Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
< 29 August 31 August >
Guide to deletion
Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
  • RFC on appropriate handling/removal of non-free images that breach WP:NFCC policy #9.
  • RfC on the proposed cessation of selective delete (other than history merge fixes) and resulting changes to deletion policies, including the removal of a Revision Deletion criterion.
  • Invitation to comment on candidates standing for 2012 Audit Subcommittee appointment
  • RfC about whether "new messages" banner hoaxes should be prohibited
  • RfC on how files from non-copyright states should be treated and used on WP
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive · talk · edit · history · watch

Purge server cache

Contents


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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 13:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fusionsearch (search engine)

Fusionsearch (search engine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Fusionsearch (search engine)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Metasearch engine. The little coverage this engine has received is in blogs; gnews doesn't turn up much (except for a blog entry.) I don't see this meeting the criteria of WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Prod declined. Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This search engine has not existed for very long either, you have to give it that. Not only is it the first search engine to merge Google, Bing, Yahoo and Wolfram Alpha with full AJAX support, but other search engines that have less features are listed on Wikipedia. Why does this one not have the permission to get listed? What is really so different? User:Mathiaslylo (talk) 12:28 PM, 31 August 2009 (UTC + 1) —Preceding undated comment added 10:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

It's not a matter of permission, it's a matter of notability. Has Fusionsearch "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources"? The other metasearch engines with articles have. Fusionsearch is, as you say, new. If and when it does get enough coverage from those sources, the company would be notable enough for Wikipedia. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - looking over the references provided, I don't see the coverage needed to establish notability nor am I able to find it myself -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - While the argument that "there are other pages in Wikipedia with less notability" could be used, it is invalid, and I agree that the article here in question does not meet the criteria of WP:WEB. If the article sometime in the future, due to increased media coverage, does meet these criteria, then it can be remade. Until then: au revoir, Fusionsearch. Bobber0001 (talk) 13:14, 5 September 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. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Laugh Out Loud (web series)

Laugh Out Loud (web series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Laugh Out Loud (web series)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The first indication I had that this might be a non-notable web series was when I realized that the article did not provide any third-party, reliable sources to establish verifiability, and that the the web series' official website was on MySpace. A further investigation into the series, including a Google Web search, and a Google News search, turned up nothing that could potentially save this article. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete, claims to have been shown on Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland), but I see nothing to confirm that. Please change my opinion to keep if it can be verified that it did indeed air on real television. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SparksBoy (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete; a search seems to indicate that there was indeed a show called Laugh Out Loud that was broadcast on Nickelodeon UK, but it was a different show - a half-hour sketch comedy show that ended in 2002. I can't find any reference to the show on Nickelodeon UK's web site. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:29, 31 August 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Benn Banasik

Benn Banasik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Benn Banasik" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

A Non-notable local government politician. The subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN in that he has not "held international, national or first-level sub-national political office". The sources are all either community newspapers, not independent of the subject (MACROC and myspace) or not specifically about the subject. Mattinbgn\talk 22:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment If community newspapers are relaible source, then every local government councillor (and General Manager) in NSW will be considered notable (not to mention every local football player etc.). There is zero evidence that the subject is any more than locally notable and zero evidence that his notability (such as it is) extends any further than the local council area. The community newspapers may be reliable sources for WP:V purposes but in no way can they be used to establish wider notability. The AFR article (behind a subscription wall and therefore I can't read most of it) seems to be about the concept of working from home rather than Mr Banasik, although he is used as an example. I fail to see how that can possible establish notability (unless being an "extreme commuter" makes one notable). -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator does not deny that subject meets the GNG, and does not make a case for an exception from the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Umm, yes he does when he talks about the subject being only in local press etc. Though he doesn't specifically mention the GNG his point clearly addresses them. If you disagree over the interpretation of whether 'local' sources can be used to show notability then that is a different question. Quantpole (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: clearly a very minor local politician, despite some newspaper coverage. If he were included, hundreds of thousands of minor Australian politicans could be too.--Grahame (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability guideline states: "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles" I don't see that here. Cited sources show that he is a minor local councillor and thus not notable, missing WP:POLITICIAN by a mile. Valenciano (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN, while there are a few odds and bobs about him in local community papers, there's nothing particularly in depth or non-routine, as far as I can see. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC).
  • Keep. Whilst Benn Banasik may be only a local politician there are alot of references online and I was intending to create pages for all of the local political identities in the Macarthur region, I am happy however to go with the consensus. Macarthur2011 (speak to me)
  • Delete Not a notable career in any ordinary sense. The embarrassing fact (for us) that he does meet the GNG can be solved in one of two ways: defining community newspapers as not RSs for notability, or accepting that notability is a property of the subject, not the sources. The current practice is to do the first rather than deal with the complications of the second-- I think it's artificial, and will be shown more and more to be artificial once more local papers are online in GNews. Whether we decide by what i think is rational or by manipulating RS, he's not notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per DGG Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN Secret account 19:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Very much per Lankiveil, Valenciano, DGG etc. I actually came upon this article while trying to fix cruft in another article, and yes, he's very local. Orderinchaos 19:50, 5 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 13:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eyetap

Eyetap (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Eyetap" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable product. — Dædαlus Contribs 22:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You guys just want to delete it because it's cool. Yes it could use some better sources but deleting it won't solve anything. Find sources and add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.183.232.130 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • On the fence: if it had better sources (and no, I don't have time to look for any at the moment), I'd say keep, because it sounds like a perfectly notable article. The issue is solely its lack of sources, not its lack of notability (or if anyone has any notability issues, they haven't made them knowsn, so it defaults to the same thing.) --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This nomination consists entirely of an argument to avoid. I see [1][2][3][4][5] as strong indicators of notability. ZabMilenko 08:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep it is notable with the new refrences that i am adding. --Pedro J. the rookie 22:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Steve Mann, the inventor. He is independently notable, but this particular invention is not (yet, I hope). Probably warrants a mention at Heads up display as well. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep since the concept is notable and published widely and referenced by numerous different organizations and researchers, even though the product itself isn't yet in widespread use (i.e. not widely commercialized yet). Just because a product is not widely mass-produced does not necessarily mean that the ideas, concepts, research, and scholarship is irrelevant.Glogger (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an issue about fixing something, not deleting it, unless Wikipedia's goal is form over content. Well, ya, it often is. To say that this invention (which a number of my friends have actually used and is the creation of a well published and well documented inventor) which has been shown in feature film length documentaries and is of undisputed existence should be deleted because someone's writing skills aren't up to snuff is exclusionist and I would say discriminatory. You don't delete knowledge because it is poorly formatted. You nurture knowledge. I'd write it, but I personally don't have access to the information, and I'm not a certified expert, which seems to be the requirements these days. But keep it. Oh, and Dædαlus showing how many edits he's got as proof of his rightness is just old school tenure power plays in a new space. Rather offensive. --SarahSmiles (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep No question. Article's substandard, but invention's both legit and widely known. (Bias: I know steve and have seen the eyetap and have written in reference to it, but I have no personal interest in it). Wise to say "fix it now or it goes" but if it is not to be fixed by the inventor, it is really unfair to delete it because no one else is stepping up. Some problematic ethical issues going on here. Anyway. I'll add some refs that I feel qualified to add, and I hope others too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahSmiles (talk • contribs) 11:46, 6 September 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. fails notability; no prejudice against good-faith recreation. tedder (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Zenisha Moktan

