User:DASHBot/test

For articles listed for rescue consideration, see Article Rescue Squadron Rescue list

There are currently 915 articles tagged for deletion at Articles for deletion.

Closed and resolved rescue listings can be cleared off to the subpage.

Articles currently tagged[edit]

This list is only for articles currently tagged with {{rescue}}. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article please follow these instructions.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing paper[edit]

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

Two-year-old unsourced stub with no useful content, created by a paper-company guy. No content worth keeping, nor evidence of a real topic. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete because it looks like there's no useful content to merge. This unsourced stub is redundant to paper, notebook, etc. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. It is a specialized type of paper in the same way that newsprint is, and manufacturing it is the way lots of people earn their living. The complete idiot's guide to etiquette‎ (this link) explains: "Most people should own three kinds of personal stationery: formal writing paper (which can be engraved or plain), personal business stationery, and personal notepaper.... Do not substitute informal writing paper when formal writing paper is called for." This is an encyclopedic and specialized topic, and many more references can be found: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Eastmain (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're available to turn it into an article, I'll withdraw my deletion nomination; but as it is, it has no redeeming value. Dicklyon (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep and expand. It's a worthwhile encyclopedic topic despite the article's current shortcomings.--Michig (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Finding a good source for this topic takes just a few seconds. See Letter writing as a social practice, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Bad article on legit topic, needs cleanup/improvement. Encylopedias should be encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:BEFORE; I agree with Colonel Warden and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Bearian (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep and expand and source this perhaps most notable item in history, after the "invention of fire". From the earliest forms of papyrus or sheepskin or vellum or parchment to rag and linen etc., cultures have depended on "paper" in order to share ideas and save histories. That the article is currently a little stub is no problem when one considers the WP:POTENTIAL of an article that is such an essential invention so instrumental in the communication of ideas and commerce throughout history [1], [2], [3]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - I believe there's definite potential for an article here. Maybe even a good one. It needs improvement (though some has been done already), but I see it's been flagged for rescue (and this usually works), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep and expand - this seems like a legitimate topic, and some references already appear to have been included/pointed out. I feel that it should be kept, and should be expanded upon. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep. How is writing paper not notable? The fact that the article is unsourced does not necessarily imply that no reliable sources exist on writing paper itself. How foolish to ask for its deletion! --Grasshopper6 (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

AfD is not a vote, but has to be decided on its merits. In the discussion below, the following has been put forward as evidence for notability:

Mentioned or listed in the following:
1. East Coast wineries: a complete guide from Maine to Virginia. This has been characterized as a "commercial wine guide" without independent inclusion criteria, which has not been refuted.
2. Two of their wines have been mentioned at WineSpectator.com ten years ago.
3. Listing as one of "Western Virginia's charming but lesser-known wineries" at roanoke.com.
4. Listing in Fodor's guide to Virginia and Maryland (no reference given)
5. Listing in East Coast wineries: a complete guide from Maine to Virginia By Carlo DeVito
6. Four paragraphs from an interview with the owners at winespectator.com.
7. Article in a local paper[4]. (It has been claimed that this was "carried by [...] a major metropolitan paper in North Carolina", but no evidence has been provided for this claim.)
8. NYT writes in 2000: "Even in the commonwealth, it is hard to find the much-honored Valhalla reds (like a cabernet franc called Gotterdammerung and a shiraz) that Dr. James Vascik, a neurosurgeon, produces 2,000 feet above the Roanoke Valley."[5] The argument that "[this] was a 1-line passing mention in a travel article, thus failing WP:CORP", has not been refuted. The quote "much-honored" has been taken as proof of such honors, but no concrete honors since the ones of 1998 (below) have been brought forward.
These do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but rather meet the invalid criteria, such as "being mentioned in a wine review or wine region overview" and "Being the subject of one article or profile by itself in an otherwise verifiable and reliable source like Wine Spectator".
Awards: The winery won two or three state awards in 1998. [6]. Notability for these awards has not been established, thus meeting the Invalid criterion "Being an award winner in regional competitions (such as a county or state fair)".
Features:
1. This is one of two Virginia vineyards to process its grapes underground.
2. It has a 2,000 square foot cave.
There seems to be no criterion at WP:WINETOPIC according to which these would establish notability. The underground process is only mentioned as an aside, and does not seem to be notable by itself.
Other:
1. Google hits.
2. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.

In summa, it has not been shown that any of the above meets any of the criteria of the applicable guidelines WP:WINETOPIC, WP:COMPANY, and WP:N. — Sebastian 03:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Valhalla Vineyards[edit]

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

Non-notable winery that does not pass WP:CORP nor the Wine Project's internal guidelines for winery notability. Prod was contested over 6 months ago with the promise that the winery was notable and that reliable sources could be found to demonstrate this in the article. After waiting several months and checking to see if I could find the sources, myself, I do not believe there is enough independent, third-party reliable sources to make an article that adequately demonstrates notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 16:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

How about the East Coast wineries: a complete guide from Maine to Virginia‎ - Page 308 thing on Google Books, it's a start at least Polarpanda (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a commercial wine guide that basically just confirms that the winery exist--not that it is notable for anything. Every mom and pop restaurant in the world is listed in some commercial restaurant guide (including my local pizza joint down the street in Seattle, Washington), but those restaurant guides alone do not establish notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 16:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep and further expand and source. Appreciate the Wine Project's proposed guideline. Happily, not all the results of searches [7][8] are listings or press releases.... as many deal with the subject in context and allow consideration for the meeting of GNG criteria for inclusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the second link you posted are essentially all commercial wine guides and looking at the 1st link, I see no reliable sources that indicate the winery has done anything notable. There are only casual mentions of the winery, much like the casual mentions that any mom and pop restaurant receives but clearly do pass the GNG. Another editor seemingly spent 6 months looking for reliable sources to expend the article and obviously couldn't find anything that would help pass WP:CORP. Again, looking at those links you posted is there anything you see there that establishes ANY kind of notability for the winery beyond the simple act of just existing? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete. When RS coverage to this sparse degree is all that can be produced ([9][10][11][12]), I think it ought to be deleted (potentially userfied until substantial RS does exist). MURGH ^disc. 07:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see that the article or the discussion above establishes any notability sufficient for Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics). Among the hundreds of thousands of wineries of the world, what have they done do belong among the perhaps 1% or so that motivate a Wikipedia article? Nothing else than the other 99%, it seems after having read the article and the discussion above. If I'm wrong, please insert the relevant information into the article, properly referenced. And be careful when googling for this name, because there is also a Valhalla Vineyard Pinot Noir produced by Anderson's Conn Valley Vineyards in Napa, which (unlike the wines of this winery) gets reviewed by e.g. Parker. Tomas e (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @228 · 04:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I spent 10 minutes on this and was able to expand. Multiple (not just one) wine spectator pieces and a fair amount of other coverage besides. one local paper, while trying to point readers to the lesser-known wineries in the region, refers to Valhalla in a list of three of the best-known. here's that article.Vivisel (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Olympic Pizza and Pasta is often touted as one of "Best Pizza" places in Seattle and also gets a fair amount of local coverage as one of the "Best known" pizza places. But that doesn't mean it is notable enough to pass WP:CORP. While it does have local "acclaim", it has done nothing outside of simply being a pizza place. Same with Valhalla. They have done nothing outside of simply being a winery. They've received "2" mediocre wine reviews from Wine Spectator (which rates 10,000 wines every year). Tasting notes are no different than restaurant reviews-which every single mom and pop restaurant has received dozens of. Of the "multiple" Wine Spectator coverage-most aren't even talking about THIS winery but rather the Conn Valley Vineyard's label in California (completely unrelated to this Virginia winery) and the "Unfilitered" entry is also not talking about the winery but rather a golf event at the Valhalla Golf Club in Kentucky. Of the minisicule Wine Spectator coverage that actually does mention the Virginia winery all we have is brief one line mentions when talking about Virginia wine in general, an advert for a grape stomp during harvest the tasting notes. This is not the type of of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources... that WP:CORP spells out as indicating notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 05:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like you read the pieces cited. You poke fun at the "multiple" Wine Spectator coverage as "brief one line mentions", but if you had read this, cited in the article and linked to in my comment, you'd know that's not the case. Also, more than 2 reviews although I only linked to two. Anyhow! Have a great evening. oh, also, found an AP article on lexisnexis. Vivisel (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Medals in local/regional wine "contests" means absolutely nothing in this case, since they just exist for promotional purposes. This type of information actually does not belong in an encyclopedic article (because of this ongoing AfD I added a "trivia" template to emphasize this rather than to delete it, which I would usually do with similar text), and if this is the only information that can be digged up it's very likely that a winery is not notable. By the way, in most contests, a bronze medal means little more than the wine was liquid (wine that fail to get even the lowest medal are usually those that are so bad that they are considered an embarassment). However, being regularly rated by Wine Spectator and other international wine publications could mean that a winery in fact is notable. In this case I see references to one 1998 and one 1999, and 1998 was apparently the first vintage. If most of their range has been rated by WS in all or almost all vintages since 1998, they could be notable. However, if WS just tasted a few when they were a novelty, IMHO this does not establish notability since it doesn't come above the level of "non-trivial mention" to reach "significant coverage". So have they been regularly rated (i.e. received significant coverage) or not? Tomas e (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I checked out WS (I don't subscribe but search is possible), and the number of ratings is exactly two ("multiple"?). The search engine also finds three tasting notes for three vintages of "Anderson's Conn Valley Pinot Noir Napa Valley Valhalla Vineyards" but as the name indicates that's produced somewhere else by another winery. I previously checked out Wine Advocate, and there it is zero hits, but 11 vintages of Anderson's Conn Valley's Pinot have been rated, so I would consider that producer notable. "Two wines tasted once by WS several years ago, was never repeated, didn't make it into WA" is a formula definitely not enough for notability based on this type of sources, I'm afraid. It's still delete for me. Tomas e (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Wine Spectator piece I linked to above contains an interview with the vineyard's owner and a few solid paragraphs about the winery. 2 AP pieces on nexis, one of which is a 500-word piece completely devoted to the specific winery, which seems to be essentially unique for its production methods in VA (1 of 2 that do it this way, out of how many VA wineries?). I'm no wine expert, and I have nothing to do with the wine wikiproject, I've never been to this winery, and what do I know really. but seems to me that this is a relatively important VA winery, as they go. that may not count for much in the grand scheme of things, but it seems to be notable. Vivisel (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)173.76.21.152 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC) (oops, forgot to login)

Yes, and other than this one piece obviously WS doesn't think it's worth to review their wines again. So obviously not regularly covered by any international wine magazine. A one-time mention by WS is absolutely not sufficient to establish notability. Tomas e (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

While it may be unique in the juvenile and still developing Virginia wine industry, it is not not unique or notable in the greater world of wine. In fact, the concept of using gravity to help crush and press grapes has been around since the Greeks and Romans were making wine. This is akin to say that an artisan bakery is notable because they are one of the first to go back to using wood fire brick ovens in a particular city. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that a totality of facts about a given location or object often establishes notability. Just because it's an old technique doesn't negate the fact that in a state with a significant number of wineries, there are only two that produce wine this way, of which this is one. More broadly, as I said, there is an AP article completely dedicated to this winery and another that discusses it (which you removed from the article, incorrectly claiming it wasn't verifiable), there is a Wine Spectator article with several paragraphs dedicated to the winery and a short interview with its winemaker! I may not know how to wield WP:VARIOUSABBREVIATIONS but I am sure there are scads of excellent subjects in this encyclopedia that have not been blessed with that level of press coverage. Vivisel (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(Partial cross posting from article talk) The notability of this subject is so weak that even when someone tries to use what scant mentioning of the winery there are, they have as much success as squeezing water from a stone. I'm still not sure where this "AP" news story is. Considering that the AP's own archive search shows ZERO results for "Valhalla Vineyards" and searching for the exact headline and AP details of the article that was used as a ref comes up with zip, nada, zilch and nothing-I think we have an issue with WP:V. Articles on truly notable subjects do not have this many issues with finding reliable sources that can be verified. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One user's inability to access two Associated Press articles doesn't constitute non-notability, and though I'm a wiki-novice I don't see anything about "if you have trouble finding more than 2 AP articles" in notability guidelines. (Editors: how many pages does this standard mandate deleted?!) As I said on the article talk page, if you don't have a book in your personal library, do you summarily delete citations to it? But I'm done here. I can't believe I've spent this much time on this... Vivisel (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. With a book there is (hopefully) an ISBN which allows anyone to track the book down at a library. This may take time but it is doable. Under WP:V you have to give enough information about your source to where people can find the source and verify the information. If someone post a book ref, without an ISBN number, and there is no evidence to support that the book even exist then it could be removed. The AP archives are fairly extensive, especially for articles that were picked up on the wire. The fact that the AP own archive has no mention of Valhalla shows at the very least this wasn't picked up on the news wire and at most was distinctly local, trivial mention. Considering that this "AP story" is about the results of a promotional marketing event, I strongly suspect this may have just been a press release affiliated with the marketing association. Again, we're squeezing water from stones because there is not the type of of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.... This should be a big red flag that we are dealing with a subject of distinctly questionable notability at best. Truly notable subjects don't have this issue. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, The article (one of two) is not about the results of a promotional marketing event. It mentions them, and it is about wine yields in Virginia for the year. I'd encourage other folks with LexisNexis access to check. Vivisel (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep Sufficient coverage and recognition to warrant inclusion, albeit weakly. People write about wineries and breweries. They're tourist attractions and the welle established ones seem to meet our general guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Gift shops and local restaurants are tourist attraction too and frankly you can find more "...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" for many gift shops and restaurants than you can for this winery. As a member of WP:WINE, I certainly love the topic of wine and ardently want Wikipedia's coverage of wine to be the best on the internet but I can't let my romanticism blend me to the reality that a winery is ultimately a business. There are literally over a 100,000 wineries in the world and much like restaurants and gift shops they are only notable for simply existing. No self respecting encyclopedia would aim to be a WP:DIRECTORY of gift shops and restaurants. We expect more "...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" that indicate that these gift shops and restaurants are notable for doing something more than just existing. Why do we give wineries a "free pass" on WP:CORP that we do not extend to gift shops and restaurants? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There are oodles of articles discussing this subject in various reliable sources including the Roanoke Times, the Richmond paper, Chalottesville papers, Washington Post, and other such as this one [13] that are very substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oodles? When do brief, casual or distinctly local interest pieces count as "oodles"? And again how is this different from what any gift shop or mom & pop local restaurant receives? The local Star paper link you posted talks about the winery being converted from a peach orchard. How is this notable? How is this more notable than the hundreds of new restaurants converted from some previous (even historic) buildings into new restaurants? How is this winery in any way notable for anything else then merely existing? As I mentioned before, while I am a tireless advocate for expanding Wikipedia's wine coverage, I see no receive why we should disregard Wikipedia's notability policies to give a winery a free pass with the same scant, insignificant and trivial coverage than any mom or pop restaurant receives because it is a winery. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes oodles. Pages and pages and pages of google news returns. I didn't even have to check google books. And let's not pretend that everything printed in reliable independent sources gets included there. Furthermore, I gave a good example of very substantial coverage providing an article entirely about the winery and it's very large wine cave (one of two in the state at the time I think it said?). And your local coverage claims don't wash when the winery is being covered as in this article by major market media outside of its home state. The "local star paper" is a large media market paper in North Carolina. The Washington Post is also a large paper and they've been noted there repeatedly. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please specify, with links, which general guidelines you're refererring to? This winery obviously fails WP:CORP and Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics)? Is there another guideline that you apply which confers notability on all tourist attractions or anything mentioned in a local newspaper??? Or are you just saying that each and every of the world's hundreds of thousands of wineries automatically are notable? Tomas e (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It passes the general notability guildeline and wp:Corp "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." There are oodles of cites including the one noted above that isn't local and that gives very substantial coverage to this winery. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are these cites? I see oodles of cites referring to Valhalla Vineyard Pinot Noir produced by Anderson's Conn Valley Vineyards in Napa, but that isn't the subject of discussion here. This particular winery is in Virginia. Kindly point out a couple examples of this "substantial coverage" to which you're referring. I'm not seeing it. I see passing mentions, but nothing really substantial. The Star article you linked to (nice article too) doesn't quite qualify; note that even Wine Spectator routinely profile obscure wineries but such profiles don't make them notable. This winery has a weak claim of notability by being one of the few wineries that perform processing underground, but that in itself isn't so unusual that it warrants an article in an encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. This article is an example of why the Wikipedia Wine Project developed the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics). Even in the article's currently expanded state, I see only facts that bring notability up to local or regional standards, which doesn't quite meet the criteria for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have studied the proposed guideline and consider it inferior to the general notability guideline as it seems to rely upon subjective notions of "significance" which are not articulated further. In any case, as it has not been accepted as a proper guideline, it carries no weight here. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Weak Delete//incubate Just not enough coverage yet. Might well be in the future. NBeale (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete Wineries are a touchy subject when it comes to notability. They tend to get local coverage, and sometimes the wines get national mention in the form of reviews. That really isn't enough to establish them as being worthy in an encyclopedia. There tends to be romance, art, and passion associated with wines, but when it comes down to it, most wineries are simply small businesses. Medals awarded in competitions really shouldn't be cited as reasons for being notable. Judging tends to be so varied that almost any wine will win something if you send it to enough fairs/competitions/whatever. This winery really isn't any more notable that hundreds or thousands of others across the country. The Bethling ^(Talk) 05:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Keep A few seconds of searching demonstrates that this winery is award-winning and so evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above and the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics) linked just above your vote. These awards, created solely for promotional purposes are of zero value to establishing notability. Tomas e (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The awards in question are a peer review and being published in a professional journal, constitute a source of the highest quality. Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics) on the other hand is not a guideline - please do not misrepresent it. It is just the personal opinion of particular editors and has no standing here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The proposed guideline is written by people who are knowledgeable about the subject--which is important in critically evaluating sources. Pretty much you just fell for the classic con of marketing above in being "wowed" by a wine competition medal. People that don't understand the wine industry or are not knowledgeable about the subject tend to fall for the same con as well, which is at the root of most advertising and marketing. Winning a medal at these wine tasting events is not like winning a medal at the Olympics. There are literally thousands of these tasting events featuring hundreds of thousands of wines every year. The point is not to pick out the categorically "best" wine but rather to give as many entrants a marketing tool which they can use to "impress" consumers who fall for such things. Take the "Virginia Governor's" cup mentioned in the Valhalla Vineyards article. Of the 233 wines who entered the competition 133 won a medal. As all the wineries entered multiple wines it ended up that every single winery won at least 1 medal. It is like your school's athletic "field day" where everyone gets a ribbon. The "peer reviewed" ones are the biggest scam since winemakers are hesitant to criticize the work of a peer because when it is that peer's turn to review the wines, they fret getting a similarly critically review. (We see this folly play out many times in the "peer tasting" panels of AOC wines in France). Now to know things like this, you have to be the industry and/or be well versed in the subject matter, otherwise Wikipedia will fall for the same scams that Colonel Warden and Vivisel fell for. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are excellent points that the closing admin needs to take into consideration. Remember, this is not a vote. A deletion decision is based on the merits of the arguments presented here, and so far the 'keep' arguments have not held water. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Truly, this can't be emphasized enough, wine awards are as common as state fairs, and the competitions themselves in most cases would not warrant Wikipedia inclusion. A small handful of global competitions are notable, but the vast number of accolades even they award ought not to be relevant to an encyclopedic article. The key issue in this AFD is if the winery itself has received thorough coverage in third-party reliable sources. "Awards" and the odd tasting note need to be disregarded. MURGH ^disc. 22:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. We have ample testimony of reliable sources including Wine Spectator, New York Times and Vineyard & Winery Management. Your personal opinion as to the merits of this vineyard are just that - your own personal opinion - and so carries little weight. I have no personal opinion about the place but consider that we have ample support from well-established professional sources and these easily trump your opinion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense? Did you read what I wrote? The awards are without encyclopedic merit. Please understand. Nothing else. I have no personal bias towards this winery either. Do forgive, I must admit to not having spotted the in-depth coverage in NYT in this mess. MURGH ^disc. 23:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The NYT reference is not long but it seems significant: "Even in the commonwealth, it is hard to find the much-honored Valhalla reds (like a cabernet franc called Gotterdammerung and a shiraz) that Dr. James Vascik, a neurosurgeon, produces 2,000 feet above the Roanoke Valley." If the NYT describes their wines as "much-honored" then their status is evidently notable. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that the Wine Spectator coverage is essentially "tasting notes"? Are you aware that Wine Spectator reviews over 10,000 wines every year and that tasting notes are just as common as the hundreds of thousands of restaurant reviews that take place in magazine, newspapers and online forums across the globe? Having 2 wines reviewed by Wine Spectator doesn't infer ANY degree of notability. They certainly don't come even close to fulfilling any of WP:CORP's expectation for ...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.... Now let's look at the other "sources"--

