree with you. These are bare mentions, not significant coverage. StAnselm (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The [Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory] and/or his media office gave Kippax six mentions and awarded them a new program and AU$200,000.  As for what the federal government reported, that is a matter of opinion as to whether AU$50,000 is trivial or substantial notice.  The article already mentions that the ACT Chief Minister appointed one of the church ministers to be a member of the ACT Community Inclusion Board.  Two different Australian governments have given and continue to give their attention to Kippax.  I think that "bare" mentions would be more like finding the name "Kippax" in a phone book, or in a list of businesses in the Kippax district. Unscintillating (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not up to us to notice the $50,000 - it's whether this has been noticed by secondary sources - of course the government makes public who is receiving the funding, but merely receiving government funding alone is not an indication of notability. Are there newspapers who see that Kippax is receiving money and decide to send a reporter down to interview the minister? It doesn't look like it. StAnselm (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be annoying but to put your trust in the newspapers to report such stuff is really questionable. The media for the most part doesn't get religion. And, in recent times, are more interested in sensationalist reporting of religion only when members are accused of hypocricy or are somehow offending social sensibilities. Yes, it is not up to us to report on stuff, but to find the secondary sources. But I believe that you need to broaden your definition of sources to that beyond the main stream media. For example if a church denominational publication made reference to the local congregation. Stuff that Google News isn't going to pick up either. Dean Tregenza (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notion of notability is problematic as it all is a matter of perspective. The notion of number of worshippers being an important factor is merely an indicator of ones belief of what is important from a particular perspective. I personally couldn't give a toss if a lot of people attended a local church. What is important to me is if peoples lives are transformed by the existence of that faith community in the midst of society. If a person who receives the services of the community services agency of the church were no longer available, they (at least 1400 people and their families) would notice. Other agencies would notice (especially if they didn't have the resources that UnitingCare Kippax has). Other factors that need to be taken into account is the participation of the leadership and members within the wider community. What is their influence in society? How does their belonging to this particular faith community influence what they do? The fact that one of the ministry team was specifically invited by the Chief Minister of the ACT to participate in the Canberra 2030 strategic planning process is something to note - although this wasn't reported in the media. Another examples are obviously Lin Hatfield-Dodds, Karen Middleton and John Williamson. But there are a significant number of members of the congregation that are in senior positions of leadership in the community groups and the work context (eg within the Australian Public Service). I could provide some names but generally people who want to make the world a better place like to do it without any fanfare or public notoriety ;-). Dean Tregenza (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ilče Pereski[edit]

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

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

Unreferenced BLP. Others are welcome to try but I found no evidence that this player has ever played for Persepolis. In fact most of the info in the article can only verified on these youtube videos, which can hardly be considered reliable. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence he meets WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as unverifiable. Although according the content of the article he passes WP:NSPORT, I can't find any indication that he has in fact played for Persepolis. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2011 (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) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magibon[edit]

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

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

This has gone through four deletion discussions, I admit; first two were "no consensus" and the next two were "keep". However, the 4th discussion was in 2009; since then, I see absolutely no sign that the person is notable. WP:15M applies. (The person might have appeared notable back in 2008 and 2009; I don't think the person was notable, but at least justifiably could be viewed as notable back then.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sorry, still notable, per analysis of her as a phenomenon in Wired, Slate and Gawker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanwallace (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected". Colonel Warden (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "strong reject[ion]" was there? Even though the 3rd/4th discussions resulted in clearly "keep" results, there was no huge split. Not only that, but I can't recall a single instance in all of the deletion discussions that I've read of someone being considered notable after yielding 0 Google News hits for two straight years.[19][20] My argument is that she was not notable then and not notable now, and that the test of time has shown that she's not notable. That's not "with the same arguments"; that's the use of new evidence of lack of notability. --Nlu (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're not presenting any new evidence. The general rule here is that notability does not expire because Wikipedia is not the news. This means that we cover women like Agathoclia, Balbina and Cleopatra even though they haven't been in the news for centuries. A source such as The Japan Times is good evidence of notability indefinitely and that's never going to change. Please see WP:DEL which explains, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not for Agathoclia, but Balbina[21] and Cleopatra[22] will continue to receive news hits (some of which are false positives, for certain, but most are not) thousands of years later because they were notable and important. Magibon essentially drew one spurt of coverage and is no longer covered. That's 15 minutes of fame as far as I'm concerned. --Nlu (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and immediate capital punishment for the linkspam zombies.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to have had a fleeting moment of coverage but nothing actually came of it. Note that the closing admin can and will ignore any votes based on "It's been on AFD before!", as last AFD was well over a year ago and we all know consensus does change. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Magibon is an important part of Internet history and language, serving a roll some what like "MY Mother the Car" in television. I would note that while there are no current mentions of her on Google News, there are over 60 thousand mentions on Google. I also have noted that "My Mother the Car" is only mentioned three times on Google News, but over half a million on Google. There are many 1960s television shows that were more popular than "My Mother the Car" but it is not nearly as important to know about them, because they do not symbolize anything. So please keep this great symbol of YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisrich1 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 11:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nothing here undercuts the well-reasoned and justified keep conclusions of the prior AfDs, and WP:NTEMP is one of the hallmarks that makes Wikipedia, a big-as-you-need-it-to-be WP:NOTPAPER encyclopedia, the special resource that it is.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Once notable, it remains notable. I further respectfully request that the nominator think again before nominating well referenced articles for which there is already a consensus to keep. Francis Bond (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (^m^) Shii (tock) 10:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - After 4 nominations and now a fifth with the exact same result its perhaps time to start seeinga pattern.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two did not have "exact same result." And again, while it may be heading to "keep," I must say that I am watching this result with disgust. This article shouldn't exist; the fact that it will continue to do so is beyond the bounds of good sense. --Nlu (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still it is a strong indication that most people dont share you disgust for this article. Quite the opposit.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is not this last comment an indicator of what watching Magibon does to your brain? --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable enough to be a featured as a Know Your Meme 2008 Video along with other notable internet meme trackers (ie in the same notoriety level as of Numa Numa, Epic Beard Man, Boxxy etc.) Guerberj (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The reliable source material isn't fleeting. In fact, the same reliable source material is still going strong. Until the publishers retract the reliable source material, the topic will continue to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2011 (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.