Zenisha Moktan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Zenisha Moktan" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable biography of a model and actress which fails on WP:ENT. The claim of significance or importance given is not credible. Former Miss Tamang (non-notable beauty pageant) and contestant of events which never happened don't give subject an encyclopedic value. WP:NOTSCANDAL also applies here. Hitro talk 05:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete This is a very poorly-written article with no apparent Notability. The References section is a joke. The films she's appeared in are footage from the beauty pageants in which she's competed, apparently, other than for one cameo (she was probably an extra, in reality), and an appearance in something with the dubious name of "MMS porn." KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Adaquately referenced. Meets WP:GNG. Chuthya (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment-Clearly fails at WP:GNG. No Significant coverage and no source for notability. Apart from that there aint no Reliable source. Adequately referenced for sex scandal, measurement, height and appearance on the cover of non-notable magazine. Do you think this is enought for inclusion? Please indicate what point does this article meet. Saying just Meets GNG is not enough. Hitro talk 17:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • reply Meets criteria 1 of WP:ENT due to numerous prominent appearances in a nationally broadcast television show. Chuthya (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Question- And what are those shows?? The article doesnt even mention that the subject is a TV artist too. Give a single instance of TV appearance. Dubious MMS Porn thing must not be one broadcasted on national Television. Was It? After analyzing your recent contribution, I believe that you are on mission to oppose KevinOKeeffe (talk · contribs)'s opinion, however, you are entitled to have your opinion. No issue. Hitro talk 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The multiple television programs listed in the article. Just because they are Nepalese does not mean they don't meet the requirements of WP:ENT 1 Chuthya (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • which didn't happen because of the Women Nepali Maoist Party, that is an infringement from the article. Read the article, contest didnt take place. Miss Tamang must be a non-notable local contest which can not be the subject of national broadcast. It fails on 1st criteria of WP:ENT. However, such involvements in national broadcast hardly matter, you can not call it having significant roles in multiple television shows.
    Be it Nepalese or Be it Italian, unless you satisfy criteria for inclusion clearly, you aint an encyclopedic subject. Hitro talk 14:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply Because one didn't happen does not mean that the rest did not. Chuthya (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I repeat "such involvements in national broadcast hardly matter, you can not call it having significant roles in multiple television shows ". Rest here is one, You are left with one and one is not multiple.Hitro talk 18:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Miss Teen Tamang is local contest but it got national coverage. She's well known model and also upcoming actress as well with new films on her credit. I have edited and added some more links/references, these may increase it's prominence. ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabingrg (talk • contribs) 04:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment- I am quoting an excerpt from the source added by you ... With indigenous beauty pageants sprouting like mushrooms in the capital, there was one more that added the list with the Miss Tamang 2006 Competition. I do not think winning such competitions gives somebody encyclopedic significance. Hitro talk 06:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • reply It's not just because she won such competitions she should be here, she's a well known model which i pointed out before as well. She has credits of appearance on cover of magazines (i know you might say local one: but Wave is a famous magazine here in Nepal and among Nepali speaking population of India, if you insists on it's too local, i guess nothing of Nepal will feature here). She's upcoming actress as well. So i believe it shouldn't be deleted. --Rabin (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm struggling with this one. Searching for the young lady's name in English reveals a few sources, but it's also productive to search for her name in Nepali characters. I'm getting links like this, from Weeklynepal.com; but Nepali isn't one of my languages and I can't find an online translator that would let me even being to evaluate it. And I can't make head nor tail of this, either, for the same reason.

    There is one (1) Wikipedian editor who lists themself as an available translator from Nepali to English. This is Eukesh, and I note that Eukesh has made contributions to Wikipedia on 22 August and therefore seems to be an active user. I believe that we will not be able to evaluate the sources without input from someone who can speak the language, so I will leave a note for Eukesh asking them if they wouldn't mind reading the sources for us.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Additional note: I see that the article's creator has been indefblocked as a sockpuppetteer, so unless Eukesh or another user who can read Nepali passes through, my !vote is delete. I can assume good faith but I'm damned if I'll assume a known sockpuppetteer is in good faith.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:16, 31 August 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 no consensus.  Skomorokh  18:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Quist

Edward Quist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Edward Quist" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:BIO. I have been unable to find any reliable sources in Google News Archive to establish the subject's notability. His IMDb page shows two films which he directed/produced. Kuvaputki, one of his films, has a Wikipedia article; however, notability is not inherited. This article should be deleted per WP:V and WP:BLP. Cunard (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • delete maybe he will be notable some day, but he isn't now. Uucp (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

--He has garnered press internationally, non-self published
-mefeddia
-Envoy
-The New Current
-Slice Magazine
-Rapporto Confidenziale
-Inoza
-Art En La Red
-Nero Magazine
-Zimbio
-Mefeddia
-Buenos Aliens
-Times Online
-Arjan Writes
-PhinnWeb

93.182.138.10 (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the sources are insufficient. They are either written by him, mention him in passing, or don't even mention him at all. Cunard (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Note that the edit records and IP addresses on the two posts above suggest that they are the same person, pulling a sock puppet. If I had to bet, it's the subject of the AFD trying to save his vanity page. Uucp (talk)
I concur. Cunard (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The sock puppets are also trying to hijack the AFD for one of Quist's personal projects, [[6]]. Uucp (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment: There are 3 participants in this discussion; one is a registered user, while the other two are IPs. The IPs appear to be the same person, so I have relisted this AfD to generate more input. Cunard (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: subject lacked news articles that feature him. Alexius08 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


  • As I mentioned in the Kuvaputki AfD, the more input the better. Again I am refuting the claim that I am both editors.

    Allegations of Sock Puppeting
    I made the edits from 93.182.133.56, but not 93.182.138.10. Furthermore, those that use the same internet service provider, are not the same person. While I can see how you see this as a red flag, it is in no way proof that I am a sock puppet. From your line of thinking when one who uses an IP address from the same ISP, they are the same person, people do edit from dynamic ip addresses, most people do have dynamic ips. I now see the importance of creating an account. As for the claim a sock puppet editing this page, for further transparency, I created this account so my edits are associated with my new found user name. I know I should not take the sock puppet allegations personally, but I am NOT Quist, have no connections with him. I am just a "regular" person, who is passionate about work in this genre. I am not hiding my identity, sock puppeting, in any way. I'll even give my real name, Frank Lee, with nothing to hide.


Let us then keep this discussion on subject instead of alleging sock puppeting. While I am a fan of the genre, this should not require me to recuse myself from this discussion, as long as neutrality is maintained.


  • Also as mentioned in the Kuvaputki AfD, claim that this article was written by him is clearly wrong as the author of work signed the article. Valerio Mannucci. And it is quite a bad review which not the type of article an artist would write.


Notability

In the case of artists, it is very difficult to justify notability as being inherited. For instance Emily Dickinson led a life that wasn't particularly notable. She had only a few poems published in her lifetime, but her work is what makes her notable.
The notability of Quist's work makes him notable.

  • In Andergraund, a well circulated Italian magazine, Embryoroom, Quist's moniker, and Del Marquis were interviewed
  • A prominent figure in the abduction phenomenon, Whitley Strieber has taken note of Quist's work. Specifically, the Third Rail. This is especially significant as Hazmazk and the Third Rail deal directly with subject Mr. Strieber is intimate.

evening."

  • postmoderní psychóza reviews his work Hazmazk, (Google's translation) "Penetration into the heart of existential solitude. Impressive black and white patterns, which describes the initial poverty, cut in rhythm ambient collage.'
  • Plug in Music Magazine notes the political nature of his work mentioning the video, The Third Rail, includes Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni as well as liking it to Fritz Lang's "dystopian vision"

As a Label and Recording Artist

  • Del Marquis mentions on the Pepsimaxcast Embryoroom as his label.
  • Idiomag notes Embryoroom's release Litter to Society

So let's add tags to see to it that the article is cleaned up, but not deleted.F Lee001 (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: I am unsure about the reliability of the links that F Lee001 has posted, so I have listed this discussion at two deletion sorting links. Hopefully, one of the editors there can evaluate these sources. Cunard (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lots of sources but I cannot see any that demonstrate the notability of the subject. I would much prefer one or two decent reliable sources to 30 or so poor ones. Unfortunately I cannot see even one that is much good. Quantpole (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. What makes Rapporto Confidenziale, and Andergraund unreliable? They are all factual reputable publications.
    Mainstream newspaper The Guardian took note, specifically Paul Lester, who also writes for GQ, Sunday Times, Daily Telegraph, and many pop bios, Janet Jackson, Sex Pistols, and Mick Jagger and in the last paragraph of the article dealing with Embryoroom states
""Almost as amazing are the sci-fi episodes created by Marquis and something called the Embryoroom Multimedia Group that accompany the music. The shorts make up the project "Shadow" and tell a story. In the first video Marquis plays a character named Viz, a prisoner on a train drifting in and out of consciousness, his identity scanned by a figure in the darkness. All very Outer Limits. We like it, and we're drawn to the project as a whole. But we'd like a few more decent tunes to go with it.""