New York Times-Actually where is this? High beam is not coming up with anything. Google is not coming up with anything promising nor does Google news include a NYT article. Ultimately searching the New York Times archive itself also produce zero results.
Vineyard & Winery Management-Where is this too? Again Google and Google news produce no usable RS. The magazine (which is not very notable itself) doesn't have a good archive search but searching magazine website also doesn't yield any results.
Washington Post? Let's see, the only mention at all is a brief tasting note on a 2001 Rosé featured the Post's wine review blog? A single tasting note? The WA Post blog does hundreds of tasting notes each year. This is substantial coverage? How is this different from what any mom and pop deli receives?
What others, let see local regional papers like Roanoke Times? Again brief mentions not much different than local regional papers talking about local restaurants
These questions can not be asked enough--What has this winery done that is notable apart from simply existing? How is this meager coverage any different than what the tens of thousands of Mom & Pop restaurants receive all the time? How are these meager, casual mentions and tastings notes coming close to the WP:CORP call for "...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources..."? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Ah, I see the NYT time now a general interest piece on Virginia wine where Valhalla gets a casual one line mention in a larger piece that is about a general topic. "Much honored"? A single, off hand comment is what you are staking your claims of notability on? Seriously? It is not even from Frank Prial who is the actual wine columnist for the NYT. It is a casual, brief mention in a travel piece. How many local mom and pop restaurants are "much honored" in their individual communities? I wonder how many articles in the New York Times Travel section notes these "much honored" local interest places? Those types of casual mentions in travel pieces is a very weak pillar to establish notable. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So let me see if I can get this new standard of notability you're asserting straight. NYT pieces only count if they're written by the "the actual" wine columnist, AP articles only count if you can find them without using LexisNexis. Novel production methods only count if they're not reviving old ones. Let me just reiterate: We have here 2 Associated Press articles, one completely dedicated to this vineyard, several paragraphs with a brief interview in Wine Spectator, tasting notes in Wine Spectator, 1 mention in the NYT as "much-honored", tasting notes in the Post, and lots of hits in regional papers. We have a vineyard that is one of two in Virginia to use its production method and by numerous accounts is a standout winery in an up-and-coming region. I challenge you to apply that standard more broadly and see how many perfectly good articles come under the knife! Vivisel (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no "new standard" of notability being suggested here, only the standard given already in WP:CORP. The key word in that guideline is "substantial". You are mischaracterizing the NYT piece; it doesn't count not because of the author, but because of the insubstantial coverage, which was a 1-line passing mention in a travel article, thus failing WP:CORP. AP articles should be findable from AP itself; I believe you when you say you have found such an article through Lexis Nexis, but if the coverage is anything like the NYT, or a press release, then that would fail WP:CORP as well. You say one AP source is a 500 word piece devoted to this specific winery. Okay... but is that coverage significant in the context of the wine business? Tons of non-notable restaurants get reviewed all the time in notable publications, but that's simply something to be expected in that business, nothing unusual. Tasting notes and local coverage isn't relevant for a globally-relevant topic such as wine.

This whole argument illustrates the extent that WP:CORP doesn't address secondary coverage specifically related to wineries. For that, we have WP:NOTWINE as a proposed guideline. Within that guideline, see WP:RESTTEST for clarification on what coverage is appropriate. That is the position the 'delete' proponents are arguing from.

Now, I admit that there's a weak claim to notability through having a fairly unique production method, but it isn't uncommon to process wine underground under the influence of gravity. They certainly haven't pioneered that method or done anything to make them notable.

A winery needs to have coverage beyond what any other winery normally gets for simply existing, just like a restaurant. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Mzoli's - an article about a restaurant supported by references to the local press. This is not just any article but one which has been well-scrutinised by the Wikipedia community. This demonstrates that there is no consensus for your narrow, exclusive agenda. Our notability guideline makes it clear that this working definition is not importance or fame but the existence of reliable sources. If there are good sources then you pass whether you're a restaurant a winery, a lighthouse or whatever. That's why we have 3 million articles and counting. And it is this wide, comprehensive coverage which is Wikipedia's great strength. We are here to make available the "sum of human knowledge", not just some small fraction. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa nelly, there is a lot of strawman flying! Let see if we can clean up some of the straw. First, I was commenting on the silliness of staking a winery's notability on the appearance of the quaint phrase "much honored" as if in one fell swoop the NYT granted divine notability to this humble winery by use of this phrase. The silliness was compounded by the fact that this divine notability wasn't even bestowed by the NYT wine writer. Second, the only consideration we are making is WP:CORP expectation of significant, independent coverage. If you notability rest on an obscure AP article that obviously wasn't even picked up on the newswire, then you are falling far short of WP:CORP's standards--whether or not you meet "my" standards is irrelevant. Third, it is is not "novel" if it has already been done before. That is kinda self evident. You could start a strange, new online "wiki" thing tomorrow but it will not be "novel". Fourth, yes the Wine Project does hold wine article strictly to Wikipedia policies. We don't give a rat's @$$ about this whole "inclusionist vs deletionist" thing. We only care about crafting a quality encyclopedia and we have numerous "perfectly good articles" to show for it. There is a reason why every single WP:WINE member that has contributed to this discussion has recommended delete. It is because we are constantly knee-deep involved in wine related articles and are intimately familiar with the fact that there are tens of thousands of wineries in the world and a scant few are truly notable. As abundantely evident by the painful attempts to squeeze water out of the rocks of meager reliable sources and significant coverage--this winery is categorically not one of the scant few wineries that are truly notable. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 02:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, your project does not strictly hew to Wikipedia policies - it is trying to create its own local policies for this subject. If we apply the standard policies then this article is fine as we have numerous reliable sources and no tap-dancing about why they don't count. If we look through the category Category:Virginia wineries, we see that this winery and its article are the best of all those for this wine-growing region. The way you talk, there are thousands of better articles but they are not there. You should go clean up these other inferior articles and then get back to us after you have a proper basis for comparison. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. As you have repeatedly demonstrate, it is difficult for even intelligent, good faith editors to objectively evaluate the quality and context of reliable sources for wine. People who are not familiar with the subject of the wine fall for the marketing and advertizing scams of thinking tasting notes, brief mentions in travel pieces, and medals indicate that a winery is "special". They fall for the romanticism of wine and forget that a winery is not that different from the many local mom & pop restaurants out. If a local coffee shop in Chancellorsville is considered to serve "the best coffee" in Virginia, and is noted with the same amount of meager coverage like a brief, 1 line mention in a NYT travel piece, would you be contending that coffee shop is notable? It would obviously be the "best of all those for this [coffee drinking] region"? The best garage band in Jacksboro, Texas? They only have around 4,000 people and not many garage bands so a band like my cousins which got scant coverage in Austin & Dallas newspapers must be notable since they are best of what garage bands are coming out of Jacksboro. It is a pretty poor argument to say just because an area doesn't have many figures in particular category, then we should lower the bar of notability and grade on a curve. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. There are entire books exclusively devoted to the wine industry of Virginia - The economics of wine grape production in Virginia‎; Virginia wine country; The cost of growing wine grapes in Virginia, etc and so it is a notable wine growing region. If this is the best of our articles on the matter then it is well worth keeping and building upon. It is the other articles which require attention from your project. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm...Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. While the topic of Virginia wine is notable, that doesn't mean "the best" (a POV assessment, BTW) Virginia winery is notable. It certainly doesn't mean that the "best Wikipedia article" on a Virginia winery is notable either. (Also when did having a Wikipedia make you notable to then have a Wikipedia article? A tad circular there) Honestly it is a stretch if Valhalla even merits mentioning in the Virginia wine article. This logic is way off base. New York-style pizza is notable, and there are entire books devoted to it as well as many travel guides for communities across the US that makes mention of which ever restaurant has "the best" New York-style pizza. Would you honestly argue that kind of meager, trivial association of being "the best New York-style pizza in Bedford, Indiana" would merit a pizzeria a Wikipedia article? Again, a very poor, weak claim for notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break II[edit]

Delete per WikiProject Wine. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Wine is not a guideline or policy - just the opinion of the editors who represent their personal opinions above. Per WP:OWN, this project has no special standing in making editorial decisions. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

By dropping in WP:OWN, such a comment suggests one urgently needs to revisit the text and redigest what is being stated. DoriSmith may well be aware WikiProject Wine is not a policy but a group of people who have seen similar articles through wine related AFDs over time, and argued on a consistent basis of source availability. Compare this AFD which the colonel did not "patrol". MURGH ^disc. 08:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this other example for comparison. The sources in that case do not seem significantly different in quality to what we have here. I see no sense in keeping one article but not the other as this would be an absurd inconsistency. We are not a Best of or Greatest Hits but a comprehensive encyclopedia and so should cover these topics in a thorough way. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Transparancy is in everyone's interest. But although there are some similarities in the press attention these winieries receive from their hometown newspapers, Jewell Towne (at this point representing a minimum threshold of notability) is covered by RS well beyond the sort of "honorable mention" of the NYT you cite, and in this context tasting notes and "yellow pages" is insufficient to make up the needed references. Please look more deeply into the differences. MURGH ^disc. 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. No one is claiming ownership but simply pointing out the fact that the editors who are constantly knee deep involved in wine issues and articles, are overwhelming agreeing that in the grand scheme of things this winery is not notable. We're not claiming ownership but rather calling a WP:DUCK, a duck. We've seen countless examples of both notable and non-notable wine topics in our time editing Wikipedia so when every single WP:WINE member who has commented on this AfD has recommended delete (for numerous valid reasons) on this wine article, that should be a red-flag that maybe this article you are fighting so hard far is not truly notable? Again, we don't care about this weird fight of "inclusionists vs deletionists" and the wine project is certainly not bring these articles up for AfD because we are so-called "deletionist". Rather, we are looking at this purely from an angle of Wikipedia's policies and what is best for the encyclopedia. This article shouldn't be "saved" just to score an inclusionist point for the WP:ARS but rather it should be objectively evaluated. Five wine project members have objectively evaluated this article based on Wikipedia's policies and on our knowledge and experience with dealing with wine subjects and we have all found this article sincerely lacking in tangible claims for notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything but hand-waving and arguments from authority to justify deletion of one article but retention of the other and so remain quite unconvinced. The article in question has adequate sources which, between them, tell us enough to support a modest article. Further research may well turn up more sources like the NYT source which no-one knew about until I found it. In this way the encyclopedia is improved and its coverage of wine deepened. Deletion of the article would do nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Stop right there. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimminate collection of information. Coverage of wine is NOT "deepened" by including promotional puff pieces about every winery in existence, which is essentially what's going on with this article. Deletion of this article and others like it would certainly improve the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

But sir, these sources such as your NYT honourable mention is not sufficient as in-depth coverage of this subject. I would consider myself an inclusionist, and at this point I recommend that this article be removed from the WP fold and be userfied until the appropriate sources appear (which may well eventually happen). MURGH ^disc. 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No one is appealing to authority. Only common sense. If a person has never seen a duck, do you think they would have an easy time calling a duck, a WP:DUCK? They may think the animal has unusual feathers or makes weird noises but they probably would have trouble putting their finger on exactly what it is. When it comes to wine articles, the Wine Project has seen a lot of "ducks" and dealt with a lot of notable wine subjects as well as a lot of non-notable wine subject. As every wine project member who has taken the time to comment on this AfD has noted....this "duck" doesn't quack and fails in establishing any kind of notability. It is essentially only notable for "existing" which according to Wikipedia policies is not enough. A winery doesn't get a free pass on WP:CORP by the grand virtue of simply being a winery. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You misrepresent the case. Multiple good sources have been presented which go beyond simple existence and multiple editors find these to be quite satisfactory. There is no case for deletion - not the slightest. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policies like WP:CORP and WP:SIGCOV, we are certainly lacking in "multiple good sources" here. If this was an artisan baker, a garage band, a bed and breakfast, a corner street hot dog vendor, a neighborhood pharmacist or a local mom & pop restaurant these meager travel guides, casual, trivial, mentions and isolated regional general interest pieces sources would fail miserably in establish notability. Why again are we giving a winery a free pass on notability that we don't extend to other businesses? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom, this is not a notable vineyard, and all the sources are primary sources / press releases. I LOL at anyone who cites the vineyard as "Award Winning" -- wine awards are quite literally a dime a dozen. Walk down any grocery store liquor aisle and you will see what I mean. JBsupreme (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition to this large feature story [14] carried by the Associated Press and a major metropolitan paper in North Carolina (the vineyard is in Virginia, so I'm not sure how papers in different states qualify as local, but I'll leave it to the deletionists to explain) the vineyard is also featured as one of seven in Fodor's guide to Virginia and Maryland (there are more than 50 vintners in Virginia and its a major industry in the state so to be featured in that way says something), is featured in East Coast wineries: a complete guide from Maine to Virginia By Carlo DeVito where it's noted that "Valhalla Vineyards make some of the best red wines on the entire east coast." There are oodles more sources on google news and google books. I'm not sure why this particular producer is being targeted by members of the wine project, but it clearly meets the general notability guideline and wp:corp. And I voted weak delete on the other winery mentioned in this discussion, so I have no problem deleting ones that aren't covered substantially in independent reliable souces. But this fourteen year old winery that has a 2,000 square foot cave is a major and notable producer that clearly merits inclusion. I originally said "weakly" notable, before I went looking into the other sources available online and there are many, they aren't just local, and the coverage is substantial. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It disappointing if the distinct differences aren't apparent. In the Valhalla case there is: a few stories in the devoted local newspaper Roanoke Times, a few paragraphs in one Wine Spectator piece, a sentence containing the word "honor" in the New York Times and the AP interest story which was for whatever reasons picked up by Wilmington Morning Star in 98, before they were even able to sell wine. The tasting notes and local competition accolades are entirely moot. That they have since been included in 2 tourist guides covering eastern seaboard wine routes is not cause for celebration, merely directory participation. Any major wine region has scores of such books, and by this threshold, thousands of wine producers globally have such considerably stronger media portfolios. Wikipedia must not become a wine-tour directory, and as such can't blindly assign wine-tour guides as WP:RS. MURGH ^disc. 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a strawman and ad hominem to call the Wine Project members "deletionists" and targeting this producer just because we are overwhelming agreeing that this winery is not notable. If someone nominated a truly notable wine subject, we would be just as "inclusionist" as anyone else trying to establish it's notability. Truth be told, we certainly don't always agree on things as even a casual glance at the WT:WINE archives would prove. It just happens in this case, people who actively work with wine related subjects can clearly see how lacking in notability this winery is. Of the tens of thousands of wineries in this world, Valhalla Vineyards is not one of the scare few that are truly notable. They just aren't. There is no valid, encyclopedic or Wikipedia policy related reason to defend it outside of scoring so called "inclusionist victory". We should be evaluating this article on its merits not as a "symbolic point scoring" endeavor between inclusionists and deletionist. Now about those merits...

North Carolina/Virginia certainly fall into the "regional sphere" of local with them giving WP:UNDUE weight to topics of regional interest. Up here in the Pacific Northwest papers in Oregon, Washington and Idaho regularly cover local "regional" topics with the same undue weight. But regardless this "large feature story" is talking about converting a peach orchard into a winery. As I asked before (and the "keep" voters continually fail to address) how is this any different than a mom & pop converting an old building into a restaurant? In the wine world, land that has been used for orchards or other uses are converted all the time. How is this notable? Is it the cave? That is not even remotely notable in the wine world and has been done for thousands of years and is still widely practiced in places like Champagne. It is like saying a druggist is notable for being one of the few druggists in a particular state to go back to using mortar and pestle. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Our guideline explains that notability is not fame, importance, being unusual or special. It is defined solely by having been noted or noticed in print. It does not matter if the topic is quite ordinary and average - it is covered then it is notable. But in this case, the winery is not ordinary or average - it has coverage which gives it good accolades and distinction. And so our cup is full. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering that nearly every possible person, place, product or idea has been noticed in print obviously our guideline requires a tad more than that quaint oversimplification. In fact, it does. It's called significant coverage WP:SIGCOV which states "Significant coverage" means that sources [note the plural] address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." One isolated article talking about an orchard field being converted into a winery, does not equate to significant coverage anymore than a news article about an old building being converted into a new pizza parlor does. At best this is WP:ONEVENT, which is obviously not a reason to keep an article. One isolated article alone talking about a winery using a common wine cave for storage does not equate to significant coverage anymore than a local news article about the neighborhood druggist giving personal, old fashion care with his mortar and pestle. Casual, trivial mentions in travel pieces and travel guides does not equate to significant coverage any more than a local bed and breakfast inn being mentioned in general interest pieces about the region. The first time I was mentioned "in print" was when I won a regional science fair in the 3rd grade. I received a lovely one paragraph write up in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Chicago Tribune, Kansas City Star and a few other smaller papers. But I assure you, being "noticed in print" doesn't qualify me for a Wikipedia article. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Casual mentions in travel guides are poor claims of notability and wouldn't fly in any other article. We are not WikiTravel. Are travel guides used to establish notability of Bed and Breakfast inns or corner street hot dog carts? There are the "oodles" of google books hits in travel guides for all of those too. Why should wineries get a free pass with such a poor claim of notability? How is this winery different than a B&B with the same kind of meager coverage? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep, I tend to agree with ChildofMidnight's rationale. I do understand why articles like this drive Agne and some others crazy, but when there is sufficient sourcing to write the article, I don't see the benefit of deletion. The WP:WINERY proposal notes, "the abundance of 'non-trivial and reliable published works' in the world of wine presents presents a challenge for determining whether a particular wine business warrants an article in Wikipedia, because this requirement could be "technically" met by many non-notable wineries. Therefore, Wikipedia should include articles on only those wine businesses with some substantial degree of notability and contribution to the wine world." I fear implementing this uniformly and successfully (such that wikipedia only addresses an agreed-upon upper echelon of wineries) would probably require a level of general editor expertise that Wikipedia will never have.--Milowent (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

But this is a point of contention, because the sourcing 'isn't sufficient for writing a good encyclopedic article. Local paper writeups and 2 tourist guides doesn't amount to wide reliable coverage and does deep damage to the kind of level we need when limiting the scope of WP coverage. There is wine made in every 50 US state, and most countries on earth between 30 and 50 degrees latitude, and the number of wine-producing entities that could easily match this sort of sparse source coverage is mind-boggling. I have neighbours who grow vines to our local paper's amusement that would then fulfill criteria for a WP article. Avoiding that is the benefit of deletion. A far cry from upper echelon exclusivity. MURGH ^disc. 23:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this so much more taxing on the competence of general editors than establishing the notability of, say, biographies of physicists and molecular biologists, where few editors would understand their research papers but still absolutely not each and every Ph.D. in the world would be considered notable? By the "standards" (if that is the term to use) that the "keep" voters apply in this case, a minimum of tens of thousands of wineries (and that's a low count - it could well be over 100,000) in the world would be considered "notable". At least if you think that the same criteria should apply outside the U.S. and be applied to sources published in other languages than English. Tomas e (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Because 99% of wikipedia editors don't give a crap about molecular biologists, but they do drink wine.--Milowent (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So you are another "keep voter" advocating that wineries get a free pass on notability that Wikipedia would not extend to other topics? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just the opposite actually. I am arguing that wineries are being treated the same as other topics (as you know, I'm familiar with the debate over lists of wineries and have come around to understanding why having directories of wineries in a page is not a good idea). Here, however, there are arguments being made that wineries shouldn't be treated the same as other topics, because, well, they get too much citable coverage and that coverage doesn't really mean they are notable.--Milowent (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We do not grade on a curve. In other words, there is no set maximum number of articles that we will accept for a given topic area. Instead we have a threshold of acceptability and, if an article passes that threshold, it is acceptable. As a consequence we have 3 million articles and counting - many thousands of athletes, politicians, places, asteroids, etc. See Wikipedia is not paper. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Colonel, I recommend WP:NOT for close reading, such as "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Including tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of non-notable wineries is exactly that. Tomas e (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Slippery slope which explains the fallacious nature of your rhetoric. We are not discussing tens of thousands of articles here, just one. The sources available are adequate to support this per our notability norms and that's that. If we should have many more related articles appearing then we can cross that bridge when we come to it; either accepting the situation or merging the content as appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep article appears to meet general notability guideline as it has significant coverage in reliable sources, that are independent of the winery. Eldumpo (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep Article meets WP:N today with some reliable sources although its content could be improved. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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. Clear consensus to keep, and the original reason specified in the nomination no longer applies. Further discussions can occur on the talk page Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Terran Federation (Starship Troopers)[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment This is the third AfD on this article. Previous ones were either keep or no concensus. Unless the quality of the article has deteriorated then what is the merit of a further nomination? NtheP (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No improvement in over a year - lacks any references. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not factually accurate as the article contains citations from published books. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Unreferenced, possible original research. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep The problem lies in the lack of references rather than in any supposed original research. Most of the information in the article can also be found in the book, but there are no references to support them. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge or keep referenced now. Ikip 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Note to closing admin this page has gone through significant improvements since nomination.[15]Ikip 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Starship Troopers. That article already offers appropriate real-world treatment of the topic. There seems to be some real-world smidgen of something at the bottom of the TF article; that might be worth merging somewhere in Starship Troopers. Fascism in the works of Robert Heinlein might be an appropriate spin-out article, but there's no need for a single article on this one item. --EEMIV (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder if the nominator would support a merge/redirect, User:UNSC Trooper? Ikip 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  - I'll support a merge, if only the referenced stuff goes through. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Speedy keep as an earlier discussion closed as keep and a second discussion also did not result in deletion and as Ikip points out the article is indeed referenced through published books. At worst we would merge the information somewhere and the suggestion above about Fascism in the works of Robert Heilein is worthy of consideration per WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment That would be very problematic and extremely POV. All allegations of fascism directed at Starship Troopers are limited to ambiguous comparisons to Nazi Germany's uniforms and the Federation's strong emphasis on military discipline. Perhaps Authoritarianism (or militarism) in the works of Robert Heinlein would be more appropriate? --UNSC Trooper (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's looking at kicking off such an article rightabout now; insofar as this AfD is concerned, looks like it's going to be a selective merge to the novel. A spin-out on the Political ideology in the works of Robert Heinlein is best discussed on the author's or scifo or novel wikiproject page. --EEMIV (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep and reference better It is well written but the author should have added a reference for every paragraph, for each of the two main sourced he used. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Though central to Starship Troopers, the concept is present in a great deal of Heinlein's fiction, and the article can & should be expanded accordingly. Strange to repeatedly nominate for deletion the central concept in one of the seminal SF works. BTW, I do not seethe point of predicting in the middle of an AfD how the discussion will turn out DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep and expand as this is a concept present in much of Heinlein's literature. Makes no sense to merge or redirect to one novel when the concept is so much a part of numerous other novels and stories by this author. Hint: "Future History". Also happy to note the improvements, even though AFD is not supposed to force such within some arbitrary WP:DEADLINE in contrevention to guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep There is a reference there to a book discussing the politics of it. Google book search shows other mentions of it [16] and some of those are probably also about it in itself, not just a brief mention of the name when talking about the series. Dream Focus 12:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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. Valid points have been made here that this case had no lasting impact; but equally there is a good argument that it passes the notability threshold anyway through sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. I personally find merit in the argument that this could possibly be better portrayed via a merge to Tiger Management, but there is certainly no consensus here to delete this or to impose a merge. ~ mazca ^talk 12:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co., Weiss, and Shepard[edit]

NOTE: this AfD was started by a userid who is now indefinitely blocked. However, it's in my view still an AfD that's worth running to conclusion, and therefore I choose to stand behind the edit that started the AfD even if I personally may not agree with the reasons offered for deletion. Determining if the article documents a notable event will be useful. ++Lar: t/c 05:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE: Lawsuit filed, lawsuit withdrawn. No legal opinions issued. Much of article consists of padding, down to the index number, synthesis. Classic WP:MASK, even after some paring down. Wikipedia is not a compendium of trivial lawsuits. Compare this rubbish to articles on notable lawsuits such as the "hot coffee case," Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per my nom. Article goes into minute detail on a lawsuit filed twelve years ago that was withdrawn some months later and established no legal precedent. Nothing in Google. Media coverage does not establish notability. Fails WP:PERSISTENCE: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Also fails WP:EFFECT, which says "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." In this case a suit was filed and withdrawn. The lawsuit was not catalyst for anything, as best as I can tell, and there is no connction shown between the statute enacted in the "aftermath" section and the lawsuit. The testimony quoted in that section was given before the suit was filed, and the quotation from Shepard in that section does not mention the lawsuit. I've tried to deal with some of this article's multiple issues, removing some of the worst irrelevancies such as odd references to recent Bloomberg takeover of the magazine, but overriding notability issue remains.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your arguments do not change the fact that The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Economist, Mediaweek, Wall Street Journal, Technology Review. Library Journal and Fortune magazine all wrote articles on this suit. Ikip 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  - The Economist piece doesn't discuss the suit at all (I just checked it), so you might want to strike that one. Franamax (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
    - And others, see below. Cool Hand Luke 08:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    - Coverage of the suit at the time is of no consequence. See WP:PERSISTENCE: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." The article is so grotesquely padded with legal technicalities that one loses site of the fact that it had no impact. To artificially construct impact, the article incorporated in the "aftermath" section testimony given by a McGraw Hill official before the suit was filed, and a law that was passed in October 2008! The rest is how the fund went out of business. As a legal case it was a nonevent.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Your claims do not change the fact that Economist, Library Journal, Technology Review, and Business Week did not mention the lawsuit (and you clearly didn't even bother to check). Nor does it change the fact that all of the coverage is fleeting (see WP:NOTNEWS), and much of it is trivial (two sentences in an article or so). There are a handful of articles announcing the filing of the suit, and there are some that speculate that it might answer a novel legal question (it didn't because it settled for $0). This sort of coverage is not notable, and much of the material really belongs in Tiger Management, which could certainly use more work. I do not believe there is independent notability for this suit. Cool Hand Luke 08:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep. As the sources indicate, the suit was notable for two reasons: (1) it was the first time that a court case had examined the issue of electronic vs print publishing, and (2) the unprecedented size of the damages demand was noted by the media and watched with concern by the publishing industry. Please note that the nominator drastically reduced the length of the article's lede, among other removals of article text, categories, and links to it from other articles, without discussion after nominating it for deletion. I've invited participation in this discussion from several related wikiprojects, including one that the nominator is an active member of [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Cla68's first argument is factually false. The court never considered or ruled on the issue; the case settled before it did. THF (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  - The court did consider the issue, but the case was settled before the court could issue a decision. The looming court decision on the motion likely had an effect on the parties decision to settle, but that's up to the reader to decide. Cla68 (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
    - But it's misleading to say that this was the first time a court had "examined" an issue. "Examined" implies that a ruling was issue. What your padded article obscures through sheer WP:LARD is that no rulings of any kind were issued. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
      - WP:LARD is an essay, heavily self promoted by the creator, as per the tag on top, "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." Ikip 17:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

1 & 2 would matter if the suit hadn't been settled before trial without payment of a nickel, and if it had resulted in legal precedent, which it didn't. The demand in a lawsuit is meaningless. I could sue my dry cleaner tomorrow for $1 trillion. By the way, the suit against Dow Jones that *did* result in a massive verdict isn't significant enough to have an article of its own. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Who said that the lawsuit against Dow Jones isn't significant enough to have an article of its own? This article laid fallow for five years simply because, it appears, no one was willing or able to go and get the sources needed to develop it. Cla68 (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I notice that you drastically shortened the intro again. Why would you make such a drastic change to the article while it's undergoing AfD? Cla68 (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

~~It's routine to edit articles that are nominated for deletion, sometimes drastically, sometimes even to stubbify them if necessary.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)~~

If necessary being the operative phrase. Your hatchet job is not necessary, and needs reverting. ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have anything of substance to say on my edits, you should say so on the talk page. As of this moment, all you've done is engaged in personal attacks. I've asked for editing help from the relevant wikiprojeccts, particularly Wikiproject Law. That's not a complete waste of time if this article is deleted, because a discussion is underway about possible other articles that may be created.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

~~Speedy keep~~ - WP:POINTy nomination by someone who many folk think might be Gary Weiss himself, or someone closely allied with him, (although multiple attempts to determine this one way or the other conclusively have so far been unsuccessful, as some people do learn how to sock better with practice). The nomination has no real basis in fact. The lawsuit was an important one, and it is possible that it lead directly to significant changes in law. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- - Change my view to keep... enough reasons exist to run this through to conclusion that I no longer think a speedy is appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 05:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I express no opinion on this nomination at this time, but I think it's unlikely that this lawsuit led to much of anything. It wasn't even settled for nuisance value ($0), and it produced no legal precedent whatsoever. That said, there does seem to be a handful of quality independent sources. Cool Hand Luke 23:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Do you think that perhaps the article should be renamed "Fall of the Wizard" and focus on Weiss' original article and the reaction in the media and by others to it, including the lawsuit? The reaction to the article in the finance and publishing communities does appear to be noteworthy, judging by the sources involved. Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- If Lar is going to make accusations that might influence the course of this AfD then (s)he should provide evidence. Who are these "many folk" who think that the nominator is a puppet and where has this been debated? As it happens I agree with the nomination - lawsuits like this are ten a penny. I don't know any of the parties here but something is obviously going on. andy (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

~~Eh, what's going on is obvious ("well poisoning"). Let's keep this focused on the notability of the article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)~~

The article's plenty notable, and was a very well written work, before you started hacking away at it. Your issue with the article, I suspect, is that it's not uniformly positive about Gary Weiss and doesn't hew your party line. Notability is just what you happened to latch onto as a way to remove it. You have a long history of trying to POV push anything related to Gary Weiss, as a review of your contributions to Naked Short Selling, Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne et al will reveal. That's all the evidence an interested participant would need to draw the conclusion that it's likely you are Gary, or a close ally of his. You're clever enough to have organized your affairs so that an SPI would be a waste of time but the circumstantial evidence is strong. That's not well poisoning, that's disclosing your COI. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from "plenty notable," do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion other than personal attacks? Can you address the notability issue? Thanks, --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the article presents a BLP issue for Robertson, not Weiss. It of necessity dredges up the long-forgotten allegations in "Fall of the Wizard," which are extremely negative to Robertson. I'm not faulting the author of the Wiki article for that, it's just inevitable were the article to be kept. I don't see a BLP issue for Weiss and I haven't raised that issue. I've raised notability issues, and I see that two editors appear to agree with me at this early stage. Do you have anything to say on the substance of this AfD, or are you going to restrict your comments here to attacking me?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Your COI is relevant to this, regardless of how you try to spin away from it. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"My COI" is nonexistent. I could make an immense fuss about the author of this article along similar lines, but it just isn't relevant or helpful, and it doesn't belong here. You're attacking me in this discussion is

disruptive and needs to stop. Even if I were Weiss, Robertson or Shepard, and I'm not either of those gents, this AfD would need to be determined on whether it meets notability standards. You can run but you can't hide from that. I'm surprised an administrator hasn't come along to redact your comments. No, actually I'm not surprised. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing what COI you think Cla has... and if you would be proved to have a COI, this would be viewed as a bad-faith nom, which could—and probably would—have a huge effect on the outcome of this AfD. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely my point: this AfD has been poisoned by Lar's accusations. What's done is done. I can only hope that the closing administrator takes it into account.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. If we included every trivial case like this wikipedia would fill up in a week. It has nothing of any encyclopaedic value whatsoever. andy (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

comment - should we then lose all the rediculous amime stuff? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF --Aka042 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

keep - modest encyclopedic value, and the electrons used don't take up that much space. i.e., notable enough. Does the article need work? sure. is it somewhat unflatering to its subjects, sure. but both of those are not reasons for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Once the WP:SYN and WP:LARD is removed, and once the material that should be in Tiger Management is moved there, there's nothing left worthy of an independent article. Any RS'd content can be included in Tiger Management without loss to the project. THF (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I find Cla68's argument concerning the "electronic vs print publishing" issue compelling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep per Cla68. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Cla68's reasoning. ArcAngel (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

- Comment. Cla68's first argument about "electronic vs print publishing" is factually false. The court never considered or ruled on the issue; the case settled before it did. THF (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  - The court did consider the issue, but the case was settled before the court could issue a decision. The looming court decision on the motion likely had an effect on the parties decision to settle, but that's up to the reader to decide. Cla68 (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
    - Your missing the point. You say that this was the first time a court had ever "examined" the issue, and THF is right that this is just factually wrong. No opinion was issued, so the court never "examined" it. For all we know, the judge may have felt the motion was out of order or something and decided not to examine it. We'll never know as no opinion was issued. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Wow. I see that nothing has changed since I last dipped my toe in the Overstock waters approximately eighteen months ago[22]. I see that everything related to Overstock, Patrick Byrne or Gary Weiss always results in lively and heated discussion and off-wiki attention. I'll repeat what I said in an earlier context of the Overstock investigation, after I finally got an administrator's attention to deal with the end of that affair. A lawsuit or investigation that is settled, as this one is or as the Overstock one is, no longer has any relevancy and shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. The details of the investigation, like the details of the suit here, are "no longer relevant." It's been asserted that there was no legal precedent, and I see no response to that. Assuming that is correct, I think it's time to put this one out of its misery. I know there's ill feeling toward Weiss. That's apparent from the comments. But we shouldn't be venting that by creating dubious articles on every legal scrape he's been in.Stetsonharry (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary which makes these sentences incorrect: "A lawsuit or investigation that is settled, as this one is or as the Overstock one is, no longer has any relevancy and shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. The details of the investigation, like the details of the suit here, are "no longer relevant." RE: "It's been asserted that there was no legal precedent, and I see no response to that." There is no requirement that their be "legal precedence", the only requirement is that the page meet notability guidelines, which it overwhelmingly does. Ikip 17:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Quite an opera here since I last looked in. On your points: true about notability not temporary, but the Overstock investigation was removed on the basis of it no longer having any lasting impact. That seems to be parallel here, along with the striking personnel similarities. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep per the fact that $8 billion flowed into and grew within Tiger Management during the year of the lawsuit. If that is not a palpable enough indicator of the importance of the suit itself in fighting back the arrogance of the publisher of the defamatory and sloppy journalism, I don't know what would be. Wikipedia should not be sweeping under the rug important events having $8 billion hanging in the balance. This is a well-written article, and its deletion would highlight an embarrassing agenda that runs counter to a freely-licensed encyclopedia. -- Cool3 (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

~~Huh? On the contrary, the cash inflow indicates that the lawsuit was of zero importance. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)~~

What concerns me so much about this AFD, which is now spilling over to ANI, is that volunteer editors with no credentials are second guessing real journalists such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Economist, Mediaweek, Wall Street Journal, Technology Review. Library Journal and Fortune magazine. Some how, all of these journalists found that this story was relavant and notable, but 3 or 4 wikipedia volunteer editors WP:Wikilawyer that this article doesn't belong on wikipedia. Ikip 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I addressed that above. See WP:PERSISTENCE. I know, it's just a notability guideline. But it's supposed to guide this discussion. Also it was previously pointed out that the Economist and Library Journal don't mention this lawsuit. We're not substituting our judgment for anybody, we're just applying the notbility guideline, which could not be more clear. Of the publications that actually did mention the suit, all did so at the time of the suit or after its withdrawal.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per THF. I think Lar's suspicions may be correct, but the possible involvement of a subject does not somehow make the article more notable. It's a suit with no opinions that settled for a whopping $0. There are some sources about the case, but these suits are not rare, and reports of high damages demands do not make it notable. Cool Hand Luke 12:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep If any one AFD can show that our rules are out of control, and that anyone can find a reason to delete anything, it would be this AFD. This is the first time I have ever heard such obscure rules as WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE, but somehow, editors are trying to argue that these obscure rules trump reliable sources, a rule which everyone knows about, and which Cool Hand Luke himself acknowledges, "there does seem to be a handful of quality independent sources". Very well referenced article. Ikip 17:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh? WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE aren't "obscure rules" - they're shortcuts to Wikipedia:Notability (events) which is a key WP guideline! So yes, they may well trump rules "which everyone knows about". I don't care a hoot if it's deleted or not (I think it should be but I won't weep either way) but to argue about whether Notability trumps Reliable Sources is weird! andy (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
A handful of reliable sources with less extensive coverage than this article would suggest. Much of it should certainly go to Tiger Management, but there is not much to show the suit is independently notable from the fund, as our policies require. At any rate, this AFD is hash anyway; not surprising given that the nominator is widely believed to have a conflict of interest. I recognize that problem, but still honestly believe this suit falls on the far side of notability. Cool Hand Luke 20:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
That's correct. The atmosphere of this AfD has been completely poisoned. I hope the closing administrator is prepared to enforce policies rather than to just blindly treat this as a "vote." The vast majority of the "keep" votes at this time don't even attempt to address the applicable notability standard. This is the kind of article (and AfD) that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included on the Talk:Gary Weiss, Talk:BusinessWeek, Talk:Tiger Management, Talk:McGraw-Hill page(s) which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep - it's not the easiest thing to have a topic covered by all of these individual, independent, reliable sources: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Economist, Mediaweek, Wall Street Journal, Technology Review, Library Journal and Fortune. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Library Journal does not cover this lawsuit in the reference cited - which you can find here. andy (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, and I have struck the journal above. However, that doesn't change the fact that eight different organizations, all reliable sources, have covered this. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You've obviously not actually looked at any of the sources. Many are simply about Tiger Management and only devote two sentences to this lawsuit. The Economist article doesn't appear to cover it at all. Look, I get that this may be a COI AFD nomination, but that doesn't mean our rules should take a holiday. Cool Hand Luke 08:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. That'll teach me to be swayed by what others say above and then use it for my argument. I've struck, but whether that changes my !vote or not is a question for tomorrow when I get back to the computer. Thanks for the comments, andy and CHL. My apologies, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep - if we were simply an encyclopaedia of legal cases then I could see the logic of "Lawsuit filed, lawsuit withdrawn. No legal opinions issued" as an argument for deletion, as no legal precedent has been set. However we are a general interest encyclopaedia, and therefore I see no problem in our finding space for information as widely covered as this. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Appears to be quite notable per substantial coverage in reliable sources. A case doesn't have to be decided to be notable. How best to include the information is another issue, but I don't see a lack of sourcing or notability in this instance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of notable external content to work with here, and that says something, even if the case wasn't typical. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep per CoM and WereSpielChequers.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep, for basically two reasons: I find Cla68 and Lar's reasoning most compelling; to a lesser extent, it seems that the nomination itself was quite POINT-y, given that the nominator first shaved the article lede quite substantially. Unit Anode 17:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Speedy keep - It appears quite notable per coverage of reliable sources and the fact that the nominator was indefinitely blocked. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy New Year!} at ≈ 00:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that the nom was indef blocked, while validating the concerns I had about the reason it was nominated in the first place, isn't relevant any more as other established users have identified issues they find concerning about the notabiity of the article. That's why I chose to stand behind the nom. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep, clearly notable based on widespread coverage in published sources. Everyking (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
note I struck the indefinetly banned user's comments, as is custom. Ikip 18:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I read about this article at Wikipedia Review, where there is quite a discussion going on, lead by cla68 and Judd Bagley of Overstock.com. Evidently this is the latest artillery shell to be lobbed in the ongoing battle between Overstock.com and its allies and Mr. Weiss. That might explain why there are so many editors here ignoring established site policies, so as to vote "keep" for an article of no merit whatsoever. --AmishPete (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