This should satisfy as a reliable source.
Investigating the sources would clearly show their integrity.

The subject's work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition,

Per the guidelines, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating" a work "that has been the subject of has been of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." His work with Pan Sonic, and Del Marquis has received such attention. The only argument is that the sources aren't reliable, but the magazines listed above and The Guardian meet the criteria.
F Lee001 (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Directing a notable film is notability. G News archive does not cover some areas and topics very well, & a negative result on it is meaningless, unless you would reasonably expect mainstream US coverage. The sources are fully adequate. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Directing a notable film IS notable. Lack of mainstrean English sources is not a reason to delete. Yes, the article is in a sad state and need a major sandblasting. Puppets aside... notability is notability. The article can be improved through the course of normal editing. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:18, 2 September 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. JForget 22:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Singing the kings

Singing the kings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Singing the kings" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non notable phrase from a move. Falcon8765 (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete: A non-notable phrase. Joe Chill (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as trivia -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom, except for the typo. Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 5 September 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. Without prejudice. Tone 12:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neila (film)

Neila (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Neila (film)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable,unreleased film lacking any GNEWS hits and without any GHits of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM ttonyb1 (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 19:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. I expanded the article, cleaned it up and even found a source. One. Its not enough yet for this unreleased film. Perhaps userfy to author in anticipation of its return. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per the troll (Sounds bad, but it isn't if you know what I mean). Joe Chill (talk) 00:29, 31 August 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. JForget 22:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Philip A. Burrows

Philip A. Burrows (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Philip A. Burrows" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Burrows doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE. I have been unable to find any coverage about this individual. Cunard (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Was about to tag with prod, when I saw that someone has already put it up for deletion. 99of9 (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Lacks multiple instances of independent coverage from reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 15:14, 5 September 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. Good discussion, with the weight of argument and consensus going to delete.--Kubigula (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nikki Sun

Nikki Sun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Nikki Sun" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - agree with Epbr123. Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:N through passing WP:ENT per prolific contributions to a field of entertainment. 158+ films convinces me. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails PORNBIO. Cannot determine significance of roles to satisfy ENT. IAFD or any other pornographic database does not verify significance of role. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Prolific is prolific. IAFD and other sites verify the sheer volume of her work. SImple search shows the genre significance. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • No, 158+ is not prolific for me in the field of pornography. I am well aware of the limitations of IAFD since I'm one of its editors/maintainers. No guarantees that the movies have not had recycled footage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Pardon my unseen upraised eyebrow... but do you mean you contribute as do users/editors of Wikipedia? Or do you mean you actually are a member of their staff? And what would you then personally consider as prolific? 200? 600? Seems that 158 in 7 years is prolific. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Go to the front page of iafd.com and scroll down to August 19. In an industry where a new actress can easily shoot 120 scenes in her first year (10 scenes a month), 158 is not that prolific. A contemporary like Jane Darling has over 220 films. Someone like Ariana Jolee, over a period of 6 years, has at least 495 titles. Big whoop. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Prolific, I believe is a moot point. There's a reason why PORNBIO has its own notability guidelines. ENT is a separate category for Entertainers. IMHO, we should apply the PORNBIO criteria rather than ENT. Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:11, 4 September 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. JForget 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial College Railway Society

Imperial College Railway Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Imperial College Railway Society" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This is an absolutely run-of-the-mill student club, of the sort of which every educational institution has dozens. An unscientific Google test shows not a single mention of this club anywhere other than their own website and Wikipedia mirrors.  – iridescent 17:39, 30 August 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. JForget 22:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Me Broken

Picture Me Broken (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Picture Me Broken" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Although the band may soon be notable, a good faith search is not showing current notability. MTV contest is turning up little in the way of ghits, none of which are more than passing mentions. Gnews turns up just 5 hits, all of which are passing mentions. Does not appear to be signed to a label, EP is unreleased. Prod by another editor was contested by IP. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:03, 30 August 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. JForget 22:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chaudhry Yaqoob

Chaudhry Yaqoob (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Chaudhry Yaqoob" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Smells like a Resume to me. Nothing extraordinary here  MARWAT  11:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Not even an assertion of any notability. No references. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for now. He is the chairman of the Pakistan Volleyball Federation and was recently appointed Chairman CM Task Force for Sports by Shahbaz Sharif: [8]. Checking the above, he gets quite a few GNews hitsl, too. Location (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep He has remained Inspector General in Grade-22, which is the highest grade of bureaucracy in British. Indian, Pakistani and many other commonwealth countries bureacuracy. In Pakistan the 99% of Secretaries of difefrent Divisions / Ministries are in Grade 22, as the position / seat of the Sceretary is of Grade-22. Before many secretaries and Inspector Generals (IG)s have remained in Grade-20 or 21, like Dil Jan Khan but now mainly the I.Gs and Secretaries are in Grade-22. If there could be an Article for Pakistani Army Chiefs, who are in Grade-22 then why couldn't we have pages for Inspector Generals and Secretaries? Chief of the Army is under the Ministry of Defence and the Defense Ministry's senior most official is a Secretary who have all the three Arm Forces under him. I would strongly request to keep the article, if it is concerned to notability. Beside this, the user Marwatt who has nominated this article "deliberately", on the other hand have voted to keep the similar position holder's article Dil Jan Khan, who has even remained I.G in Grade 21 and has retired in the same Grade. It seems a personal vandetta to me, as the nominator himself claims to be a bureaucrat which seems he might have served under him and had bad tatse in his subordination. Strong Keep. --LineofWisdom (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments In this specific instance we need references that might show notability. A series of articles about Yaqoob, even one prominent story. He is (was) a "highest ranking" civil servant? Great! How many achieve that rank of G-22? Is it notable? Where are the references? There seems to be some sort of wide-ranging dispute between MARWAT and Lineof Wisdom; that should not be fought out here. It is improper. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments No, I have no intention to fight with him. You could see on two ocassions, I have voted in his favour. What seems right to me would be voted in favour by me and what seems wrong to me vould have a vote against it by me. I really would appreictae the discussion as per subject and topic, rather being personal. I could assure, dear Capitalismojo.
Comments- My only intention in nominating this article was to block the flood of all cops working on similar positions to have their own pages on Wikipedia that might look like their CVs. There is another article on a lower level cop Mr.Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat and in order to strengthen his claim the creator of that article was quoting examples of cops like this one to have their own pages. On a separate note reaching Grade 22 isn’t a big deal and 100s of civil servants alone in Pakistan reach and retire from this grade  . I am myself a Grade 20  Bureaucrat and in due course I will also reach Grade 22 but I don’t think that my bureaucratic position justifies a separate article for me. And yes this user LineofWisdom has been bugging me for quite some time and is following me around on Wikipedia just to vent his vengeance against me. Finally I don’t think Mr.Chaudhry Yaqoob has done something which should make him worthy to have a separate page over here.-- MARWAT  06:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Peronalism I don't know, why Marwatt always run from the debate and start attacking me personally. Just see the history and you will know who is following who. Yes, it is there in the history, which would never be deleted that he is the one who has always followed me. He has followed me at 6 different articles. What happened if I used my right to vote here? --LineofWisdom (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments Whether you did or did not want a personal argument here, you've got it. Take it somewhere else, please, and stay on topic here. Nimloth250 (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Nimloth250
  • Weak keep Article needs improvement, but a google search does show that there are reliable sources on him. Richard (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would think that notability is pretty clear as chief of police in a province larger than most US states, which is verified by the Google News Archive search linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep head of a provincial police force is notable, and if we get pages on them all, that would be a good thing. I would certainly expect many hundreds ( more likely several thousand) of Pakistan civili servants to be notable. The relevant policy is NOT PAPER.
  • Keep. Seems fairly notable, with decent google results, and agree with location and phil here. AtheWeatherman 23:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding the "head of provincial police": he isn't. He is the retired former inspector general not the "head of the provincial police", and never was.Capitalismojo (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to Inspector-General of Police#Pakistan the inspector general is the head of the provincial police force. The fact that the subject has now retired from this position doesn't take away his notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are 4 Provinces, Islamabad Capital Territory and Azad Jammu & Kashmir under the control of Pakistani establishment. Each one of them gets a Police Chief making the number 6 in total. On an average, every year they are replaced twice due to political interferences. Making the tally to 12 such chiefs a year only in Pakistan. Besides this is a Grade 22 Bureaucratic Position and there are more than 500 such positions in Pakistan alone. That will mean having a separate page for each of them on Wikipedia. My question is that - has he done any extra ordinary deed which should distinguish him from the rest of the bureaucrats. If he has done so then he is worthy for inclusion otherwise, we will be just opening a flood gate for such CVs. And further more if he gets a keep then what about this guy Dil Jan Khan who remained on the similar position as well as remained the head of a UN Office?. -- MARWAT  01:22, 2 September 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. Deciding which title is appropriate isn't exactly something AfD is suited to, and may be better off remaining a content dispute. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Agni Yoga