— AmishPete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ikip 22:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep but a scalpel may be useful too. Other than this being an outpost for one of the all-time epic wiki-wars, I would judge any lawsuit article by how it changed the world. One way is through a novel decision, especially one that sets precedent. Another way is through the effect of a lawsuit on public attitudes, corporate conduct, etc. I'm swayed by the NY Times saying "This appears to be the first case in which the publication rule has been applied to a magazine that was initially published electronically". Aside from the lesson of don't wait 'til the last day to file your suit, which we all learned with school assignments, this looks like a novel "gotcha" and is worthy of reporting here. That said, the article has a whole lot of puff, but I'll take that up elsewhere. Franamax (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Trivial, No legal principles involved, since it was settled out of court. The question of publication date was decided later by statute, not by this case. If the case had been decided on that basis then it would been a precedent, at least in a popular sense. That a motion was made is not a precedent, either in technical or common use. It was not even ruled on, even in a preliminary way. Though it was said by "Floyd Adams, a First Amendment lawyer representing BusinessWeek, “This will be the first case in which the courts address the impact of a publication appearing on the Net rather than on paper" "-- his prediction turned out to be wrong--the courts did not address the issue, or even have the opportunity to do so. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You've cited no actual policies in support of your recommendation. Calling it "trivial" is simply not a sound reason for deletion. It's well-sourced and notable in its own right. It's a bit of a marginal topic, but since this encyclopedia isn't made of paper, that doesn't matter nearly as much. Unit Anode 05:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

For something trivial, there sure are a lot of published sources about it... Everyking (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you specify which exact published sources are about "it"? I know for sure that at least one source doesn't mention the suit at all, it just backs up mundane facts. Franamax (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The following sources specifically mention the suit:
Associated Press (November 4, 1997). "Digital, corner newsstands go head-to-head: Question of timing in magazine publishing goes to court". The Fresno Bee. p. D14.
Garigliano, Jeff (June 1, 1997). "Steep libel claims raise concerns". Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management. Cowles Business Media Inc. p. 19.
Kelly, Keith J. (December 18, 1997). "Money Aside, Manager Settles Suit". New York Daily News. p. 78.
New York Times (January 7, 1997). "Corrections".
Reilly, Patrick M. (April 4, 1997). "Investor files papers signaling intent to sue Business Week for $1 billion". Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones.
Wall Street Journal (December 18, 1997). "Business Week Agrees to Settle Libel Suit Brought by Investor". (Dow Jones).
Bumiller, Elisabeth (September 29, 1998). "Public Lives; Giving Out Millions While Losing Billions" (Newspaper article). New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2009.
New York Supreme Court (1997). "Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co., Weiss, and Shepard" (Court filing). New York Unified Court System. Retrieved November 11, 2009.
Oppel, Richard A., Jr. (December 19, 1999). "A Tiger Fights To Reclaim His Old Roar" (Newspaper article). New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Pogrebin, Robin (November 3, 1997). "Publication Date Open to Dispute In Internet Age" (Newspaper article). New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2009.
Truell, Peter (December 18, 1997). "The Media Business; Investor Settles Libel Suit Against Business Week" (Newspaper article). New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2009.
Weiss, Gary (April 1, 1996). "Fall of the Wizard" (Magazine article). Business Week. McGraw-Hill. Retrieved November 11, 2009. (BusinessWeek's settlement statement is appended to the end of this article)

Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Oppel article mentions that Robertson's suit has made people afraid to criticize him. I neglected to mention that in the article, but it probably should be. Again, this suit had a notable effect even though it wasn't decided in court. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The court filing and the original article with statement are not independent sources and cannot establishe notability. Several of the other sources (including the later two NYT articles) appear to mention the suit only in passing. This is especially striking in the 1999 article—it does a moderately long postmortem on Tiger Management and only devotes two sentences to the lawsuit. This suggests to me that the original nominator was likely correct—it lacks the ENDURANCE required to be considered an independently notable subject. See also NOTNEWS. Much of this material should go to the Tiger Management article, but the SYN at the end should be cut entirely. Cool Hand Luke 08:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep There are plenty of refs and this is quite interesting. NBeale (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of those statements are true, but the nomination is not on the grounds that it's an uninteresting article. What do you think of the policy issues here? Is it notable? andy (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. We don't create articles using some synthesis claims to notability to settle old wikipedia grudges.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep, notable, based on all the press coverage that it received. The fact that it didn't actually end up in a courtroom, nor that the article could use some improving, is not really relevant in light of that fact. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC).
Weak keep based on the sources provided, which to me indicate that it has been covered by enough third-party sources to merit inclusion. Some decent arguments from both sides (and a decent amount of poor arguments from both sides). I agree, however, that the fact that it wasn't decided doesn't really indicate that it is not notable, at least in my mind. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Emergency!. No prejudice against keeping if independent notability can be shown. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Rampart General Hospital[edit]

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

Delete this fictional location that fails the WP:GNG with a lack of multiple, independent WP:RS. WossOccurring (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep This nomination seems to be part of a deletion spree being made hastily as a spinoff of another AFD. This seems improper as, by nominating numerous similar articles together, but not as a group, the action tends to overload our system. The proper deletion process is not being followed - no discussion at the article, no effort to find sources, no effort to consider alternatives to deletion. Good sources for this topic do exist and I have added one to the article but AFD is not cleanup and our volunteer good will and efforts should not be abused in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Merge back into Emergency!. There's not enough material here to justify a separate article, and the fictional hospital has no independent notability. Colonel Warden's wikilawyering on behalf of these articles is beside the point; if someone says, "well, there's all these other articles," it's only to be expected that they are going to be looked over. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge into Emergency!. Fails notability on its own due to a lack of multiple reliable and independentn sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Merge into Emergency!. Fictional hospitals don't need their own articles. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ragnhild Alexandra Lorentzen[edit]

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

Also nominating:

Ragnhild Lorentzen

For some reason there are two articles on the same person. Zero indication of notability. Notability is not inherited, and being a distant relative of Queen Elizabeth II does not mean you need an article. Reywas92^Talk 23:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep. The second half of this Guardian article is an argument for notability, and so is the coverage of her as part-owner of a two restaurants in California from this search. Sometimes people related to notable people are notable in their own right. - Eastmain (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- That article means nothing. The first half is just satirizing how far down the line of succession they had to go to get to her. The co-ownership also means nothing. Owning one of the hundreds of thousands of restaurants in the world and getting a few press mentions is not notability. Non-notable + non-notable =/= Notable. Reywas92^Talk 00:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: Not remotely close. Marrying a monarch makes you notable. Being the spouse of a President makes you notable. Being the commoner child of an obscure princess doesn't. Lorentzen is not herself legally noble, and she fulfills no part of WP:BIO. This is extreme inclusionism run rampant. RGTraynor 06:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Changing to Weak Keep per Edward's citation of the name under which more references exist. I'm still unsold on her notability, but there are certainly enough in-depth sources to pass the GNG. RGTraynor 08:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  - You are entitled to your opinion, but calling Princess Ragnhild fru Lorentzen an "obscure" princess is bit of a stretch. Obscure in England maybe, but there is a world beyond the United Kingdom as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable as a restaurant owner, not notable as a noblewoman, and the intersection of those sets is also not specifically notable. --Slashme (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Great-great granddaughter of Victoria and #66 in line to be Queen? Notability is not inherited. The one article is satire, listing the rejections of interview requests until the author gets down to #66 who says she was unaware that was her number. (I suppose I am way, way, way farther down the list). Edison (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Niece of the current king of Norway. People with similar family relationships, for example the nieces of the current crown prince, Maud Angelica Behn, Leah Isadora Behn, and Emma Tallulah Behn, are all considered notable enough to be in paper encyclopedias such as Store norske leksikon, and being the niece of the king is a claim to notability of about equal value, even though her home in the US makes her less covered in Norwegian press than the nieces of Haakon. In addition to the Guardian article, Ragnhild has been covered by Aftenposten [23]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Interesting that you mention those three nieces. What distinguishes them is that they are all in close line of succession to the Norwegian throne. As a commoner, Lorentzen is not. PS: Interesting twice that you mention that those three nieces are in a Norwegian encyclopedia ... but if Lorentzen was in it herself, you'd have mentioned it, yes? Sounds like that particular source doesn't consider her notable either. RGTraynor 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- True, Ragnhild Lorentzen does not have an article (though she is mentioned in the bio of her mother). It is also true that Maud Angelica and the others are in relative close succession to the throne, but a lot of things would need to go wrong if that were to happen. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep and work on getting better sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Nobility may be inherited, but notability is not.Yilloslime ^T_C 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Weak Delete. There seems to be little significant coverage. --Pink Bull 04:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Here's an SFGate story in 1996 about the brewery going online. I think you all are looking for sources wrong; (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) are both this person, if I'm reading it right. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

actually, my biggest reason for Keep is that the Guardian article is so good, much better than this Wikipedia page, and that I'm glad that the deletionists are around to point me to the good articles to read. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete Being the niece of the King is not notable (See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Family). She is not notable as a restaurateur. Googling "Ragnhild Alexandra Lorentzen," "Raggi Lorentzen," and "Raggi Long" produce less than 200 hits, but most of those 200 hits are just family trees and lists of royal succession. I'm not notable, and there are more hits for me than for her. OCNative (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. I wouldn't have relisted this one. Clear consensus for retention here. –MuZemike 00:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Pocket Devil[edit]

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

The article does not meet the General notability guideline. All attempts to find reliable and independent sources have failed. A prod was deleted from this article previously with no discussion nor contention of its addition by an anonymous editor. Brian Reading (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Two potential sources are [24] and [25]. Alison22 (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I don't believe the first source would work for Wikipedia as it appears to classify as a self-published source. Since the second source is in Italian, which I can't understand, I can't really evaluate as to whether it is an acceptable source. Is there any evidence of such? Thanks! Brian Reading (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep: Per [26], [27], [28], and [29]. Joe Chill (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep per sources above. Alison22 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Joe Chill, hopefully someone will integrate those sources, as of right now the article is relying on BLOGSPOT.COM for referencing. JBsupreme (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan (disambiguation)[edit]

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

disambiguation of Pakistan is nonsensical Arjun#talk 18:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment At first blush, it may seem that way, since most people don't think of Bangladesh as having once been East Pakistan, nor do they think of both West and East Pakistan as once having been part of British India. It's not unusual in separating between various articles, however. We also have United Kingdom (disambiguation), Germany (disambiguation), Korea (disambiguation), etc. Mandsford (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep As Mandsford points out, it's not unusual to have a disambiguation page even where the main use is by far the most common one. It always makes me laugh to see the disambiguation page for AfD contains Appetite for Destruction, even though no-one ever abbreviates album names like that! I've editted the article, added a couple more things to show what I mean, I'm sure there's dozens of articles that could be added. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep to explain change in use of name over time, but take off links to football teams, etc. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
keep Keep the links to both the historical regions of East and West Pakistan. Remove the links to articles such as the Pakistan Army and whatnot. Canadian (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment The article only contained link to East Pakistan and West Pakistan when originally nomed - I added the others. If it's not appropriate for these to be on a disambiguation page then feel free to remove them, I'm not particularly experienced with this kind of page. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment As said above, The article only contained link to East Pakistan and West Pakistan when originally nominated. My logic to nominate the page was that Bangladesh was referred to as East Pakistan and not Pakistan. Arjun#talk 12:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

But we do have an article on East Pakistan, West Pakistan and Pakistan so disambiguation is appropriate Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep per Mandsford. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep The nomination is nonsensical. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment The nomination may seem nonsensical, but it appears to have been made in good faith. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep. The disambiguation page is indeed helpful, but I think I can sympathize with this nomination. Sports teams have no place on this dab. JBsupreme (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Again, when the nomination was made just East Pakistan and West Pakistan were on it . I added the rest. I'm not experienced with disambig pages but thought I'd have a go. Very sorry if thats put your nose out of joint (as the edit summary for the article seems to suggest). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep per users above. Georgiebest7 (talk · contribs) has added one more useful (and interesting) link to the page—Pakistan, India.--Zvn (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep per users above and especially since there is a link to Pakistan, India. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep seems like a reasonable and useful (at least now it is) disambig. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Modern cities[edit]

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

Essay Eeekster (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete essay Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete: An essay. Joe Chill (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete as an essay (complete with "In conclusion" paragraph). I thought that the title might be good for a redirect, but I can't find a suitable destination. EALacey (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Our articles are supposed to be essays so the nomination is incomprehensible and not a reason to delete - please note the lack of any reference to policy. The article contains a good source to support the content and there are literally thousands of books devoted exclusively to this topic. The article just needs some TLC to integrate it with our other similar articles about architecture and planning such as New town. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOT#OR.

WP:NOT#ESSAY: Wikipedia is not for "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge."
WP:NOT#OR: Wikipedia is not for "Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites."

It's worth pointing out that the word "Dubai" cannot be found in the only reference currently cited, making the entire thing WP:OR. Is that sufficient references to policy? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You fail to demonstrate that this article is original or personal. As a specific point, you object to the inclusion of Dubai. I haven't got the references listed in the article to hand so I just search afresh and it is trivial to find numerous sources to support the article's example such as Cities of the Middle East and North Africa: a historical encyclopedia‎ — "The origins of the modern city of Dubai are..."; National Geographic, volume 148‎ - Page 509 — "Today Dubai is a modern city with every amenity". You fail to demonstrate that we cannot improve the article by summarising the many such sources and fail to demonstrate that the blunt instrument of deletion is necessary in this case. All I'm seeing is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Textbook example of an essay, something we don't host, please read WP:NOT#ESSAY. PLEASE. JBsupreme (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A textbook example of a WP:VAGUEWAVE, unsupported by any evidence or examples. WP:NOT#ESSAY is, in fact, not applicable because the author does not present his personal feelings upon the matter and cites the sources which he has drawn from. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete It's just an essay, chock full of WP:OR; the only encyclopedic content is the first sentence, which is a rather obvious definition. Mangoe (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete, rewrite, or stubbify We shouldn't keep personal essays in the mainspace, so deletion would be a viable outcome. Since a well-written article on this subject would be appropriate, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping the article if it were rewritten before the end of the AfD. Stubbifying it to the first sentence would be another appropriate choice. Them From Space 01:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete, essay, original research, etc. Clearly not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC).
Delete. "Modern cities are cities of the present day"? Sounds like the lede for a WP:COATRACK article about something only tangentially related, which, sure enough, it is—an essay (school paper, perhaps) about issues the author thinks Dubai may be facing. This isn't remotely encyclopedic. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete Unsourced essay which appears to lack any real scholarly basis, and seems to consist mostly of advice for those considering a move to Dubai. Acroterion _(talk) 02:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Rewrite The article has a few decent facts. It just needs to be rewritten so that it is not in essay form. Dragoneye776 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 13:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike Schatz[edit]

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

Article was on the expired prod list but was already deleted once through prod and recreated. Concern on the prod was a lack of sourcing. After running several searches ([30], [31], [32]), I'm inclined to agree with that concern. No shortage of hits, but I can't find anything that's in depth or reliable, just name drops. There's nowhere near enough sourcing to write a biography here that I found. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I was the initial prodder. Note that the content was recreated by the sock of a blocked editor (and maybe the original article, too). --EEMIV (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep expand, and source. I have begun giving the article a cleanup and welcome assistance toward expansion and sourcing. Schatz's being a voice actor on a series with a cult following seems to push at WP:ENT. I believe the article has WP:POTENTIAL despite its colored beginnings. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Mike Schatz was also interviewed by an online website, Banterist, which I think is WP:RS and this source has been appeared in famous publications such as The New York Times, USA Today, CNN, NPR, The New York Post, New Zealand Herald, CBS, Boing Boing, Canada's National Post, The Independent and Guardian newspaper, and MSNBC.com. I've added that interview link as a reference. --Scieberking (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Erm, the tagline from the "source": "From New York, original humor & commentary by Brian Sack. Subject to all the flexible quality standards of internet self-publishing." If a source specifically states it's self published and unreliable, probably a pretty good indication that we should take them at their word. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. If he ever gets more than one credit, we can reconsider then. THF (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
With repects, the subject does indeed have more than one credit, and seems to merit inclusion per meeting WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Appears to meet WP:ENT. If notable enough for his work, lack of nonrelevant bio detail isn't grounds for deletion -- I don't care about his dating history, his childhood or current pets, or the people he went to school with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep - per Schmidt and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz; he does indeed appear to meet the relevant notability criteria, albeit just about barely. Definitely needs expansion and tidying, but we can't do that with a nonexistant page, now, can we? KaySL (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep He has been interviewed by notable news sources, one of which is mentioned in the article. [33] They wouldn't all be interviewing someone if he wasn't notable. Dream Focus 20:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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. A rough consensus of this discussion does not show enough support for deletion to close as such. Rather, about two-thirds supported keeping or merging/redirecting, with the arguments that the subject has sufficient notability to meet the general notability guideline and that a redlink should be avoided. A number of editors expressed that enough content exists on the subject to warrant a separate article, so I am hesitant to close this discussion as merge/redirect, but would highly encourage such a discussion be opened on the article talk page. Cheers and best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Manon Batiste[edit]

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

This article has undergone negligible improvement during and since the previous AfD. The scant real-world commentary to the character is presented as a passing reference in a single review of the game itself, or as a series of non-independent "developer diaries" or direct quotes from producers about the music and the character -- i.e. topic has not received "significant" coverage. All of this content has already been copy-and-pasted to the relevant game article (or articles?). (This article's talk-page claims that this real-world information was "merged" to these target articles and that this base article must remain to maintain attribution. However, because the "responsible" editor made all the edits and used the exact same language, there seems not a need to maintain this article's history -- it wasn't so much a "merge" as a near-simultaneous copy-and-paste.) ANYHOW -- this article makes no substantiated claim for the topic's real-world notability independent of the game in which it is a protagonist, or other games in which it appears. A redirect has been undone, with one editor claiming that notability is established because the character is "one out of millions of game characters based on an actual historical figure". However, this claim is not articulated in the article itself, let alone substantiated -- furthermore, unless there's an academic investigation into "the few numbers of game characters based on historic figures," an interesting bit of statistical trivia doesn't convey notability. There is no compelling rationale to maintain this unnecessary content fork (which consists of snippets of duplicated passing commentary, and mostly gameplay/plot regurgitation). --EEMIV (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that previous AfD's closing admin's suggestion that sources be added hasn't been met. --EEMIV (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom and prior argument; unencyclopaedic fancruft repeatedly restored by disruptive editor. Jack Merridew 17:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Speedy keep per GFDL. The article has undergone considerable improvement during and since previous AfD. The significant real-world commentary is presented in multiple reviews of the game. The article undeniably demonstrates real-world notability independent of the game in which it is a protagonist, or other games in which it appears. A redirect has been undone by multiple editors, with one editor claiming that notability is not established because the character. This claim is articulated in the article itself and is substantiated by reliable sources, which conveys notability. There is no compelling rationale to delete this necessary content appropriate spinoff (which consists of significant commentary, and development and reception information). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, have you once again forgotten the many, many times you've been asked (including several times by me) not to parrot back the structure and wording of other editors' comments? Why on Earth would you again stoop to such annoying mimicry? --EEMIV (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you see fit to swear and mock editors in your incivil edit summaries: [34], [35], etc.? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Myself and others mimic other editors comments ALL the time. So what? But Edit summaries like EEMIV's, mocking other editors comments, are much more troubling: "simplifying puffy bulshittery"[36] "trying to puff up bullshit content?"[37] are actually ACTIONABLE as personal attacks. Ikip 20:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment removed some borderline attacks. Let's try to be civil. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the so-called-attacks; they're not. Let's not muddy this discussion. Jack Merridew 19:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we delete, strike, or move to the talk page everything here? Everything from "A Nobody, have you once again forgotten the many..." down?