Agni Yoga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Agni Yoga" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Procedural nomination. Agni Yoga was moved to Living Ethics a few weeks ago, and substantially rewritten. The move was then disputed via an edit war and a highly acrimonious and inconclusive RfD discussion. It appears that one of these articles is potentially a POV fork of the other, and that AfD, rather than RfD, is the place to deal with it. I have restored both articles and offer them here for resolution. I'm just here because I closed the RfD discussion - having no knowledge or interest in either, I am neutral. ~ mazca talk 10:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm the article's primary writer. As mazca says, a few weeks ago Agni Yoga was moved to Living Ethics and virtually deleted in the "rewrite," which itself was tantamount to a (poor) translation of the Russian Wikipedia article on Living Ethics. I'm glad that the deletion is finally being discussed as such, and sincerely hope that interested parties will bring forward coherent arguments for keeping or deleting the article, so that an appropriate decision may be made. Arguments have already been made at RfD discussion, but I will repeat some of them in relation to the question of whether Agni Yoga ought to be kept.

Deodarvostok, the editor who deleted Agni Yoga and replaced it with Living Ethics, gives as reasons for the deletions: Agni Yoga does not cite secondary or tertiary sources; it contains original research; it "was the personal opinion of Agni Yoga Society"; and "Living Ethics is much more exact than article Agni Yoga reflects substantive provisions teaching Living Ethics, is fuller, scientific, encyclopedic, in it Nikolay Roerich's pictures are used." As a reason for changing the title from "Agni Yoga" to "Living Ethics," the article itself asserts that "Agni Yoga" is "another equivalent but less widespread meaning" of "Living Ethics," by which is meant that "Agni Yoga" is a less widely used equivalent.

Starting with the title, it is true that the Agni Yoga teaching also calls itself "the Teaching of Living Ethics" a few dozen times, but it refers to itself as "Agni Yoga" several hundred times. Moreover, the majority of the books are subtitled "Signs of Agni Yoga." I can't speak about the situation in Russia, but at least in the West, India, and Japan, the teaching is much more widely known as "Agni Yoga," "Living Ethics" being an alternative title that underlines the practical, ethical nature of the teaching. Thus, for an English language article the title "Agni Yoga" is far more appropriate.

The assertion that the article was connected with the Agni Yoga Society is absolutely groundless. I wrote my portion of the article on my own, without the consent, cooperation, or consultation of anyone in the AYS. There are only a few references to the AYS in my article, all of them neutral. My lack of involvement in promoting the AYS is clearly shown by my effort to edit out what I considered (and still consider) to be an erroneous reference to the AYS added to the initial paragraph [9].

The criticism that Agni Yoga lacks citations of secondary sources is justifiable. The problem is that there are few books or articles on Agni Yoga in English; so far as I know, they are even lacking in theosophical journals. I did include citations to a few books, but willy-nilly ended up relying on primary sources, which I cited heavily in order to avoid the appearance or reality of personal interpretations. I would be happy if somebody supplemented or rewrote parts of the article, providing citations from good secondary sources; in fact, I myself would like to read, reference, and quote good Russian sources when I have more time. So, yes, there is over-reliance on primary sources, but is this a reason to delete the entire article? Rather, isn't this a reason to improve it?

If linking up facts in itself can be called "research," the charge of "original research" has some justification. Again, the situation is that there aren't many secondary sources in English that give answers to such questions as: Who transmitted Agni Yoga to whom, and how? What is Agni Yoga about? What is it like? What are key concepts and terms? How is it different from other Yogas? How is it related to other teachings? What is written on the cover of the books and why? These are FAQs that an encyclopedia article needs to answer, and in fact Agni Yoga does so, albeit with some reliance on an "original" assemblage of facts and citations. Is this originality a good reason to chuck the whole article? I don't think so.

Now turn to the Living Ethics article whose author considers it to be much more "exact, full, scientific, and encyclopedic" than Agni Yoga. How many of these basic FAQs does it answer? Master Morya, who transmitted the teaching to the Roerichs, is not even named, although his name is on the first two books of the teaching. "Agni" is never defined, and the teaching is never discussed as a form of Yoga or related to other Yogas. The words on the covers of most of the books, "Maitreya Sangha," are never mentioned, much less explained; in fact, "Maitreya" and "Shambhala," key concepts in the Agni Yoga teaching, are entirely absent from Living Ethics.

Do you see a pattern emerging here? From the title on, Living Ethics presents a version of the Agni Yoga teaching devoid of Agni, Yoga, Masters, Maitreya, Shambhala, chakras, Armageddon, astrology… Anything that might turn off somebody with a secular, scientific mindset has been deleted--just as my article was. If Deodarvostok or the Intl. Roerich Centre in Moscow want to present this particular version of the Agni Yoga teaching to the public, that's fine with me; perhaps that's what still works best in what was once the USSR. But a Wikipedia article is not the forum to present an airbrushed version of anything. Agni Yoga is full of religious, mystical, and millenarian allusions that Living Ethics photoshops away and replaces with diffuse, secondary-sourced statements bland enough for anyone with "spiritual" leanings to nod agreement with. Things like "It is important to maintain and increase cultural wealth of all the peoples of Earth." It also teems with minute detail on conferences held at the Moscow Centre, and we're treated to numerous quotes from Russian dignitaries. The President of All-Union Academy of Agriculture named after V. I. Lenin informs us, "Reliable source of ethic norms is the works of great humanists of all ages and peoples, Teaching of the Christ, life and activity of such genies of mankind as Leo Tolstoy and F. Dostoevsky, Michelangelo and Nicholas Roerich, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, Sergius of Radonezh, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King." Is this "scientific"? Or in any way relevant to the topic?

At the beginning of Deodarvostok's article, "Living Ethics" is defined as a teaching "based on the books written by Helena and Nicholas Roerich in the first half of the XX century, in cooperation with the Teachers of the East." Precisely, Living Ethics offers a teaching based on the books, while my article seeks to convey the teachings that are actually transmitted in the books, not a secularized version of them. So we definitely are writing about different things, and this isn't a matter of content forking. I think Living Ethics is a soapbox for the Moscow Centre, its activities, its chief (the article includes two photos of her and none of the Roerichs), and its version of what the Agni Yoga books teach. In my opinion it should be replaced by a shorter, well-written, honest article on the Roerich Centre. On the other hand, none of the shortcomings in my article are so grave as to merit deletion. Imperfect as it is, it does the job. I ask that Wikipedia Keep it. --Asiaj (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • From perspective of Wikipedia users first question is whether the subject covered by both articles merits inclusion. No doubt the subject is Yoga and general article about Yoga is already available. If so, Agni Yoga article should be there to provide basic information about this Yoga of our age.

In books proper of Agni Yoga, “Agni Yoga” is mentioned 177 times while “Living Ethics” is mentioned 15 times. We should not rename this teaching which was given to the broadest audience as a path of Yoga.

To be true, in Letters of Helena Roerich “Living Ethics” is mentioned 131 times and “Agni Yoga” 68 times. My impression is that main reason for such difference might be more specific target audience and time when these letters were written.

Back to the articles, Agni Yoga looks more like NPOV encyclopedia entry while Living Ethics looks more like promotional material. Thus, I’d keep and improve the former.

-- Tabibito8 (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to comment some points connected with recent redirection of an article “Agni Yoga” by new article “Living Ethics”.
Looking through a discussion about this I think that indignation of co-author of the article “Agni Yoga” Asiaj is quite explainable, he (or she, or they) is right in something. However, in common sense the redirection made is not only justified but reasonable too. Why? I give some considerations below.
At the very beginning of the article “Agni Yoga” the readers have learned that simultaneously with creation of the Living Ethics Teaching the Agni Yoga Society was found. What for this information is here? All the more that Asiaj said he is not a member of this Society. So, the reader must think that AGS is only true follower of the Teaching. Where is information about other societies, which were founded later but were also important for the Roerichs? I mean Riga’s society; many members of it were in correspondence with Helena Ivanovna, and also Roerich’s societies of other Baltic and European countries.
In the same place of very beginning the name of Roerich’s Teacher is mentioned. Why? Is this necessary? It is most deep name for any Roerich’s follower… And then nothing about who is this Person…
Very disputable issue is Asiaj’s statement about that his article is more corresponding for the name “Agni Yoga”. The article “Agni Yoga” really complicates the question since it declares many incomprehensible notions for reader unknown with Oriental terminology. For example, Mother of the World, Maytreya, Shambala. Last notion Asiaj determines as “a mysterious abode in Central Asia”. I think Roerichs would be very amazed at such determination. It is widely known how Helena and Nicholas Roerich negatively related to the word “Mystic”.
It is clear that to reveal such complex notion as Psychic energy can only Roerichs themselves (excluding A.I.Klizovsky, his book “About psychic energy” was approved by H.I. Roerich). And small wonder that the authors of article “Agni Yoga” can’t do this, in my opinion. numerous citations from the Teaching only confuse the readers.
The main reason of Asiaj’s irritation is, in my opinion, usual Russophobia. The first point of his discussion remarks is:
“Article is basically a (poor) translation of the Russian Wikipedia article on “Living Ethics.” It was written in Russian for Russians who may have access to the Russian sources cited and may be impressed by a quote from a Russian Cabinet minister. The previous article was written for readers of English.”
This statement can be understood as full unwillingness to learn Russian sources and to divide the world on Russian and English parts. Why? But Russian readers would respect with great interest to the quotes from American government about Roerichs or Living Ethics (if it will be, certainly). Poor English of the article “Living Ethics” can easily be perfected; it is not problem for English readers. The new article “Living Ethics introduces the English-language readers not only the Teaching, which is elucidated from point of view modern philosophic and science studies, but also with modern cultural and public achievements of Russian followers. I mean an activity of International Centre of the Roerichs, other Russian societies, international scientific conferences, philosophic works of L.V.Shaposhnikova and other interesting things what are little known for English readers.
In conclusion, I think that main difference between two articles is that the first of them shows the Teaching as esoteric Teaching of Yoga, the second elucidates it as deep philosophical and ethic conception. In my opinion, the last approach is more interesting and useful for modern readers.
Ayupp 14:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Written here Talk:Living Ethics --Deodarvostok (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • First of all, let me respond to the point that Asiaj made above: "The assertion that the article was connected with the Agni Yoga Society is absolutely groundless." I was the one who had originally made this assertion, and yes, it was incorrect. I have since clarified the issue and would like to withdraw that assertion.

Now to the actual subject at hand: there is no doubt that in the English-speaking world the Teaching is known as the Teaching of Agni Yoga. The term "Living Ethics" is certainly known to Agni Yoga followers but is rarely used. While in Russian the term "Living Ethics" (Zhivaya Etika) would likely be associated with Agni Yoga, in the West this would not in fact be an obvious reference - note for example two books on the subject: Living Ethics - across media platforms and Living Ethics - An Introduction, both of which have nothing to do with Agni Yoga. Thus I submit that the title of the article in English should be "Agni Yoga", rather than "Living Ethics". As far as the content, I agree with Tabibito8 that the Agni Yoga article reads like a proper encyclopedia entry, with history, background and explanation of the subject, whereas the Living Ethics article reads like promotional material for the Moscow International Centre of the Roerichs. To quote from Ayupp above: "The new article “Living Ethics introduces the English-language readers not only the Teaching, which is elucidated from point of view modern philosophic and science studies, but also with modern cultural and public achievements of Russian followers. I mean an activity of International Centre of the Roerichs, other Russian societies, international scientific conferences, philosophic works of L.V.Shaposhnikova and other interesting things what are little known for English readers." That is precisely the problem, that rather than talk about the Agni Yoga Teaching, the Living Ethics article focuses on the activity of the International Centre of the Roerichs, and its narrow interpretation of the Teaching. No "other Russian societies" are described in the article, giving the impression that all societies in Russia follow the sectarian approach of the ICR, which is not the case. All the "international scientific conferences" are organized by the ICR. L.V. Shaposhnikova is ICR's founder and head. Certainly there could be an expanded section in the article covering the modern activities in the Agni Yoga sphere, which could mention ICR, other societies in Russia (such as the Samara center and its "Agni" publishing house), the Agni Yoga Society in New York, other societies in North America, translation work and conferences by Corona Mundi in Switzerland, numerous societies in Latin America and Europe, etc. But that section should exist within the Agni Yoga article, not have it be replaced wholesale by an article focused on one Moscow center. Thus I ask that Wikipedia keep the Agni Yoga article.

Mmratner (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I appreciate that Deodarvostok is responding above to what I have written. Something may have been lost in translation, but the meaning comes across. But while this belated dialog is welcome, I'm afraid none of the points Deodarvostok makes validate deletion of the article and few bear scrutiny.

Deodarvostok says that I claimed I'm not a member of AYS; I've said nothing about membership, which has no bearing on this article. He criticizes the mention of AYS in the initial paragraph; as I said, I didn't write that passage, in fact I tried to delete it. He could have tried doing the same, and also tried adding something about the Riga group, if he considered that important. The genius of Wikipedia is that articles can be modified--hopefully improved--and not simply deleted.

"In the same place of very beginning the name of Roerich’s Teacher is mentioned. Why? Is this necessary?" Of course it is necessary in an encyclopedia article; one of the first things anyone would want to know is who gave the Agni Yoga teaching to whom. It's not a big secret. "And then nothing about who is this Person…" There is an internal link for "Morya" that readers can easily go to. Similarly, "Maitreya," "Shambhala," "Yoga," and all the rest of the Oriental terms have internal links. Wikipedia is a perfect forum to bring up such terminology. Anyone reading the Agni Yoga books will soon encounter all of these terms and more--many of them not Oriental, by the way.

"Mysterious" and "mystic" are different words expressing different ideas in English. Since nobody knows if we are he or she or they, Deodarvostok and I are mysterious, but that doesn't mean we're mystics.