Can you rewrite your section A Nobody since it obviously annoys EEMIV? Ikip 20:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, don't care to see this discussion redacted. Jack Merridew 20:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Non-notable. The references are merely name-checks on gaming websites. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Non-notable is not a valid reason for deletion and certainly when not true due to the out of universe commentary on reliable website. This book, for example, is not a gaming website. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because you and your friends don't like the words: "non-notable" & "cruft" doesn't make my argument any less valid. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether agreeing/disagreeing with a subjective "notable/not-notable" agrument, the factual aspect is indeed invalidated when the information is sourced from The Boston Globe and a few published books. Sure, some of the sources could be better, but there is enough coverage in reliable print secondary sources that is is factually inacccurate to say "The references are merely name-checks on gaming websites." This is not a gaming website. Moreover, it is out of universe, real world historical context: "She also was a consultant in 2000 for a Sony PlayStation game called ``Medal of Honor: Underground," featuring a heroine named Manon and based on her World War II missions". At worst in such a scenario we would we merge and redirect per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better and WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the refs are poor, hence there are not enough refs to to represent notability. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of the refs are quite good and it meets a common sense standard of notability. A character that appears in several games that appear on multiple systems including as the main character as seen on the game, the soundtrack, and strategy guide's covers who is familiar to millions of people worldwide is notable by an reasonable interpretation of that term. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No they're not: Refs 1-5 are name checks simply confirming the character exists and who her voice actor is. 6 is ok. 7 + 8 are specialised sources, not "independent of subject" (of course interviews with the game development staff would feature her, they do not represent coverage in the media however.) 9 + 10 simply recount in-game plot details. 11 + 12 are ok, but the point 13 references isn't even worthy of inclusion. In short, 3 "ok" refs do not represent notability, therefore does not warrant an individual article. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Collectively they are citations in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject are more than enough to justify inclusion on Wikipedia that cover out of universe development and reception information, i.e. they meet WP:N in such a decisive manner to warrant an individual article. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Collectively they are a bunch of name-checks. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of universe reception and development information is hardly mere names checkes. Please remember to be honest. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is there for all to see: 5 are name-checks, the 2 interview refs are not "independent of subject" and the rest recount plot. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone actually looking at the references will see that the reviews of the game are indepdent of the subject and recount of out universe reception information. The interviews count as reliable sources for development information. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

But they don't indicate notability (the issue at hand) as they're not "independent of subject". Ryan4314 (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Because they are indepdent of the subject they indicate notability and I am not going to be persuaded otherwise no more than if someone tried to convince an apple is really a tangerine. And as this content was merged a while back and therefore cannot be deleted anyway per the GFDL, there is nothing to gain by going in circles. Have a good night! --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Interviews of the game's development staff are obviously not independent of the subject. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The numerous reviews and previews of the c. half dozen odd games she appears in are. There are far more sources available on her than only those cited in the article. You can help by adding some more. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You're the one claiming that good refs exist, you find em. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I already have (although I have actually also ordered some additional items from Ebay that cover her and that are not viewable on Google Books in preview/snippet form; these should arrive after New Years) and if I show you a basketball and you insist it really is a baseball then bringing forth another basketball will probably just have the same results. Fortunately, though, the majority of commenters here reasonably see that a playable character in a mainstream multiplatform franchise released globall for which millions of people are familiar with a character based on a real world person whose article got a DYK is at worst merge and redirectable, but there is no justification or need whatsoever to burden an admin with redlinking this article and to protect the public from its content. Good night! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So you think we should keep this article so as to not "burden an admin with redlinking". Ryan4314 (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete no discussion of this minor video game character and its real world impact/meaning. The only one or two reliable sources that mention this name merely, well, mention it as in the obit. Clear fail of all the notability and inclusion guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please be sure to read the discussion and review sources when commenting in AFDs. The Boston Globe presents out of universe, real world historical context: "She also was a consultant in 2000 for a Sony PlayStation game called ``Medal of Honor: Underground," featuring a heroine named Manon and based on her World War II missions". Besides, as this content was merged months back, it cannot be deleted per the GFDL anyway. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I read it all. I accept you think that sentence constitutes in depth exploration and analysis of the character. I think it constitutes a trivial mention in an entirely different context. So don't presume to lecture me about what i have or haven't read. I simply disagree with you. Sincerely and with the utmost respect.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We are discussing a playable character from a major franchise with appearances beyond the game on which she even appears on the cover art who is based on a real person. There is NO pressing need to redlink such a valid search term and certainly not when there is sufficient in depth exploration and non-trivial analysis of the character to justify at worst the merge for which we cannot redlink anyway. By the way, you can see her on the cover of this book. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i also accept that you believe promotional cover art using a fictional character that appears in a work of fiction consstitues in depth, ongoing, independent analysis and coverage of the sort that would justify an entry for the fictional character seperate from the work of fiction itself in a general encyclopedia. I don't believe any of that. I believe it constitues advertising for the work of fiction and provides no information -- none, zilch, nada -- that would allow to construct a proper encyclopedia article or justify inclusion. With warmest affection and great sincerityBali ultimate (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

All of that is irrelevant as this discussion cannot end in delete anyway due to the requirement of keeping attribution history public. And it is not a mere fictional character, but rather an adaptation of a real person. Moreover, we are NOT just a general encyclopedia. Per our first pillar, we are also a specizliaed enycclopedia and a paperless one at that. The out of universe development and reception information are sufficient to justify inclusion as a proper encyclopedic article. By contrast, there is absolutely no pressing need to redlink something that is not a hoax, not libelous, nor a copyright violation. A major character with appearances in multiple mainstream games as verified in multiple reliable sources meets any reasonable or common sense standad of notability in addition to the ever changing Wikipedic definition. It is not a matter of subjective opinion. It is a matter of objective fact that 1) she is a main character; 2) she is based on a real person; 3) information in the article is verified in multiple reliable sources; 4) content has been merged and so the edit history must remain public per the GFDL; 5) she is not a hoax; 6) she is not libelous, etc. There is no objective need to redlink. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not objective. You can make a case for restoring the redirect (which is the worst possible acceptable outcome, as it cannot legally be deleted), but that is it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That wall of text does not change the fact that there is no independent reliable source analysis and discussion of the real world relevance of this character anywhere. With the highest sincerity i can muster.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You can say that a banana is not a banana but it doesn't change the fact that it is, just as you can claim over and over that no independent reliable sources analysis and discussion exists of the real world relevance of this character despite such sources being presented both in this article, across two discussions, and by even a rudimentary Google search. Information from this article was used to make a DYK article on a real person. No one can objectively deny that this character is covered in out of universe fashion in multiple indepdent reliable sources, but again, since the article cannot be deleted anyway, there is no real point to this exchange. So, Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep The info is too much for the main article. The references are standard for fictional characters. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The "main article" to which you refer -- I'm assuming the game in which she's a protagonist -- is actually bereft of any gameplay details. The contents in this particular article are poorly written gameguide trivia, but the notion that there's "no room at the inn" for additional content at the game article is simply incorrect. As for "standard" references -- I agree that many articles about fictional characters are absolute crap and are shittily referenced; that's a reason to excise this cruft, not maintain it. If you think this article meets an appropriate threshold for material about fictional characters, please compare it to e.g. Master Chief (Halo), Jabba the Hutt or James T. Kirk. The first two set a high bar as FAs, but the third isn't even GA status -- *that* is the standard that clearly establishes notability, not the sparse, passing references that constitute this "content." --EEMIV (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete The scant development and reception presently in the article isn't enough to justify keeping the article. The development section in fact is composed of one quote which is already placed in the parent's article and which is more about the music anyway. The single sentence of the reception easily fits within the purview of the parent. There are two problematic articles here, not one: Let the story of this single character be told within the not-existing plot section of the parent (which should exist, mind you) and by the person this story is based on. This is a delete based on the article failing WP:PLOT; mind you though, there is a place in the parent article for some of that. 3-500 words should be about right. --Izno (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I am hesitant to amend my view completely to a "merge and redirect" as asked to by A Nobody on my talk page. That was the gist of my comment, but a "merge and redirect" consensus might be closed as a "no consensus", which is arbitrarily... non-decisive. If the closing administrator is willing to close this as a "merge and redirect" (I do not mean here that the closing admin can only choose that), then consider my comment to be in favor of a merge and redirect. --Izno (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep or merge. The one things that is not appropriate is a delete, because we would certainly want a redirect. The nom does not even indicate otherwise. Normally I would advocate that we merge such articles into one for the characters, but it seems that there is sufficient to talk about for this one. Arrangement is optional; the key thing is keeping the content, and considering other nominations of combination articles by other people (not including the nom of this article, BTW), the likely result will be the removal of content altogether, or the limitation to the bare name on a list. If there were any indication at all that the fiction minimalists (among whom I do not include EEMIV)were prepared to compromise, I would say those wanting comprehensive coverage of fiction should also. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - spans a few games, has real-life relevancy which is sourced (I see >2 sources)...and has been voted one of the 12 Best Female Characters in Video Games....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
See REALPOOR IS A FAN BLOG. No reliability *at all*. We covered that in the last AfD. You might as well cite fan reviews too.. Really, Cas, this is a pure as the driven cruft. Merry Christmas, Jack Merridew 23:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
If its not used as a source in the article, then it being a blog matters not one whit. However, what is worth considering that it seems indicative of the cult following of the game and of the character. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
"Cult following ... of the character"? Can you cite a single source that asserts, or even speculates, about such widespread adoration and interest? --EEMIV (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I do see a cult following, but mostly it's pretty local to this set of pages. There would be further bits of such fanish wankage out there on the wider interwebs, but, really, the barriers out there are low and any twit can post or write a 'review'. Shite dredged up by Google is largely meaningless. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I love cruft, so...er yeah, Jack. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Find and collaborate with people who love what you love. ;) Jack Merridew 07:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Stuff fragmentation, I prefer unified knowledge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep, or do a proper Merge and set a redirect per coverage granting notability per WP:GNG. Reviews? In context with the game itself? Naturally. But coverage is coverage. Though not all are in-depth, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Ars Technica, St Louis Post Dispatch, Real Poor Softpedia, CNet 1, Cnet 2, Cnet 3, Netjak, show coverage since 2000. Not just a blip on the scope. And then there are the numerous books covering the subject... also in context to the game. Yes, one need not agree, but per guideline, these show notability and the article meeting the requirements of WP:STAND. With respects to the nominator, that additional sources had not been added since the last AFD was a reason to fix it through normal editing, not delete it because it was not done within some unrequired and arbitrary deadline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Identifying the protagonist's name and then not discussing the character at all != notability of the character, It = read the press release or the manual and included the name. Can anyone offer multiple examples of significant coverage? Passing references, even times 1,000, != significant coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't play the game nor do I care about it. Per guideline, "number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources", and [Manon Batiste] "need not be the main topic of the source material". Yes, significant coverage is always preferred, but if it is lacking, multiple less-than-in-depth coverages serve the same purpose as long as they are not a trivial mentions in a list or some such. A character repeatedly discussed in context with the game meets that criteria. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

But, there's not even discussion. The name is mentioned, and the avatar immediately forgotten; the actual discussion in all of these reviews is on the plot, the controls, "the player"'s actions -- but, there's no discussion of the character itself. It really is just passing mentions of the name. Put in another way: all of these reviews would be just as clear and structured just the same if they replace the phrase "Manon Batiste" with "the player's character" or "the player" -- the "identity" of this construct is immaterial, and not subject to even passing, marginal discussion; it's just a name drop, and references to "the idea" of this character promptly evaporate. --EEMIV (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Klepek explains how "Gamers who played Medal of Honor will remember Manon, part of the French Resistance, who was an enormous help toward his efforts. Still set in the era of World War II, the year is 1940 and the German armies have overrun Manon's town. Attempting to survive with her brother and the few people still around in her town, Manon's best companion, her brother, is tragically killed during a routine raid to retrieve weapon supplies. Manon then sets out to meet up with her brother's contacts in order to fight against the Nazis. It will take all her strength and perseverance in order to move up the ranks in the OSS so that she can head back home and help in the liberation of her nation." See Patrick Klepek, "Review of Medal of Honor: Underground," Gaming Age (11/22/2000).</ref> According to GamePro, Manon is a "young member of the French Resistance introduced as Jimmy Patterson's 'control' in the original Medal of Honor. Set prior to the start of the original Medal of Honor game, Underground follows Manon's journey journey from a naive member of one of France's first resistance movements to that of a seasoned veteran recruited by the OSS who ultimately becomes a key figure in the Allied invasion at Normandy."^[1] The "final mission has Manon return to Paris to assist in its liberation from German occupation. See "Medal of Honor: Underground," GamePro (2009). All of these are more than just passing mentions. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

But those *are* just passing mentions: just a few sentences dredged up with Google that retell a bit of the game plot. We can not hang an article off such trivial coverage. This is an encyclopaedia that requires significant coverage in sources. The net volume of source material should outweigh the resultant article, not be unbalanced the other way by a factor of better than ten. Jack Merridew 23:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The weight given to particular details and sections is a matter of ordinary editing and so is quite irrelevant to a deletion discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: I keep finding more out of universe information: Critic Ian Lace said of her theme: "One has to suppose that the main character of this new game, Manon, inspired by the exploits of Hélène Déschamps is French. Michael Ciacchino has created a theme for her that in its first few notes irresistibly makes me want to anticipate the old pop song, 'Arrivederci Roma' which I found disconcerting because she is French and so much of the action, particularly at the beginning and end, takes place in Paris." See Ian Lace, "Medal of Honor (Underground) CD Review," MusicWeb International(January 2001). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Merge with Medal of Honor: Underground once again DGG said it better than me. Ikip 00:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep or merge. It's all said above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
12 facts from 12 sources or 12 facts from a 1 source are both the exact same depth of coverage based on my infinite knowledge of mathematics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep The topic is evidently notable as there are numerous high-quality sources for it such as A Parents Guide to Playstation Games. The renomination seems vexatious per WP:DEL and WP:NOTAGAIN. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Your so-called exemplar does not actually have an entry for the topic; it is (like all the other sources) a passing reference to the topic. --EEMIV (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not a passing reference as the character is central to the game, not incidental. The level of coverage seems enough to establish notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No, really: look at it. The book mentions her, identifies that she makes pastries for the soldiers or something, and then moves on to describe the gameplay. It IDs the player's avatar and moves on. Protagonist or not, the character in none of these sources receives little more than fleeting name-confirmation. She really just doesn't matter at all. --EEMIV (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I already looked at it and am satisfied that the content is adequate for our purposes. There don't seem to be any pastries - perhaps you're seeing a different edition. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep Noteable article which following improvements contains a good ammount of real world information on the character. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Sufficient sourced content to satisfy the GNG, and no significant justification given for revisiting the prior, extensively argued deletion discussion. We should have better things to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. A fictionalized version of a notable WWII spy Hélène Deschamps Adams; this article adds to that one, and improves it. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Logitech#Products. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Logitech Illuminated Keyboard[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep:Per [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], and [51]. Joe Chill (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
merge as appropriate to the company. The present article is a mere advertisement. Normally reviews make a product notable, but for something a trivial as this there is no reason to have an article. notability is required for an article, but it can still be better to merge. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Merge – To Product List at Logitech. As DGG pointed out “…article is a mere advertisement.” for a particular company’s product. As such, it gives undue weight to that particular company’s product line with regards to illuminated keyboards, which have become standard with other manufacturers of similar items. Almost like we our giving a Good Housekeeping Seal to the item, if allowed to have a standalone piece. There is nothing notable or unseal about this particular keyboard that makes it stand-out more than any other manufacturers keyboard, as such, does not deserve a special place here at Wikipedia. Happy New Year. JAAG^Talk 16:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Merge per DGG. Peridon (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Logitech and trim out the peacock words. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable product.Jack007 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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 Consensus to delete.

With a pure vote count this seems like a close debate, however if the content of the opinions as related to policy is taken into account then there is a clear consensus for deletion. I count 19 people who think the criteria for this article is subjective and as such not encyclopedic. This opinion seems rooted in policy and our goal of creating an encyclopedia.

This has been somewhat countered by 5 people who believe the sources make the content non-subjective, and 3 people who believe the article can be fixed. These opinions also seem rooted in policy and our goal of creating an encyclopedia. Despite this there is a clear favour for deletion of the article.