The usual Russophobia? Usual for whom? If anything, I'm a Russophile. The point of the sentence was that what may be impressive for Russians may not be for English-speaking Wikipedia readers who are from many countries (not just America). Attributing what people write to irritation or phobias is not constructive.

We finally get a substantial statement at the end. "In conclusion, I think that main difference between two articles is that the first of them shows the Teaching as esoteric Teaching of Yoga, the second elucidates it as deep philosophical and ethic conception. In my opinion, the last approach is more interesting and useful for modern readers." This is a tacit admission that the Agni Yoga Teaching is an "esoteric Teaching of Yoga"--there's no denial of this obvious fact--but that the "approach" of the "Living Ethics" article leaves out the "esoteric" stuff and instead presents the same Teaching as a deep philosophical and ethical teaching, because that's what is interesting and useful to people nowadays. Personally, I'm not able to make a judgment about what "modern readers" might find interesting and useful in the Agni Yoga teaching; moreover, I don't think such a judgment ought to be a major factor in determining what to include in the article and what to leave out. The purpose of the article is to acquaint the readers with basic facts about the Agni Yoga teaching, not to attract them to it--or to a "modern" version of it. It might be okay to leave out the esoteric content in, say, a public presentation, but in a wide-reaching forum like Wikipedia, such an omission represents a serious distortion of the facts. That omission becomes all the more glaring given the presence of so much superfluous material in the "Living Ethics" article, material that offers little of relevance about the actual teaching of Living Ethics. --Asiaj (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Let me quote from the book Agni Yoga[10]:

<snip> 185. Some of the young may ask, "How should one understand Agni Yoga?"

Say, "As the perception and application in life of the all-embracing element of fire, which nourishes the seed of the spirit." <snip>

This clearly indicates character of Agni Yoga, as spiritual practice.

Then, next quote from the book Aum [11]:

<snip> 569. Is the fragmentary character of these notes accidental? May it not be that in this mosaic there is contained a rhythm and a special design? Let friends sometimes reflect upon why this system has been selected! <snip>

This indicates that mosaic like nature of Agni Yoga teaching is not an accident.

I agree with Ayupp that Living Ethics article attempts to present Agni Yoga as "deep philosophical and ethic conception". But I see no need to for that in Wikipedia. Wikipedia article needs to present Agni Yoga as practice (which it is). It should also avoid summaries of the teaching and changing its presentation style so to make it more palatable to contemporary readers (which is futile). -- Tabibito8 (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It is unlikely that we will see consensus on this. This is because the articles take quite different perspectives. Essentially, someone has to decide which article is closer to Wikipedia entry format. Author(s) of dropped article can then consider how to merge it with the selected one.

-- Tabibito8 (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Of the two, this is the closest to an encyclopedic article. Not all that closer--much too long and discursive. But the other article is impossibly like puffery and public relations, and, if merge, as it should probably be, not all that much of it will be needed. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • A few months ago there was a very informative article about Agni Yoga. I was going to show it to a friend of mine the other day and was very surprised to see that it had completely disappeared.

The current article has a few interesting points but is poorly written and does indeed seem like public relations for the author's cause, rather than an objective, informative article. I have been considering getting a subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica, as I recently read they have several thousand paid researchers and they thoroughly research and document their articles. This particular case is a very clear example of how Wikipedia can be taken over by emotional egos with a hidden agenda. I hope reason and objectivity will return and the original article will return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2knewt (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I realized in retrospect that I should clarify by "present article" that I mean the "Living Ethics" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2knewt (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The comment by DGG is right on the nose. The Agni Yoga article is long but we should Keep it and improve it. The parts of Living Ethics worth merging are the Roerich pictures and the photo of New Era Community in Mir. The text of "Living Ethics" is inferior to "Agni Yoga," and it's possible that better Russian sources may be found than those cited in "Living Ethics," if having Russian-language secondary sources is considered helpful in an English article.

There won't be total consensus, because the person who arbitrarily deleted Agni Yoga and replaced it with a flawed article is incapable of acknowledging a single mistake of his own, while eager to point out the alleged errors of others (use of the word mysterious, for example). But everyone else sees Living Ethics for the promotional material that it is. The Russian version even has a photo of the books that the International Centre in Moscow is selling! --Asiaj (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion of Deodarvostok

"It is translated with the help http://www.translate.ru" (Excuse me for bad translation)

Article Agni Yoga as it stands does not correspond to a number of rules of Wikipedia:

In article there is no reference to the authoritative source confirming the written, there is no link to a secondary source. Instead the primary source is used only, and it is inadmissible. The author of article has stated "to the personal" understanding of Live Ethics, has written that "personally to it" seems to the main things in this doctrine. The author didn't refer on recognised authorities, didn't refer to such scientific sources as encyclopaedias, dictionaries, monographies, etc. Look following editions: Living Ethics#Scientific publications, dedicated to study of Living Ethics and Living Ethics#Notes. In these sources the sight at Roerich's doctrine essentially disperses from a sight of authors of article Agni Yoga.

Therefore article Agni Yoga is written not about Live Ethics (Agni Yoga), and about its understanding by the author (and it is possible still some) and thus contradicts modern scientific sources. Also it is the basic and most important lack of this article.

About section Agni Yoga and Other Teachings:

The author of article does not know the historic facts.

The section begins with words: " Historically speaking, Agni Yoga is one of several teachings that developed within the theosophical movement that H. P. Blavatsky, Henry Steel Olcott, William Quan Judge, and their associates launched in 1875 ". On the basis of what such conclusion not clearly is drawn. In one of academic publications and scientific researches on it it is not informed. Everywhere about Live Ethics it is informed as on the independent doctrine, instead of teosophy. Communication of the doctrine of Roerichs with Blavatskaya's doctrine undoubtedly is, but to "teosophy to movement" it doesn't concern, since is "the independent" doctrine.

Helena Roerich wrote:

Should tell that Н. К, except compositions Е. P.Bl [avatsky], any teos[ophic] didn't read books, for he prefers primary sources and is well familiar with East Thought and those works from which got the data and Е. Books of Ramakrishny, Suomi Vivekanandа, Bhagavadgita, the book on the Buddhism, Llamas-rim of the Tszon-ka-pas etc. were P.Bl as well I can tell about myself that my first terrestrial teachers. With theosophy the literature I have met only in America and should tell that after East pearls and compositions Е. P.B. This literature hasn't presented for me the slightest interest, some compositions even have pushed away. (From the letter H.I.Roerich to Н. P.Serafininoj from 1.7.1937 / Roerich H. I. Letters. V. 5. — М: ICR, 2003 - P. 13.)

"«She [Helena Roerich] spoke highly of Annie Besant»". It not so. Helena Roerich appreciated only one early book of Bezant. As a whole it concerned Bezant critically enough and in the letters wrote:

But the book of joint creativity of A.Bezant and Ledbitera comprising ostensibly lives of Great Teachers and some pupils is especially awful: Mrs. Bezant, Ledbitera, Krishnamurti, Arundel etc. I seldom met something equal on lack of taste, blasphemy and falsity. (From the letter H.I.Roerich to A.I.Klizovskomu from 0.06.1934 / Roerich H.I. . V. 2. — М: ICR, p. 199—200)

"Mark and Elizabeth Prophet, founders of The Summit Lighthouse and the Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT), claimed that" Ascended Master El Morya "commissioned them to carry on the work of the Roerichs, and that their daughter was an incarnation of Helena Roerich". Is an encyclopaedic information? It has a direct bearing on Roerichs? Now there were some tens similar "incarnations", and each "incarnation" confirms, what exactly it the real incarnation, and others not the presents. It is necessary to write about all "incarnations" here? In my opinion, it already from area of parkway esoterics. Modern scientists don't agree with similar statements.

Thus, article Agni Yoga is not encyclopaedic, contains a false information, breaks rules of Wikipedia, discredits the scientists who are engaged in research of a heritage of Roerichs and consequently has been replaced with article translated from Russian Wikipedia.

Article Living Ethics

Roerich were citizens of Russia. Svetoslav Roerich passed all the legacy of their parents in Russia, the International Center of the Roerich. It is therefore not surprising that the main legacy of the Roerich research conducted in Russia. Based on the works of the most influential U.S. and international scientists and was written article in Russian Wikipedia, and then translated to English Wikipedia.

At article writing secondary authoritative scientific sources were used:

  • Gindilis L.M., Frolov V.V. Philosophy of Living Ethics and its interpreters. Roerich's movement in Russia / / Journal «Problems of philosophy» N 3, 2001.
Gindilis L.M. - The academician of Academy of astronautics of a name of Tsiolkovsky. Frolov V.V. - The Doctor of Philosophy, the professor. Their article is published in authoritative scientific magazine «Problems of philosophy» which is published under the direction of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
  • Also in article works in used L. V. Shaposhnikovoj. Shaposhnikova L V. - General director of Museum by name of Nicolas Roerich, Honored Art Worker of RF, Academician of Russian Academy of Cosmonautics named after K. Tsiolkovsky, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Russian Ecological Academy and Editor-in-chief of the journal «Culture and time».
  • Also used scientific dictionaries and encyclopedias:
- Living Ethics / Russian philosophy: Dictionary (in Russian) / Edited by M. Maslin. - Moscow, «Terra Knizhnii klub»; «Respublica», 1999-656 p.
- Living Ethics / «Russian philosophy. Small encyclopedia ». - Moscow, «Nauka», 1995. - 624 p.
- Roerich Helena Ivanovna / Short philosophic dictionary / Edited by AP Alexeev. - Second edition, revised and supplemented. - Moscow, TK Velby, «Prospect» Publishing, 2004. The dictionary is prepared by group co-authors from sub-department of philosophy of humanist departments of Moscow State University named after MV Lomonosov.

Article Living Ethics is much more exact than article Agni Yoga reflects substantive provisions teaching Living Ethics, is fuller, scientific, encyclopedic, in it Nikolas Roerich's pictures are used.

I think that Wikipedia should be encyclopedic article, not distorting the facts, showing the view of the scientific community, not individual users of Wikipedia, written on the basis of the rules of Wikipedia. Suggest not to mislead readers facts wrong article Agni Yoga - to leave the Wikipedia article Living Ethics.

--Deodarvostok (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The above rant by Deodarvostok perfectly illustrates why his article ought to be deleted and he should be blocked from editing Agni Yoga. He's dogmatic, accusative, dismissive of the views of others, and negligent. For example, my "opinion" that Helena Roerich spoke highly of Annie Besant: There are three mentions of Besant in Volume II of The Letters of Helena Roerich[12], all of them favorable, one praising her as a "big spirit," and another praising her book Esoteric Christianity. So yes, it's a fact, Madam Roerich did speak highly of Besant. And clearly it isn't true that, "Helena Roerich appreciated only one early book of Bezant."

His criticism of "Historically speaking, Agni Yoga is one of several teachings that developed within the theosophical movement…" shows that he's as careless in reading as in writing. The first words, "Historically speaking," deliberately frame what follows in a historical context. The Agni Yoga teaching didn't emerge from a vacuum. There was an active theosophical movement in many parts of the world, and the Roerichs were part of it, as the facts I cite show. Many theosophical terms and concepts are found in Agni Yoga, and it alludes to events in the history of the Theosophical Society and the movement (which are two different things). These are historical facts. The question of whether the Agni Yoga teaching is "independent" or not is another matter entirely. The real issue here for Deodarvostok & Co. is their desire to expunge any connection of the "Living Ethics" with esotericism, including Theosophy.

But one "esoteric" dogma is at the core of Deodarvostok & Co.'s work: "Roerich were citizens of Russia. Svetoslav Roerich passed all the legacy of their parents in Russia, the International Center of the Roerich." The ICR, embodied in its oft photographed, oft cited Director (she's a "citizen of Russia" now that the USSR is over), is the True Lineage Holder of the True Transmission. We're dealing with a cult here, which explains the fanatic disregard for dialogue and facts. And a business--all the Russian Living Ethics site needs is an order form.

Until now I haven't been entangled in the organizational conflicts of the various Agni Yoga, Roerich, and Living Ethics groups, and I tried to write an article that didn't plug or dismiss any group. That's why I mentioned the Prophets, who I personally consider fraudulent, but who have played a major role in spreading information about Agni Yoga in the English-speaking world. People ask about them. Contrary to what Deodarvostok asserts, I have cited the few reliable English secondary sources I could find. Definitely, the article would be better if it did cite more and could be pared down by referring readers to more comprehensive discussions. Of course, Russian sources could be cited or, better, (well) translated where they shed an incisive insight. But I find it strange that an article which claims to represent the "scientific community" has several citations from Mme. Shaposhnikova--Honored Art Worker of RF, Academician of Russian Academy of Cosmonautics named after K. Tsiolkovsky, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Russian Ecological Academy and Editor-in-chief of the journal «Culture and time»--but fails to mention the renowned Roerich scholar Vladmir Rosov even once. Could it be that dogma or personal/organizational considerations have influenced the selection of the august representatives of the "scientific community"?

The fact that these lame criticisms are the best that Deodarvostok can come up with are one more reason to Keep the Agni Yoga article. --Asiaj (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Just to demonstrate ICR's modus operandi and extend on Asiaj's comments about Vladimir Rosov, here is another example of the type of writing that we see in the Living Ethics article: RESOLUTION of the International Scientific Public Conference “The 80th Anniversary of the N.K.Roerich Central Asiatic Expedition (1924-1928)”. You will notice that much of the real estate on that Resolution page is taken up by enumerations of titles, just like in the Living Ethics article. But if one actually manages to find the scant bits of substance in that sea of titles, he will run into the following: "At the same time the speakers mentioned that at present there become more frequent the facts of slanderous character, blackening N.K.Roerich’s activity and misrepresenting the aims of the expedition and “Living Ethics” Teaching (dissertations of V.A.Rosov and N.E.Samokhina (Moscow), I.V.Otroshchenko (Kiev)." And the Scientific Conference resolves: 3. To solicit the Higher Examination Board of the Russian Federation to repeal the decision of confirmation of the doctoral theses of V.A.Rosov about N.K.Roerich’s expeditions to Central Asia. How is that for impartiality! And to top it off, the Conference resolves: 7. To recommend the Interregional Information- Analytical Centre to fill the Internet space with objective information about the N.K.Roerich Central-Asiatic Expedition. Clearly, Deodarvostok is following the same line of thinking in attempting to to fill the Internet space with objective information on Living Ethics. "Objective" to ICR followers, of course, if no one else.

Unlike the Living Ethics article, the Agni Yoga article does represent an objective view of the topic, and therefore I request that Wikipedia keep the Agni Yoga article.

Mmratner (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • One last note before, hopefully, a decision is made to keep the Agni Yoga article. I looked at the six Agni Yoga and "Living Ethics" articles in other languages. The articles in French, German, and Finnish are all titled "Agni Yoga." As other editors have also pointed out, this is the name by which the teaching is generally known. The Russian, Bulgarian, and Czech articles are titled "Living Ethics." They are all obviously creations of the International Center of the Roerichs. The Bulgarian article mentions Madam Shaposhnikova at the beginning of the second paragraph. Four of the eight reference works cited at the end are by her, and two others are published by the ICR. Its content and that of the Czech article seem to be generally based on the "Selected aspects…" section of the Russian article. The Czech article's first editor is named Deodar. Both have links to the ICR site and sites connected with it. They do not have links to the Agni Yoga Society site, even though they do offer English links, such as one to Philosophy of Cosmic Reality by--Guess who?--Ludmila Shaposhinikova!