Arguments that only involve stating how many nominations this article has had in the past are given little weight as they have no basis in policy. Wikipedia is not run off of precedent and consensus can change. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

List of unusual personal names[edit]

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

Delete. This is an inherently subjective list, even with sources it runs afoul of our NPOV policy. We are not here to promote what is "unusual" at the time. JBsupreme (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete this piece of subjective listcruft. Who is the judge on what is an "unusual name"? If Joan Rivers says "Hrm...Angelina Jolie has an unusual name" in her stand-up routine and the press pick up on it, does that mean that it should be included on the list? What I'm trying to say is that one person's view of an "unusual name" is another person's norm. Also, this article is very Western-centric and some entries could be perceived as racist; I find Lojze Peterle's name unusual because I'm not Slovenia, for example. However, I can see this being kept due to the result of this recent AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination). WossOccurring (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's best to stick to actual examples, especially when discussing NPOV issues, rather than inventing "what if" scenarios. Neither Lojze Peterle nor Angelina Jolie are included in the list.
  I agree that some of the entries could be debated/removed (eg. Condoleezza Rice), but that is a content dispute, not a reason for deleting the entire article. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The key here is that a majority of the names on the list are backed by reliable sources, and those sources document both that the names exist and that they were indeed unusual. We need to cull names from the list that pertain to living persons, and for which no sources exist - and there are some speculative entries that need addressing. But, so long as we comply with BLP, I think the list can stay. I don't believe that the List of YouTube celebrities AFD is a great precedent, since the main reason that article was kept is that the delete arguments focused on LISTCRUFT as a rationale. The NPOV argument is stronger; so long as we have sources saying that the names listed are indeed unusual, I think we satisfy that policy as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- But what about a case where the unusualness of the name is in dispute? We would be saying that one side is more correct than the other, because the article name says that the name is definitely unusual, even if the other party believes that it isn't unusual at all. To my mind, this violates NPOV policy. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  - I believe that the fact that the name is highlighted in a reliable source as being unusual would be sufficient. To offset that, we'd need a source that says, for example, "Chad Ochocinco's name seems unusual, but athletes named after their jersey numbers are more common than most people expect..." and showing that the name is not itself unusual. In cases where we have contradictory reliable sources, it falls to the talk page to discuss the matter, weigh the sources, and determine where consensus lies. It's possible that some names wouldn't pass muster, but that's a flaw of the entries and not the list. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep per the 4th nomination (various arguments and the close statement) from 30 April 2009. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —-- Quiddity (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I have not been involved in previous nominations, but I think think the nominator's right that this list is more subjective than it is objective. Undoubtedly these people have had coverage, but that doesn't mean any of that coverage is notable, and more importantly, there's no evidence that the coverage indicates the unusual nature of the name is notable, only that a few people have unusual names and that some local newspapers commented on it. Shadowjams (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If something is covered in reliable sources then this is evidence that it is notable as this is what notability means - that the fact has been noted. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleteinherently ambivalent criteria for inclusion. i know some of them will have refs saying they are unusual, but that still leaves us with a subjective criteria.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Ultraexactzz. If reliable sources document that those names are unusual and it amounts to coverage that satisfies our notability guidelines, there is no reason to delete the list. I cannot see how "people whose names have been called unusual by reliable source" can be considered a "ambivalent" or "subjective" criterion. There is nothing violating WP:NPOV in having this kind of list, we do not say "those names are unusual", we say "reliable third-party sources those names are unusual" and that's what NPOV is about. And of course WP:LISTCRUFT is a non-argument as an essay that does not reflect consensus. Regards So Why 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. What is the gain in removing it? The loss is pretty obvious, it seems to me. - Jmabel | Talk 21:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- There are a few problems. One, the sources in many cases do not actually indicate notability of the subjects listed (a problem which can be corrected through editing and removal of said persons in most cases.) Two, the list is highly subjective and violates our NPOV policy, hence this nomination for deletion. JBsupreme (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why? I created this, I would not be that unhappy it if was deleted. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - good lord, this article has an excessive number of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish criteria for inclusion. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I consider this article to be both interesting and useful, and I suppose that many other readers likewise would consider it to be both interesting and useful. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Question I find this list to be subjective and borderline offensive. It is chock full of children (minors under 18 years of age) that are barely notable at best because their parents gave them an uncommon name at birth. There is an inordinate number of children of Hollywood actors here. I am dismayed at many of the keep !votes here and would like to ask those who have voted such to explain what kind of inclusion guidelines we should have if this list is to be retained? JBsupreme (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
One more comment We do not publish the real name of the infamous Star Wars Kid, citing WP:BLP and "do no harm". Why then is it we are maintaining a list of children much younger than Star Wars Kid (at the time the meme began) who are named something they have no control over? Is a person really notable if some local newspaper happens to mention someone was given an "unusual" name by their parents on a slow news day? I'm reading comments like "The loss it pretty obvious" and "article has an excessive number of independent reliable sources" and cannot help but strongly disagree with that line of thinking. I don't see how this article benefits Wikipedia editors, passive readers, or the living subjects being covered. JBsupreme (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Think of the children which explains why such special pleading is disreputable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete: The article topic is inherently subjective, even if backed by sources - the fact that a source calls a name unusual does not necessarily make a name unusual. At most the title could be "list of personal names called unusual in the media" or some such. Anyway this would be a special case of the guideline of people notable for a single event, the event being their naming. The name would have to be so unusual that it had caused specific consequences for its bearer for any unusually named person to be considered notable under that guideline. Secondly there are the BLP concerns which I think are fair. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

add: the best argument for deletion is probably WP:NOT.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete: sadly, while I created this article, when I think about it this is really quite subjective. I think it probably best to delete. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom, WossOccurring, and Maunus. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 13:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WossOccurring's argument is a straw man - material which he has fabricated and which does not appear in the article. As he has not considered the article which we have but is dealing in fantasy, his argument carries no weight. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete A subjective mess. Most of the names appear to be intentionally zany pseudonyms that are designed to get attention. There is also some BLP problems. Warrah (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete, particularly per Warrah and Tbsdy. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep if all statements are sourced, otherwise move to WP space like Wikipedia:List of unusual articles. Individual entries do not need at all to be notable for WP:N, since that's something that is related to full articles only. As per the "benefit", well, it is within the scope of WP to collect and structure information for the public. The fact it is "full of children" is utterly irrelevant: not our fault if they have names covered in the media for being unusual. --Cyclopia^talk 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think that would be a misuse of the Wikipedia namespace. The Wikipedia namespace is about pages that are to do with Wikipedia, no articles should be in this namespace. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete criteria for inclusion far too vague and, in the end, subjective. Rodhull andemu 19:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. "Unusual" is a subjective criterion for inclusion in a list, and that alone should be reason enough to seal the deal on this debate. Those arguing to keep are correct in stating that there are abundant sources in this list, and if the concern here were one of notability or verifiability this argument would be persuasive; however it does nothing to address the central concern that it is simply too subjective. Shereth 19:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Would a move to "List of personal names considered unusual" help? This would make it clear that we report what RS have said about the names. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All that really accomplishes, then, is to enshrine the POV of countless biographers, news reporters, PR agencies and the like into a Wikipedia article. Maunus states it well above in citing WP:NOT; a "List of X that Y has considered Z" certainly falls within that description. Shereth 19:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete it may be unusual to be loved by anyone, but it's definitely not usual to have completely subjective, undefinable articles in encyclopedias.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is quite false as most topics have some element of subjectivity in defining their scope. This is obviously true of broad philosophical topics such as Love and Evil. It also applies to topics which have a nebulous boundary such as science fiction and money. Even matters such as the length of rivers require numerous subjective decisions of measurement and inclusion. All such topics are routinely included in encyclopedias and we are no different. The way in which we determine what to say is to rely upon the statements of reliable sources - the method which we use for all our articles - and this is no different. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete too broadly subjective to be a reasonable list, potential BLP concerns (what determines if a person's name is unusual? It's mildly defamatory to maintain a list of people who can be derided merely for their name). No reasonable criteria to add someone to the list other than "some random opinion piece was published somewhere that someone said they thought this was a weird name". Seriously, Wikipedia is better off without this. As a last option to WP:PRESERVE some of this, some of the bluelinked entries could be selectively merged into Wikipedia:List of unusual articles, but otherwise this list should not be. --Jayron32 21:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep -- entirely fixable. All the above complaints are addressable with only a modicum of effort. The list can be made non-subjective (and thus compliant with WP:NPOV) if we insist that all names in the list be specifically identified as "unusual" (or words to that effect) in reliable sources, and compliant with WP:V if we cite said sources. As for the BLP-based arguments, BLP wisely counsels us to not write about individuals if they have not already been brought to the public's attention by mainstream sources. Limiting the article to "names that mainstream sources have noted are unusual" makes us fully compliant with BLP.
I've started in on that work, and I thank JBSupreme for doing much of it as well. I just wish he didn't feel it was necessary to both clean up the list and try to delete it at the same time; maybe he's trying to use AfD to try to force these improvements under duress. I think that's a misuse of AfD; it should have instead been taken to the NPOV and/or BLP noticeboards. But so be it.--Father Goose (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I can see where you are coming from - definitely having it listed 5 times could be seen as pushing it... however, in this case the topic itself is inherently vague and we are basically saying that we agree with those who believe the names are unusual. What about a situation where the person doesn't see their own name as unusual? The title is in essence taking a side here - it is saying that the person's name is unusual, which is a point of view. This fundamentally violates the NPOV policy. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  - It is a list of "names that reliable sources have noted as being unusual". There's nothing even remotely vague in that criterion, and it is explicitly stated at the top of the article. It would be ponderous, even inappropriate, to include such specificity in the title just because people at this AfD aren't paying attention to the list criterion. (We don't have List of tallest completed, continuously occupiable buildings over 240 meters high in the world for that reason.) And it wouldn't dissuade idiots who like to add their own "favorite crazy names" anyway. We don't delete articles just because some people perpetually disregard Wikipedia's conventions.
    What is non-neutral is practically every "deletion" !vote on this page: "subjective unencyclopedic crap-magnet non-neutral BLP NOT incomplete undefinable trivia cruft". It's just one snap judgment after another. They're not even bothering to offer a rationale, let alone one based in policy (and merely saying "This violates policy XXX" without explaining how is not based in policy). I also see a lot of arguments that say, "It's not enough if a reliable source says that a name is unusual; I don't think it's unusual, therefore the list is crap." That is an argument based upon "truth, not verifiability", which is an utter contradiction of our core principles.--Father Goose (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete this subjective trivia. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete as subjective and unencyclopaedic. A crap-magnet, too ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete subjective and incomplete. (How could it leave out Shanda Lear? Doesn't anyone think that "Jimbo" is an unusual name?) Will Beback talk 01:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - without subsections, the list is nebulous and indefinable, but the article has subsections which are each themselves definable, these can be certainly referenced and sourced. Just about every bookshop in the mother/baby section has list of names type books. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep As I pointed out earlier, there are academic and popular books dealing with this. H. L. Mencken's classic American Language has a section on precisely this. The personal view that this is subjective is simply wrong, since sources exist. This has been pointed out repeatedly by numerous editors, but it does not stop the IDIDN'THEARTHAT. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Regardless of the last AfD outcome, inclusion is still based on opinion and an unclear criteria. Nothing but a list of trivial opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (4th nomination), which closed as "keep". Five nominations of content that a respectable segment of the community finds worthwhile is excessive. This non-trivial content verifiable by multiple reliable sources, including scores of published books is undeniably Wikipedic and exactly the kind of fun and interesting content that makes Wikipedia appealing to such a diverse readership (it gets nearly 20,000 page views a month!). Although I am the tenth editor to argue to keep, I tagged the article for rescue at 00:43, 30 December 2009, although given the sourcing the article already has, deletion seems based really on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and so I am not sure myself what more can be done to counter that (hence why I am hoping that any reasonable and open-minded editors can indicate as much so we rescuers can act accordingly). Anyway, the article has a clear inclusion criteria: only names; only personal names; only unusual personal names; and per our policies and guidelines, only unusual personal names described as such in reliable sources. It also serves a valuable navigational purposes as a gateway to other articles. All of that is objective bases for inclusion. Moreover, WP:ITSCRUFT is never a compelling reason for deletion. In any event, so long as everything on it is backed by reliable sources and nothing is libelous, I see no pressing need to protect the public from this content nor to deny our thousands of readers and many editors who see this content as worthwhile from continuing to make use of it. While this discussion is most likely and most fairly a "no consensus" closure, I do think based on strength and honesty of arguments as DGG suggests above, it should be another "keep." What needs to be clear, though, is whether or not this is a case of no matter how much we improve this article do some simply not want Wikipedia to have lists? Or is there something specific we can also do and which you can help us to do? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep The list is well sourced and there are numerous substantial works upon this topic such as The Guinness book of names, Personal names and naming: an annotated bibliography, A history of British surnames‎, American given names: their origin and history in the context of the English language, and so on. As naming is the subject of such study and scholarship, we are able to rely upon this to establish whether a name is unusual or not and so we're good. The nomination seems vexatious per WP:NOTAGAIN as it offers no new argument that has not been considered and rejected before. Raising this matter at this special time of the year with no trace of a new argument seems to be disruption contrary to WP:DEL, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Colonel Warden (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, "Colonel Warden", for assuming good faith. It would appear that you have overlooked the fact that this article has been deleted in previous AfD discussions, such as the 3rd nomination. If you would please refer to my repeated concerns addressed above, you would realize that I have made new arguments regarding this subjective list, with a particular concern about how we are treating living subjects (WP:BLP), specifically young children who are being referred to as "unusual" by this list. I most certainly do hope for a different outcome. Cheers, JBsupreme (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP did not form part of your nomination and is not applicable because this is not a biography. Again, please see Think of the children. It is our policy that censorious emotion may not be used to suppress content. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
If BLP is interpreted to mean "information about living subjects that may be thought of as negative is to be deleted", then NPOV is in tatters. The principles and practices laid out by BLP are important and necessary. But they are also finite in both scope and intent: blacking out information that has already been made fully public by the mainstream media is not the purpose of BLP, regardless of what the information is, or who it is about. I know a lot of people wish that was the purpose of BLP, but it isn't.--Father Goose (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The funniest thing is when they cite BLP, forgetting completely WP:WELLKNOWN, which is an integral part of WP:BLP. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

commentTheir names may be well known, but whther their names are unusual is nothing more than someones subjective judgement. We might as well make a list of weird looking people and cite WELLKNOWN arguing that "we all know what they look like". The problem here is that being mentioned once as "having an unusual name" in the media does not mean that you have an unusual name - it only means that one reporter thought so.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

WELLKNOWN is not a free pass for ignoring NOR, so that's a strawman argument. Being mentioned in the media as "having an unusual name" means that you have been mentioned in the media as "having an unusual name". That is the subject of the article, if one bothers to read it, which apparently not a single "delete" !vote here has.--Father Goose (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Question Why is this up for deletion a fifth time? Why weren't the previous four "keep"s good enough? What's really new and different that justifies a fifth nomination? (As distinct from a "grasping at straws" rear-guard action.) It sounds a lot like "WP:I just don't like it" to me. I see the Colonel Warden / JBsupreme interchange above. I'm unconvinced about the "delete" argument. Unless someone can come up with a compelling "delete" argument, I will lodge a "keep" entry. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

comment: it has been deleted once before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 12:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The third AFD resulted in a Delete verdict, and the article was deleted in January 2009. A DRV in April 2009 endorsed the closure, but found that community consensus on such lists had changed enough to permit them to be relisted. Thus, AFD 4 which was closed as Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete I cannot see how this can be rescued. A name may be "unusual" in one cultural context and very common in another. And keeping the list even remotely up to date would be impossible. NBeale (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete I can see there being BLP issues here. Also who judges "unusual" from usual? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep, and clean-up - Fifth Nomination? Four others were to keep? Argument smacks of "WP:I just don't like it" as previous posters have said. Although the article really needs to be cleaned-up, I think. Roodog2k (talk)
Y'know, if you're going to use the "Fifth Nomination?" argument, it might do you well to actually read the four prior discussions; one ended in delete, two in keep, and one as no consensus. Shereth 17:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The one that ended in "delete" was pseudo-overturned at DRV, which is why we're back here again. At best this article has been in perpetual "no consensus" territory, though given the almost exclusively subjective nature of the "delete" arguments, this is the kind of "debate" that puts the lie to "not a vote".--Father Goose (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Joachim Cronman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of the article did nothing to warrant an article. Being a colonel and having gotten killed before a war officially began is not significant enough. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT: User:Gerbelzodude99 has now been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Torkmann. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All three nominations were by the same person, who is now banned from Wikipedia for the three nominations, each as a sockpuppet, and other disruptive AFDs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW, this is the 4th RFD for this article, and it's unlikely that it will be resolved any differently from the other three. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think enough time has passed. Thank you, and I did my research on this one. Let's stop using SNOW to stop all discussion and see how this plays out. Merry Christmas! Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep For other disruptive nominations of my articles by Gerbelzodude99 see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Johnston and ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eversharp. I think he is lashing out because I caught him commenting at an AFD without actually looking at the article. If he had read the article, at ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery he would noticed that the New York Times was not the sole reference in the article, instead he repeated the error of the previous voters stating that it was. See here where he says "I have a feeling the author of this (and other New York Times-based articles) sits in a room full of century-old pulp newspapers and sketches out stub articles based on the contents thereof. I don't know if this is politically correct, but perhaps the author of these stubs suffers from autism or Asperger syndrome? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... I'm really concerned that this article is going to be a permanent keep merely because it keeps getting nominated by people with a record of frivolous AfD-nominations. I just want to stress that although it has the superficial look and feel of a being about a relevant encyclopedic topic, the image pretty much falls apart upon any closer inspection of the references. The major problem is that none have any trace of synthesis, analysis or secondary treatment beyond mere summaries of primary sources, and certainly anything that confirms genuine notability. The lack of descriptions of anything remotely interesting beyond a slavish listing of offspring, relatives and military assignments just doesn't strike me as being relevant Wikipedia content. Peter ^Isotalo 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a sneaking suspicion that User:Drawn Some and User:Gerbelzodude99 and User:Torkmann are the same person. Of all the articles in Wikipedia and of all the articles I started, why would three people be drawn to this same article over and over? All three accounts exist only to nominate articles for deletion, and all three concentrate on articles that I write. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep I don't understand: 1. Why someone would want to write an article on this person, 2. Why someone would bother to nominate it for deletion. However since he seems to have been fairly important and documented in published, reliable sources we might as well keep him. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep The article is impeccably sourced to many reliable sources, thus meeting WP:V. WP:N is certainly met given the coverage of this subject in reliable sources, and being a high-level officer who commanded a military installation of some importance is certainly a credible claim to notability. Although this was a bad-faith nomination, I don't think the AfD meets any of the criteria at WP:SK. That said, this discussion is somewhat premature; the third AfD was closed as "no consensus" under two months ago, and the second AfD was closed the same way one month before that. During that time, there have not been major changes to the article, so I think it's unreasonable to expect a consensus to emerge this time around. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Keep another bad faith nom. There is one delete !vote by a non-banned user, otherwise I'd request somebody to close as speedy keep. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Really?! Another AFD, just delete it. I have yet to see anything that would make this dude pass WP:GNG TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It is the same person nominating under different names each time to be disruptive. And, btw, he meets every requirement of WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

All I see is trivial coverage, nothing significant. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If fulfills all requirements except the first one, significant coverage, which is the only one that really matters in terms of notability. The rest is just more specific application of WP:N. None of those sources describe Cronman in any detail. Compare with the example given in the note at WP:GNG, and keep in mind that it's referring to something as minor as a news article. Cronman gets roughly the same amount of textual coverage in considerably longer academic articles and full-length books. Peter ^Isotalo 18:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

10 facts from 10 sources is the exact same depth of coverage as 10 facts from 1 source. Mathematically there is no difference. He appears in Finnish history books, English history books, and Swedish and German books. While other people in Wikipedia will have 100 facts and others 1,000 and 10,000 facts known about them, he meets Wikipedia's requirement for an entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not conferred by "being in books". That's what the "Three Blind Mice"-example is trying to say. It would qualify millions of living and deceased ppl, and untold numbers of installations, objects, groupings, phrases and whathaveyou, for their own perpetually stubby articles. We're talking about stuff that would probably make even staunch inclusionists suspicious. If you want this to actually be about following guidleines I suggest lobbying for a change of the wording in WP:GNG. Peter ^Isotalo 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

By all means, delete! Stop being paranoid, Richard. Also stop making accusations with NO proof. The article keeps getting nominated for deletion because the article needs to go, bro. Mr. Richard, stop being a WP:DICK about it. Torkmann (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
NOTE User:Torkmann has been indef-blocked for abusively used one or more accounts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Again using math: The odds of three random people nominating the same random article is 3 million cubed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment I started a SPI [here because of some weird similarities between three users that have nominated this article for deletion. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. The sock allegations above are irrelevant. This article is problematic because the subject is not notable in the general sense. This would all seem to be about a pattern of article creation to lower the bar of inclusion in the direction of "every person who ever lived". Jack Merridew 18:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you can come up with 16 references for each person on Earth, I don't have any in GNews or GBooks. You might get one fact from a telephone book, or 5 facts from a person in a funeral notice, but they would not have a claim to notability. 16 references for someone from 300 years ago is pretty well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. 4 AFDs in just over 90 days is ridiculous and disruptive; no reasons for deletion soundly based in policy; and peculiar indicators of hounding an editor. We should have better things to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Keep and mark the sock puppet AFDs on this article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drawn Some

Keep on the merits. Commander of an important military base. Keep also on the grounds that 2 previous attempts have found no consensus to delete, and an earlier delete decision was reversed at deletion review. I think it is finally cleafr enough that there is no sufficient consensus to delete the article nor is there likely to be, so keep is the way to settle this. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Riga is the "important military base" in this context. Dünamünde was an outlying fortification which no one has been able to secure much info on. If you want to extend notability from minor military installations to all of its commanders, regardless of their achievments, than at least stick to that argument instead of inflating the importance of minor details. Peter ^Isotalo 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I said important; Riga was no doubt more important, but notability does not limit itself to that. I think the key thing we look for is in fact an independent command substantial enough to be of some historical note. Anyway, another ed. seems to have mentioned just below the article on the place, which perhaps justifies "very important" --and I see the Latvian Wikipedia article is 3 times larger still, and the Polish & Russian yet longer. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Daugavgrīva

Keep. Knock it off. A 4th AfD nomination by an account suspected by sock puppetry by itself points toward a keep vote. However, sticking purely to the merits of the article, a commander of a major fort is also notable in his own right, as forts were mostly operated as tactically independent units in this eta. Tomas e (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The nominator has been banned from Wikipedia for this nomination and other disruptive nominations. All the past three nominations for deletion have been from the same person using sock accounts. The first nomination was closed by the administrator using a Wikipedia:supervote to negate the two keep votes. Lets have a contest to see who is the first to detect what account name he creates and starts his disruptive edits with next. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep of bad faith nomination by a now indef-blocked sock of an indef-blocked user... in a total abuse of process and guideline. His thumbing his nose at the processes set in place by the community aside, the article is well-sourced and meets precedent and guideline for such historical articles, and notability outside the United States is notability none-the-less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep I can't see what harm this article does and it has been carefully researched. But it gives no indication that he did anything notable at all - and it would be nice to know why on earth he is worth an article. NBeale (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per my prior votes.--Milowent (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The bad-faith nomination makes this a speedy keep, and I ask an uninvolved admin to close it as such since no new arguments for deletion have been brought forward. That being said, I stand by my delete from the last two AfDs – nothing has changed, as far as I can tell, and neither has my opinion. Amalthea 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Time to close. --IP69.226.103.13 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IP69.226.103.13 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Keep Bad faith repeat nomination by blocked sockpuppet of blocked user. Edward321 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Mui[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mui

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

I'm nominating this for exactly the same reason as the Mattias Nilsson article: it's original researching, and a retelling of the plots for the games. That's really all that can be said about it cut and dried. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for exactly the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction. Either is fine with me. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to game article -- although I'd instead suggest waiting for the Mattias Nilsson AfD to conclude and slap the same outcome on these articles, rather than wait 10 days days. (The single persistently-restoring editor indicated on one of these two articles' talk pages his willingness to abide by that decision.) Oh, well. --EEMIV (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to sound like Dr. Nobody, but I just migrated some of his content from the Mui article to the game article. I don't pretend to whip around his "you can't merge and delete!" trumpet, but it that's worth noting, there it is. --EEMIV (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your action seems improper as you failed to give credit to the true author of the work that you copied by cut/paste. This is a breach of our licence. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ooops; [genuine] apologies. Looks like it's been fixed, though. --EEMIV (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep as unoriginal research, i.e. recurring playable character from two mainstream games is covered in multiple sources independent of the games. No reason why in even the extreme worst case scenario this article would be redlinked rather than redirected. Incidentally, when asked, "There's three characters in the game: are they all as important as each other? We've only really seen Mattias and his snazzy beard so far," the developers explained, "they're all as important as each other. There's been no grand plan, but you've probably seen more Mattias because he has a very distinctive look to him and has sort of become the poster boy for Mercs 2. But you can play the entire game as any of the characters and all are equally powerful and cool and have their unique attitude and presentation and cinematics. It's an equal opportunities experience for the three characters. Mattias has certainly had more than his share of the limelight, but you should like that; we're featuring the European guy!" References are pretty easy to find and I noticed a number of interviews beyond what I added (sorry I cannot do them all myself tonight as I have been taking care of a family member this past week). Definite potential here and beyond User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable in that this character has attracted some attention outside of fansites. Lots of good references already that we would at worst merge per WP:PRESERVE, although it seems definitely likely that we can get at least a DYK out of this one with some colloborative effort. Another possibility would be a character list of all three playable characters for which you can cite some development information from such interviews as this, where Scott Warner, Lead Designer, explains, "The three main player characters, Mattias Nilsson, Jennifer Mui and Chris Jacobs are all returning from the original Mercenaries....At their core each of three player characters are mercenaries at heart: they’re here to make money, operate outside of the rules of engagement and use their specialized skills to get the job done. This said, each is motivated by a different calling in life and this part of their character will inform how the story plays out, how other characters interact with them and how the world responds to their actions." Happy Holidays! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem is one's a block quote and the other is a response to it. The kicker is there's no visible reliability to the first quote even: it's written by a contributor to the site even, and not a regular staff member. That doesn't fly as "reliable, third party coverage". I wish it did, because I welcome good articles on female characters. But it looks more like a mountain out of a molehill.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There are so many hits in reviews, interviews, and previews that we can confirmed that this character is covered in numerous secondary sources and that she is a playable character in two major games, i.e. we have clear reason for either further expansion or arguably mergeing. There is however no need/reason to redlink. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep well referenced, and too big to merge. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep The characters are notable enough to be mentioned in all the game reviews. Plenty of information to fill an article. No sense in destroying it. Dream Focus 20:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Non-notable. The majority of refs are even from sites that can be publicly edited! OR spotted as well. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

- Non-notable is not a valid reason for deletion and certainly when not true due to the out of universe commentary on reliable website. This magazine, for example, is not a mere website and certainly not something anybody can edit. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because you and your friends don't like the words: "non-notable" & "cruft" doesn't make my argument any less valid. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If your claim is that the refs are from wikiesque public cites, then that claim is simply not true. IGN and 1UP.com are reliable secondary sources and print magazines certainly are as well. "Notability" is subjective, but factually the information is verified in at least a couple issues of GameAxis Unwired, which is a print secondary source. Sincrely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the refs are poor, hence there are not enough refs to to represent notability. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of the refs are quite good and it meets a common sense standard of notability. A character that appears in three games that appear on multiple systems, two strategy guides, and even a graphic novel who is familiar to millions of people worldwide is notable by an reasonable interpretation of that term. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

They're not even "quite good": 1, 2 + 5 are just confirmations of the voice actor. 3 + 4 just confirm her appearance in the games. 6, 7 is a specialised source, not "independent of subject" (of course an interview with a game development staff member would mention her, it does not represent coverage in the media however.) 8 + 9 are game reviews that don't even mention that character by name, 8 isn't even correct! (does not mention Britpop) 10 is a BLOG! 11 is just a picture. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

These out citations in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject are more than enough to justify inclusion on Wikipedia. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

IMDB + blogs are not "reliable" sources. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The sources found on Google News and Google Books are. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Only 2 refs from Google, both name-checks. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The reality is of course multiple references from Google that go beyond names to address the development and reception of the character. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The reality is only 2 refs from Google [52][53], both used in the first sentence of the article, just to confirm appearance in game i.e. "Name-check". Ryan4314 (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

These numerous appearances that provide critical commentary on this notable character in what is admittedly multiple reliable sources is why this article will be kept. But anyway, as it has already been merged and therefore cannot be deleted per the GFDL, we are just going in circles here. You are not going to persuade me that such a notable and verifiable figures is not worthwhile. So, that's that, I guess. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As evidenced by me, the lack of any good refs proves this subject is non-notable. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, the majority of participants in this discussion correctly identify that the subject is notable due to numerous good references available for this subject as confirmed both in the article, but especially all the ones not yet incorporated into it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt they will, especially not on your promise to "add better refs later". You've basically just conceded that the refs don't indicate notability. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You still have yet to present any actual reason for deletion. If anything, you have acknowledged above that this character is indeed notable as pretty much everyone else believes as well and as has been demonstrated through the addition of reliable secondary sources demonstrating the character's notability. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Reason for deletion: Article's subject non-notable, poor referencing indicates lack of notability. I've stated this 4 times above. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really, because the article's subject is notable, good referencing indicates notability. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

merge into a combination article as usual for characters. That is, merge a very substantial amount of content, though possibly not quite as substantial as the present separate article. The virtue of a merged list over separate articles is that it can decrease repetition somewhat. Where characters take part in more than one work, a separate combination article them is much more useful and non-duplicative than merging to the main article of each of the separate works. Anyway, nominating for deletion implies a desire to not even have a redirect, and I challenge the nom for what he would not even want that. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep The article contains numerous sources and so the nomination's claim that this is original research seems to be quite false. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom, who's nailed it. The usual suspects are unconvincing. giantbomb.com, indeed. Jack Merridew 06:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Merge the three sentences that actually follow WP:WAF - "Development" and "Reception" - to the respective sections in the game article. Marasmusine (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hunter Ellis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted due to lack of notability [54], but article was restored (despite the fact that its subject doesn't seem to have become any more notable.) Bueller 007 (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep The previous AfD was a mass article nomination and several voters noted that this individual met guidelines. He's not just a former contestant on a reality television show, he went on to host numerous well established cable programs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Indeed, the previous AFD was a mass nomination that required a an all-or-nothing approach... sadly, one of the problems with such. Kudos to the editor who restored this article, as the subject easily meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG [55]. What can be corrected through regular editing is no reason for deletion... and yes, I performed some cleanup and sourcing before commenting here. Its a keeper that improves the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note The article has now been sourced and significantly improved since this AFD began, turning this into THIS. Thank you for the opportunity, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep, the expansion and sourcing since nomination clearly shows that he meets WP:GNG. Hosted several History Channel shows, won a local Emmy award and nominated for another, plus his time on Survivor, all well referenced. J04n(talk page) 14:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep, now evidently sourced to pass an AfD. MURGH ^disc. 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep now clearly notable and properly refed. Another great result from the WP:Article Rescue Squadron? NBeale (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Speedy/Snowball Keep. Per all the above. Nom following wp:before could have saved other editors' time (as could nom withdrawing nomination now).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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 SitePoint#Marketplace. As this is a viable search term, and we already have an article on this company, discussed at SitePoint#Marketplace, a merge is the appropriate course of action. Such obvious merges need only come to AfD if they are contested. I would suggest the nominator is a little more bold in doing merges in future. And a note for Off2riorob that WP:Snow is only used in AfD for Speedy Keep. SilkTork *^YES! 01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Flippa[edit]

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

Unreliable sources do not pass WP:GNG. Alexa rankings do not pass WP:GNG. A sitepoint blog does not pass WP:GNG; ergo, this company does not pass WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support as per nominator, it is snowing outside, brrrr. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep: I'd created this article Flippa in good faith after watching outdated information at Sitepoint and therefore updated it. I wonder if Sitepoint passes the criteria of WP:GNG and should also be tagged for deletion. The Sitepoint blog was the only official statement (more like an official press release) so I included it with other verifiable references, and most of them are WP:RS. You may carry on if you still think this article should be deleted. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely --Scieberking (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Keep~~: Recently added a more reliable reference from TechCrunch, one of the biggest online technology blogs. --Scieberking (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

~~Keep~~: Alexa reference is only to verify site's alexa rankings. I've noticed most Wikipedia articles related to online sites cite their alexa ranking, for instance Engadget and Sitepoint itself. The reference from Sitepoint Official Blog is more like an official statement and/or an online company's way to disperse their official press releases. As far as the WP:GNG thing goes:

- "Significant coverage" The article has been backed up my a reference from top technology portals such as TechCrunch and an official statement. SitePoint article also cites the move of marketplace to Flippa.com (I've updated that myself).

- "Reliable" and "Presumed" TechCrunch and all other sources are reliable and written by notable, reputed editorial staff.

- "Sources" I've provided multiple sources.

- "Independent of the subject" I'm by NO means associated with Sitepoint or Flippa and an independent Wikipedia editor. Secondly, Flippa.com is the largest marketplace for buying and selling websites. Their official marketing slogan is "The #1 Marketplace for Buying and Selling Websites and Domains".
--Scieberking (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the notability guidelines rather significantly. Significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject is a single clause - each source has to be all of those. I am not implying that you are not independent of the subject, rather that sitepoint, who hosted the site, are not. Their official marketing slogan is irrelevant, and is not evidence of notability; they can write whatever the hell they want as a slogan. TechCrunch is a RS, but it's a single source - you need multiple sources. An official statement? Not independent. none of the other sources are reliable; killerstartups? blogging tips? I think not. Alexa rankings are irrelevant for notability, and have long held to be so. Ironholds (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

~~Keep~~: Yeah, for the same reason, I've not even mentioned the slogan thing in the article, written it in a WP:NPOV with (at least one/ or maybe more) WP:RS and it does not make unverifiable, self-promotional claims. I think TechCrunch is a solid WP:RS and strong enough to save a small, informative Stub from deletion. Your thoughts? Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because as I've said, it requires multiple reliable sources. You have one. Writing it in a NPOV style is all well and good, but not if the subject matter itself doesn't pass our standards of inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

~~Keep~~: Hello Ironholds. I've added another WP:RS from CenterNetworks, a reliable online magazine which focuses on the web 2.0, Internet with news, reviews, interviews and conference coverage. The magazine, having been featured on Chicago Tribune, Reuters, Business Week etc., consists of qualified editors and journalists. For more information. Also CenterNetworks Magazine has already been referenced 40 times on Wikipedia.
~~Keep~~: Flippa stub now contains two WP:RS citations and I think it should survive and be kept. Sincerely --Scieberking (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please learn how AfD works. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, despite your use of it above, and you cannot vote three times just by going "keep" in bold repeatedly. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done what I could do for saving a small, informative stub with improving it, adding WP:RS and everything. All in good faith. Let's see what happens next. Thank you very much for your input. --Scieberking (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Note to User:Scieberking: Only one "keep" to a customer here at AFD, so with respects, and not disturbing your comments, I have put a strike-through in all but one of your keeps. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Schmidt. I will take care of that next time. --Scieberking (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Sitepoint article, redirect. MURGH ^disc. 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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. Please continue merge/redirect discussion on article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fei Comodo[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails all criteria of notability for bands except one (having performed the theme music for a network television program). I propose a merge and redirect to Mighty Moshin' Emo Rangers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep: Per nom. Passes WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep: in addition to the TV theme, they appear to have been nominated for a Kerrang! award, which would probably satisfy criterion #8.--Unscented (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Criterion #8 reads: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." I don't think the Kerrang! Award falls into the same category. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not as major as the examples given, but I thought it might qualify because it's run by a major magazine and is apparently fairly well-known in Britain.--Unscented (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not like it matters anyway when this article already passes WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on the guidelines at WP:MUSIC], if that is the only claim to notability, then the article should be redirected to the article on the show for whom they recorded. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Agree with WikiDan61 on non-notability criterion. The Kerrang! Award hardly qualifies as a major music award imo. Matttwd (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- The band meets criteria 8. Joe Chill (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  - In what way does the band meet criterion 8? If we do not accept the Kerrang! awards as a major national music award, then the band does not meet that criterion. Please explain with more than just a blanket statement. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    - The theme song is criteria 8. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
      - I meant criteria 10. Joe Chill (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
        Yes, but the guideline states that if the theme song is the only claim to notability, then the page should be merged to the show's page, as I recommended in my initial nomination. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep and discuss merge/redirect on the articles talk page. The nomination offers no rationale for deletion, and the nominator isnt asking for deletion. This is not the correct forum to discuss merge/redirects. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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. A rough consenus of the discussion does not show favor towards deletion, but rather merging or keeping. Please continue the merge discussion on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Alliance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No assertion of real-world notability. Offers no citations to reliable third-party sources. Entirely in-universe plot summary. Spruced with puffy pieces of original research ("Both sides seemingly have...") and non-statements ("It is unknown if..."). --EEMIV (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per above. This is fansite material; no notability outside of fan service and marketing. Unsourced and the other WP:... given. Jack Merridew 20:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
merge to a combination article on the locations, which should be the default for this sort of material. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep or merge to a list of something-or-others (governments, teams) of BSG thingies. Will have or has references. Major plot element. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep AGF'ing that the offline refs are real. I wouldn't oppose a merge, because there are a number of such human outposts in the 1970's BSG that are absent from the 2000's reimagining. As is, this appears to meet notability, but doesn't appear to be optimally presented for Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep There seems to be enough sourced material here that deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete: largely unreferenced, in-universe. Belongs on a fan-site. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep The article is currently referenced with 5 citations from 2 different published works, so the point of "Offers no citations to reliable third-party sources" is now moot. The idea that "No assertion of real-world notability" is spurious -- there are thousands of pages on Wikipedia that relate to fictional characters and groups. I see no calls to ask how Ewoks have real world notability, but I'm sure that few would call for that page to be deleted or merged with "non-Humans of Star Wars". "Entirely in-universe plot summary." -- well, what of it? Most if not *all* pages on Wikipedia do. For example, the Time Lord page, or Ben-Hur, Fidelio, and Hamlet. Or should all of the plays, movies, books and music be taken to some "Arts & Literature fan site"? Simply put, the Eastern Alliance was a major plot device in the original BSG's later episodes, and were alluded to (the nuked Earth) in the reimaging. Remove it, and we may as well delete/merge the Imperial stormtrooper page too. Markvs88 (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. This is in-universe material which is best suited for a fansite or Wikia / Wikicities or whatever its called now. JBsupreme (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep this out of universe material that is suitable for Wikipedia. Due to improvements, the article demonstrates real-world notability by means of citations to reliable third-party sources and is therefore unorigfinal research concerning out of universe information. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Question: Is there a list of groups or governments in BSG anywhere out there? If so, I'd be happy to keep the cruft I just deleted axed and have this content merged instead, i.e. to withdraw this nomination. Not sure if that's kosher since there are other delete !votes. --EEMIV (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It is always appropriate for a nominator to say that he has concluded through dicussions and edits that there are other more acceptable options than a flat delete. The whole purpose of an AFD is to discuss the qualities of an article, pro and con, and acknowleding improvements that might happen during the course of an AfD. If a nominator's opinion changes, its always proper for him to share with the others involved in the discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's a lot of response but not much of an answer. Is there any such list of BSG groups or organizations to merge this to sans cruft? --EEMIV (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Given the number of "Keep" votes, I'd say that's a superfluous question. Markvs88 (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep per improvements and allow further soucing per Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy, Cinefantastique, Volume 35, Issues 1-6, The encyclopedia of TV science fiction, Sf-Worlds, and others avaiilable online and in libraries. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep and impove Look for more source material, it seems a valid topic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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 for now. With no prejudice towards recreation. henrik•talk 10:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Denizen (2010 film)[edit]

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

Unremarkable film. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. A "making-of" short appears to have won an award, not this film. Note that the DoorQ reference is actually a blog. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss. I disagree with the proposal for deletion.

I appreciate your guidance on adding more references from resources.

When seeking out references to establish the notability of a film, and to provide the necessary information for a thorough article of high quality, consider some of these resources:

A film's entry in the The Internet Movie Database can provide valuable information, including links to reviews, articles, and media references. A page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability, however. Film and entertainment periodicals abound. Many magazines in Category:Film magazines can provide good references and indicators of notability.

I did some more research this evening and have added references from local newspaper, film and entertainment periodicals.

It is a yet undistributed film, but is notable.

Some films that don't pass the standard notability may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant. The sources for Denizen are verifiable.

The Denizen article features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person, JA Steel, and is a major part of her career.

J.A. Steel, one of the few female directors in the industry. She is a director, producer, actor, editor, fight choreographer and stunt person, in addition to writer and composer.

The article on the Denizen film was created as there enough information on the film that it would clutter up the biography page of J.A. Steel if it was mentioned there.

The short film was about the filmmaker and the making of the film Denizen, and the struggles she has had while working a hostile industry, 92% dominated by men.

If you have access to IMDB Pro, you will see Denizen (http://www.pro.imdb.com/title/tt1194424/), is in the Top 35 completed features awaiting release (http://www.pro.imdb.com/inproduction/status-completed). This is a major accomplishment by a female director.

A lot of this discussion is about Steel's achievements as a female film director. That is arguably evidence for her notability, but doesn't make the film notable per se. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some additional references for Denizen that I found this evening that are not included in the Wikipedia article:

http://www.parkcityfilmmusicfestival.org/screenings.html

This seems to be a minor award (silver medal in a minor music festival competition) for the impact of music in a short film: is this not also about the documentary? --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

http://cinemafantastique.be/Denizen.html

This basically describes Steel as a producer of low-budget movies with low distribution numbers and anticipates Denizen to be another in the same vein, for example saying that the monster is more likely to make you laugh than scream.

http://www.cinemafantastique.net/Interview-de-Tiffany-Shepis-scream.html

This is an interview where one of the actors basically just says that she can't say much about the film. Not much support for notability. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8xyn0_ja-steel-denizen-sundance-2009_shortfilms

http://www.oklahomafilm.org/uploads/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20FINALAdvisory%20Board%20Report%20-%20April%202008.pdf

This just mentions the film in passing. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather than proposing deletion, I would appreciate your help in improving the article as others have done. There are a few hundred articles on upcoming films, many in 2009 and 2010, that might also benefit from your assistance.

Thanks so much.

Action grrl (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete: not notable as such: minor low-budget as-yet unreleased action movie. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep and assist-Action grrl's request to improve the article is both reasonable and kind, traits rarely seen when articles are put up for AfD. I would say this show of good faith buys her some good faith in return, what say you, Wikipedians? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Hi Chris, I agree that we are seeing ample evidence of good faith, and we should be careful not to be impolite, but the test for notability is independent of who's asserting it, and I just don't see the evidence here! --Slashme (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment I really appreciate all of the interest shown, and the assistance provided for improvement, both to me and the article. I have learned so much in this process. I hope that those who advocate for deletion will reflect on the references in the article about the production, and consider what this woman has overcome to bring this independent action film to completion on a micro-budget, such as "Interview with J.A. Steel". Killing Boxx. 2008-12-01. And then perhaps contemplate the industry review of the pre-release version at "B Movie Man Review of Denizen (2010)". B Movie Man. 2009-11-25. The review is by a recognized expert in the genre, who watched the film and describes the unique stunt work, far-flung locations and complex plot, notable for independent film projects. The award mentioned above from the Park City Music Festival was for the music video/trailer for the movie Denizen itself, not the short film on the behind-the-scenes, which also won an award. My speculation is that there will be future awards for the film, and additional critical acclaim, though time will tell, just as it will for the other to-be released upcoming films. Thanks for all of your help. --Action grrl (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Added 10th reference for article, from Pretty Scary: For Women in Horror by Women in Horror. Action grrl (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

'Comment The references you added to the article are NOT RELIABLE, no one can check if they are telling the truth. WP:RELIABLE --MisterWiki talk contribs 03:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dailymotion video was uploaded by himself, not by a news coverage of the website itself.
There are needed third-party sources, not by the organization.
Isn't IMDB Pro can be edited by the same users and add info about they? http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?resumeaddnewname --MisterWiki talk contribs 03:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The references in the article include third-party sources such as: Pretty Scary: For Women in Horror by Women in Horror; Muskogee Phoenix newspaper; Killing Boxx web news; JobLo Movie Network News web news; FilmStew.com (a Yahoo! Entertainment contributor); B Movie Man; Human Rights Campaign; Tulsa World newspaper; and the Nevada Film Festival. All are available to the world to check.

The information listed on IMDB can be submitted by an individual or company; howerver, it is approved by administrators and is subject to peer review. It appears you are confusing the issues of adding information to the IMDB and the StarMeter I referenced. http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?prowhatisstarmeter

For films to be listed in the IMDB, they have to be published in the Hollywood Reporter or Variety magazine, or they can be approved by an IMDB administrator, if accepted into a Withoutabox sanctioned film festival. Films not meeting this criteria are removed, thus a third-party source verifies the information for the film on the IMDB.

Out of over 3 million people listed on the IMDB, this week JA Steel is ranked 2,925 on the StarMeter or in the top 99.9% of those in the entertainment business, by the 57 million people who visit IMDB each month.

J.A. Steel, and her film Denizen (2010), meet the standards of Wikipedia for reliability and notability. Assistance to improve the article is most welcome. Thank you.

Action grrl (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Action grrl, please understand, the article of that film is not notable, it is not 2010 now and the sources (probably you provided) are not reliable, sorry. --MisterWiki talk contribs 23:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: MisterWikitalk There are 10 independent references in the article. They are all available for investigation and review. They are reliable. Any person in the entertainment industry can attest to this fact. The interview with the filmmaker is on the RealTV website about the film: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=55568695&__preferredculture=en-US&__ipculture=en-US As to the release date, there are several hundred articles on upcoming films, many in 2009 and 2010, on Wikipedia. This week, Denizen is ranked 2,766 on the IMDB MovieMeter, out of over one million past, present and upcoming films in the database, placing it in the top 99.93% of all movies notable and reliable enough to make it into the industry database. You can sign up for a two-week free trial of IMDbPro and investigate it for yourself, and learn a lot about the movie business in the process. The film does indeed meet the requirements of notable, as defined by Wikipedia and articulated in my comments you lined out above. This article has been tagged by an Editor for Rescue, so this deletion debate is moot. Again, I urge you help build, rather than tear down. Thanks. Action grrl (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry but MySpace is not reliable (maybe the worst source that Wikipedia could reference). --MisterWiki talk contribs 23:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  - I have a strange feeling that you are J.A. Steel. You cannot spam your works here in Wikipedia, sorry, but wait until another person write a article for 'your' film. --MisterWiki talk contribs 23:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    - Also, take a look at WP:AUTO. --MisterWiki talk contribs 23:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
      - It is unfortunate that the totality of the references continue to be ignored. The MySpace site of RealTV is a news outlet with interviews from people throughout the entertainment industry. However, it is not referenced in the article, and is again a moot point. I am aware of WP:AUTO, and it is not applicable. However, it appears WP:HA might be a more appropriate policy for discussion. Action grrl (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
        Sorry, but the references you provided are not reliable. This is not harassment, but please take a look at WP:RS. Myspace, blogs, and other kind of sources are not reliable. If you have a source like BBC or a reliable newspaper, let me know, if not, your article will be deleted. --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
        Comment Firstly I'm assuming good faith, but good faith can't overrule policy. More I can't find any reliable sources. They may become available upon release however. [56] leads me to believe this may become true. I myself am not that well acquanted with policy on this matter, but looking into it it doesn't matter if it may become notable. It must be notable now. Therefore... NativeForeigner (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
        
        Clarification: I can't find any reliable sources showing importance. NativeForeigner (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Tentative Delete for the above reasons in the comment NativeForeigner (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.:: -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable film, made by non-notable people, starring non-notable actors. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment In the past few weeks, I have observed several articles relating to the work of Lesbian filmmakers and Lesbian actress summarily deleted off of Wikipedia. These articles were notable to our community, and they are important to us. There appears to be an unfortunate trend of Deletionism and bias on Wikipedia. There are several reliable sources provided in the article that are standard mediums of communication and news in the movie industry and the LGBT community. The claim that they are not reliable sources appears to demonstrate a lack of this understanding for our community. I have made my case, I have welcomed collaboration, I have appealed for understanding. If an Administrator is able to place the article into my workshop, I would appreciate the assistance. Thank you. Action grrl (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the filmaker is gay or not isn't a factor that I even consider. I could care less. Not notable is not notable. I do, however, discount niche publications that cover only items that promote their cause/agenda/whatever. The reasoning you use is no different than the ones used by Pokemon fans, Star Wars fans or the followers of different religious factions. Notability is about a single "community". Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Weak Delete After going through each reference and examining them one at a time it appears to me that most of the refs are not reliable sources. The truly RS does a good job of describing the movie, but I am concerned that this doesn't establish notability on its own. If more RSes can be added then I am sure I can suggest keeping the article, but for now it is a weak delete. Basket of Puppies 06:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep I have just done some major clean-up on the article, addresing many of the nominator's concerns. It would be prudent to allow expansion and further sourcing as film gets its 2010 theatrical release in a few weeks. Note: the film (not just the "making of short) has already screened at festivals such as Sundance. And yes, genre-specific reviews are often dismissed out-of-hand... but they are indicative of the growing attention the film is receiving. Further, the article now includes several in-depth reliable sources toward meeting WP:NF through WP:GNG, and it is reasonable to presume that more will come with general release, not less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} . I appreciate your motto, I'd rather fix the damn pipe than complain about having wet feet. - MQS And, your experience and collaboration...and time...as an Editor is so very appreciated. Action grrl (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Comment Again you are referencing not-rs. The article will be deleted if you don't provide a RELIABLE SOURCE. Also, 2nd reference says CNN but it is iReport. --MisterWiki talk contribs 14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    - Comment I can only suppose with good faith that you somehow missed the header "CNN iReport" at the top of the page you dismiss. And to emulate your need for emphasis, per WP:RS, "HOW RELIABLE A SOURCE IS, AND THE BASIS FOR ITS RELIABILITY, DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT." Reasonable editors might see that even Wikipedia policy recognizes and accepts that a small-budget, independent film pending release might not receive the same press as a big-budget, highly-touted, blockbuster film full of notables. This filmaker and her film have, so far, more coverage than might be expected toward meeting WP:NF through WP:GNG for such, and it is reasonable to presume that more will come with general release, not less. Guideline allows that each might be considered for what it is... not what it is not. At the very least, incubation might well be considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
      - Comment Appears that you missed the "i". I-Report. Anybody can report. Not reliable. I can write that Wikipedia is the worst encyclopedia ever in iReport, and is it reliable?. No. --MisterWiki talk contribs 17:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Per all the reasons above.--MisterWiki talk contribs 14:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- One might think that even failure of reason might make it difficult to ignore the coverage [57][58][59][60], even if supported by genre-specific reviews. Thank you for again making your opinion very clear. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  - I reviewed the links you provided. Unfortunately, the first 2 are reliable, but not too much, they appear to be a primary source, like the other ones, and the blog pages. --MisterWiki talk contribs 17:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    - Found with a diligent search are a number of genre-specific reviews from genre-specific reviewers that are not primary sources. User:Action grrl mentioned a few up above, but there are more. But because they do not yet have their own articles on Wikipedia (as do such as Fangoria, Bloody-Disgusting, DVD Talk, FEARnet, Film Threat, & Rue_Morgue), I hesitated to list them here... no matter that they are independent of the production and are considered within their field of expertise to be generally authoritative on the topic of horror film... because I did not wish this to devolve into a debate on how expectations for being authoritative on the subject of independent horror films for sites like FEARnet or Bloody-Disgusting and their kin, might or might not compare with New York Times or Washington Post being authoritative in other areas. Its like a comparison of Apples and Spinach... both having something to offer, but not useful in the same ways. And no... I am not speaking about blog pages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
strong keep very well referenced article. Ikip 17:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think that these sources are very reliable. Even in context, they are at best adequate when looking at policy. Why do you feel that it is why referenced? Thanks, NativeForeigner (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice. The article is premature, and the film is not-yet-notable. If and when this film receives substantial coverage I have no objection to the Wikipedia article being recreated. JBsupreme (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note that the article is low budget, maybe it will never be notable. --MisterWiki talk contribs 21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep The early sources seem adequate for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've stroke the comment. Our purposes are not going to promote any kind of non-notable films. We are a encyclopedia, not a film database. --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Please do not strike another editor's comments just because you disagree. I have undone that edit. We only strike posts that are from sockpuppets or remove ones that are outright imflammatory. Please also be careful of WP:CIVIL. The "not to promote LGBT-related films" comes off as a bit homophobic. We cover films based on verifiability through multiple reliable sources. The nature of the films is not relevant. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment What are our purposes? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Danish UNIX User Group[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG, hardly any third party coverage. [61]. there is not even a Danish WP article on this. LibStar (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I made the appropriate cross-linkage to .dk for the history of the DK top level domain, which DKUUG was instrumental in. Can't tell the story of the Danish internet without this group. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a self-published history of the group, in Danish, as a link; can't read Danish well enough to decode more than the acronyms and the general sense of things. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A relevant Danish page is DK_Hostmaster_A/S. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep. A single google search does not notability determine. Try searching for dkuug.--J Clear (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I used google news not google. google is not recommended because of WP:GOOGLEHITS. you haven't actually provided evidence of third party coverage of this. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You will note I did not mention hit counts. As WP:GOOGLEHITS states, the quality of the search results is important. The Google search would tend to support the two criteria in WP:ORG for Non-Commercial organizations. DKUUG acts as the national representative to international standards such as POSIX. Third party verification can be found in the Google results. --J Clear (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Specifically here is third party confirmation of their POSIX involvement. --J Clear (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Question Is anyone finding anything in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources? I am not. I see two keep !votes but am still not seeing the sources. Help me, please! JBsupreme (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I find this professional association to be established. The fact that there are limited sources in English on it should not impair notability, as this is - obviously - a Danish guild. What matters is that the article also does have some coverage from English language sources, as are those referenced in the article itself. Arguably, the fact that there are more sources on Alcide De Gasperi in Italian is not a good reason to delete it. Same goes for this one article.--Grasshopper6 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Mentioned in local computing press, and even in the mainstream Jyllands-Posten. User groups seldom have that kind of coverage. Pcap ping 14:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Please continue merge discussion on the article talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

County General Hospital (Chicago, Illinois)[edit]

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

Delete this fictional location that fails the WP:GNG with a lack of multiple, independent WP:RS. WossOccurring (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 00:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to ER (TV series) The same action was taken with the fictional Seattle Grace Hospital when the same type of article was written about that setting. I don't see this needing seven days of discussion and would redirect myself with an NAC, but will let others determine it. Nate • (chatter) 01:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep This nomination seems to be part of a deletion spree being made hastily as a spinoff of another AFD. This seems improper as, by nominating numerous similar articles together, but not as a group, the action tends to overload our system. The proper deletion process is not being followed - no discussion at the article, no effort to find sources, no effort to consider alternatives to deletion. Good sources for this topic do exist and I have added one to the article but AFD is not cleanup and our volunteer good will and efforts should not be abused in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep or Merge: ER was a highly notable show, the only question here is one of organization -- where do we put the relevant (though verifiable, of course) information about the hospital.--Milowent (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Merge into ER (TV series); as with the others there's no really independent notability, and the material is not long enough to warrant a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep As stated above, ER was a very notable show. The setting is one of the most important aspects of the show. Onopearls ^(t/c) 03:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Speedy keep – AFD nomination by a sock puppet of a blocked user. –MuZemike 02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep per Colonel Warden. fetchcomms☛ 04:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Merge into ER (TV series) - fictional hospitals don't need their own articles. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of pastebins[edit]

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

none of these websites have a wp article. too much text to dump into the pastebin article. there is no reason for wp to have this table. we ain't a general review site to create tables comparing nn websites. this belongs on some other wiki. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete - per WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:N. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Good list of pastebins for users searching for one, no reason to delete. After all, this is a comparison list. -- Jordan "Eck" Samuel (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note - this user has made significant contributions to this article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Note - Indeed, it is everyones job to do so. This is wikipedia, not half-arsepedia.-- Jordan "Eck" Samuel (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep Excellent list of commercially available pastebins. Deletion is not dependent on whether their exists an article on these pages yet. No article does not automatically mean non-notable. Ikip 19:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included on the Pastebins page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep The AfD nom reason amounts to just not notable, which while false, is also one of the many arguments to avoid. Despite the laundry list of "reasons" stated by Blaxthos above, this AfD nomination is not backed up by any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.
The notability guideline does not limit what can or cannot be included in a particular article. The notability guideline only helps determine if a specific subject should have its own standalone article. WP:NCC states: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight."
This particular article has lots of references and uses two citation methods; inline citations and embedded citations, so Blaxthos's claims of WP:OR are obviously without merit. While inline citations are preferred for some things, embedded citations are commonplace in comparison tables and lists and work extremely well for those particular uses. This article is not unique in its layout or structure, see Category:Computing comparisons for an overview of many of these articles on Wikipedia. I seriously doubt someone would nominate similarly structured articles such as List of neutrino experiments for deletion.
I'll also point out that Blaxthos has shown up here strictly due to his personal conflicts with Eckstasy. (See [62] and [63])
--Tothwolf (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Mui[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mui

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

I'm nominating this for exactly the same reason as the Mattias Nilsson article: it's original researching, and a retelling of the plots for the games. That's really all that can be said about it cut and dried. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for exactly the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction. Either is fine with me. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to game article -- although I'd instead suggest waiting for the Mattias Nilsson AfD to conclude and slap the same outcome on these articles, rather than wait 10 days days. (The single persistently-restoring editor indicated on one of these two articles' talk pages his willingness to abide by that decision.) Oh, well. --EEMIV (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to sound like Dr. Nobody, but I just migrated some of his content from the Mui article to the game article. I don't pretend to whip around his "you can't merge and delete!" trumpet, but it that's worth noting, there it is. --EEMIV (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your action seems improper as you failed to give credit to the true author of the work that you copied by cut/paste. This is a breach of our licence. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ooops; [genuine] apologies. Looks like it's been fixed, though. --EEMIV (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep as unoriginal research, i.e. recurring playable character from two mainstream games is covered in multiple sources independent of the games. No reason why in even the extreme worst case scenario this article would be redlinked rather than redirected. Incidentally, when asked, "There's three characters in the game: are they all as important as each other? We've only really seen Mattias and his snazzy beard so far," the developers explained, "they're all as important as each other. There's been no grand plan, but you've probably seen more Mattias because he has a very distinctive look to him and has sort of become the poster boy for Mercs 2. But you can play the entire game as any of the characters and all are equally powerful and cool and have their unique attitude and presentation and cinematics. It's an equal opportunities experience for the three characters. Mattias has certainly had more than his share of the limelight, but you should like that; we're featuring the European guy!" References are pretty easy to find and I noticed a number of interviews beyond what I added (sorry I cannot do them all myself tonight as I have been taking care of a family member this past week). Definite potential here and beyond User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable in that this character has attracted some attention outside of fansites. Lots of good references already that we would at worst merge per WP:PRESERVE, although it seems definitely likely that we can get at least a DYK out of this one with some colloborative effort. Another possibility would be a character list of all three playable characters for which you can cite some development information from such interviews as this, where Scott Warner, Lead Designer, explains, "The three main player characters, Mattias Nilsson, Jennifer Mui and Chris Jacobs are all returning from the original Mercenaries....At their core each of three player characters are mercenaries at heart: they’re here to make money, operate outside of the rules of engagement and use their specialized skills to get the job done. This said, each is motivated by a different calling in life and this part of their character will inform how the story plays out, how other characters interact with them and how the world responds to their actions." Happy Holidays! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem is one's a block quote and the other is a response to it. The kicker is there's no visible reliability to the first quote even: it's written by a contributor to the site even, and not a regular staff member. That doesn't fly as "reliable, third party coverage". I wish it did, because I welcome good articles on female characters. But it looks more like a mountain out of a molehill.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There are so many hits in reviews, interviews, and previews that we can confirmed that this character is covered in numerous secondary sources and that she is a playable character in two major games, i.e. we have clear reason for either further expansion or arguably mergeing. There is however no need/reason to redlink. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep well referenced, and too big to merge. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep The characters are notable enough to be mentioned in all the game reviews. Plenty of information to fill an article. No sense in destroying it. Dream Focus 20:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Non-notable. The majority of refs are even from sites that can be publicly edited! OR spotted as well. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

- Non-notable is not a valid reason for deletion and certainly when not true due to the out of universe commentary on reliable website. This magazine, for example, is not a mere website and certainly not something anybody can edit. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)