The French article is a translation of the English article before I revised it--the article wasn't very good. The German article is original and mentions religious and esoteric matters, which it appears the Bulgarian and Czech articles may not. The Finnish article is short and simple, and ends with links to the ICR, AYS, and an English work by Shaposhnikova.

What I find ironic is that the Bulgarian article only has three footnotes, and the rest (except the Russian) have zero. On the other hand, the English article, which I mainly wrote, has over one hundred citations, over a dozen of these to secondary or tertiary sources. Yet my article is the one targeted as having sourcing problems!

Deodarvostok has thought fit to tag the article and demand even more citations. In response I have added two footnotes and deleted mention of the AYS from the initial paragraph, moving the same info to the history section. I doubt that he'll be satisfied with this, but I wrote the article to satisfy people with interest in knowing basic facts about Agni Yoga and not to twist the material into a version agreeable to ICR or any other organization. I'm fine about people questioning and improving the article, but this guy has an agenda. For him "neutrality" means ICR's distorted version. He will continue making trouble unless he's blocked from editing. --Asiaj (talk) 08:28, 5 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 13:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SE-5

SE-5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "SE-5" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Per WP:FRINGE. While this gets some ghits, most are commercial in nature (and note the spam links in the article.) Doesn't seem to meet overall notability guidelines per fringe. Recommend delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I created the article as a redirect to Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5. User:Donparis has since changed it to the state is is today. I concur that the article as it stands should not be a Wikipedia article and support the deletion.--Ndunruh (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
When doing a search for the SE5 in Wikipedia, one is given several choices. Many of those choices are related to the Royal Aircraft Factory as it should be. However one of the choices is SE-5 Radionics. My article is much more accurate and descriptive of what that means and how it came to be. It is only logical to have a separate article that relates to what the user is searching for. If a user is searching for S.E.5. they will find the aircraft factory however the SE-5 Radionics instrument is very well known through out the world and people should be able to find it and learn more about its history.User:Donparis --Donparis (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with teh SE-5 page being about the radionics instrument. It just needs to fit wikipedia standards. It looks like you're trying to do just that and I encourage you to continue.--Ndunruh (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I apologize for my beginning as this is my first Wiki article (but not my last!) I am a total newbie to this but I am finding it very exciting! I will work it over some more and see what you think.

My first attempt was really just an experiment to see how it all worked. I have been reading the guidelines and getting a better picture of how and why Wikipedia works.

--Donparis (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be largely promotional (check the website). Don Paris, if you are the same person as the website operator, please understand that articles and edits you make shouldn't be about you or your company. Take a look at this user essay explaining why. Why not try editing some subjects which interest you but where you are not closely connected to the subject. Wikipedia can be very rewarding as a hobby, but it will become very frustrating to edit as a vocation. Please keep all this in mind. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 31 August 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. JForget 22:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Z-squad

Z-squad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Z-squad" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No notability shown for animated series. No references. Prod removed by author. BTW images are copyright infringements. Reywas92Talk 15:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete No notability asserted, no refs... However, I do believe that the images would fall under Fair Use. Don't quote me on that, I've been wrong before. [flaminglawyer] 16:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
They would be if there weren't nine of them. Reywas92Talk 20:23, 30 August 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. JForget 22:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Social Liberalist Party

Social Liberalist Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Social Liberalist Party" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable political party. It's registered with the Electoral Commission, but that only means they've sent the Electoral Commission some cash. I can't find any evidence that they've ever contested anything or made enough of a splash to get mentioned in even the most local of newspapers. WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. A political party normally will not be considered notable until they have received some coverage in independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:ORG. A Google News Archive search returns two results; one is written by this political party, while the other is a passing mention. Cunard (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 19:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Until they get more attention than a blog on the Telegraph platform[13] and stop just being a "Facebook party" then they won't be notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. My frank view - a non-party founded bunch of teenagers that will fold within a couple of years. Fences&Windows 16:24, 31 August 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.

[edit] Larry Pretlow II

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Nordlandshest/Lyngshest. Tone 12:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Northlands Pony

Northlands Pony (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Northlands Pony" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This article appears to be a wrongly named duplicate of the Nordlandshest article. To my knowledge, there is absolutely no Norwegian horse breed by the name of "Northlands Pony". Norway has three national horse breeds: Dole Horse, Fjord Horse and Nordlandshest (whose "English" name, if translated, would mean something along the lines of Northlands Pony). Article's content is very similar to the article on the Nordlandshest. Article's author appears not to have realised that an article about the pony is already in existence, and created a page on the horse with an English name. Content in article already exists in the Nordlandshest article.) Nimloth250 (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge - Rather than deleting, what about just merging with the Nordlandshest article and making this a redirect? That's what we normally do with horse breeds articles when there are multiple articles on the same breed. That makes it less likely that an editor will come back in and re-create the page on the erronous assumption that it's a different breed. Also, it would probably be best to add something into the Nordlandshest article on how the English name would be "Northlands Pony". Dana boomer (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Merge And I have so tagged it accordingly. Seems some worthwhile prehistory content in this article that does not exist in the other. Montanabw(talk) 07:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The English name wouldn't necessarily be "Northlands Pony" -- as the other article says, a more adequate translation is "Horse from Nordland". But that is irrelevant; if the vote is merge then so be it, I suppose. Nimloth250 (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Nimloth250
  • Comment Google count: "Northlands pony": 994 hits. "Northlands horse": 2.120 hits. "Lyngshest": 12.800 hits. "Nordlandshest": 18.700 hits. All search terms were enclosed in double quotes. - Soulkeeper (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I merged the text of Northlands pony into the Nordlandshest/Lyngshest article, so if consensus is to merge, the text itself is already merged and all that needs to be done is to put the redirect tag into the article. Montanabw(talk) 00:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support merge. - Soulkeeper (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone opposed? Montanabw(talk) 18:35, 5 September 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. JForget 22:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jack E. Robinson III

Jack E. Robinson III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Jack E. Robinson III" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable individual, ran for office three times without winning. Per WP:POLITICIAN, simply running for office does not establish notability. Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. There certainly are media sources available about him, although they have not yet been included in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment If those "media sources" exclusively pertain to his political campaigns, then it fails to establish notability. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Losing a campaign does not disqualify the sources that cover that campaign. These sources still establish notability. Cunard (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:BIO. See these three articles from The Boston Globe, as well as this article from The Economist. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Running for the US Senate as a major party nominee demonstrates notability. It's not as though the media sometimes forget to cover the campaigns and candidates. Even the Republican sacrificial goat who ran against Joe Lieberman a few years back and got about 18 votes [irony alert] is recognized as notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Being a major party nominee for any race does not inherently demonstrate notability. The "sacraficial goat" you mention doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and nor should he. Those pieces Cunard produced may demonstrate notability, but they may not. I haven't read them yet. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Response. Wrong on every point. For example, Alan Schlesinger. Until newspapers and TV stations stop covering US Senate races, being a major party nominee guarantees meeting the GNG; Wikipedia notability requirements aren't meant to force editors to waste time documenting what's self-evident to reasonable, modestly-informed people. And if you're going to quote me, please don't introduce spelling errors that I didn't make. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I think in all likelihood that a major party candidate for senator will necessarily be of such great importance as a politician there will always be sources, and if we do not find them, it is the fault of an incomplete search. Fortunately, given the ongoing great expansion in GBooks and GNews Archive, this will become rarer--but of course there are still print sources. The criterion is unsourceable, and the conclusion should not be reached that this is unsourceable without such a search. In any case, every article on the campagin will inevitably discuss the careers of both candidates. H.w. has it exactly right. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 31 August 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 redirect to John F. Kennedy, Jr. airplane crash. JForget 22:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Bessette

Lauren Bessette (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Lauren Bessette" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This person was a victim of an airplane disaster who was the sister-in-law of a notable person. Per WP:N, notability is not inherit. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Her name was in many news stories about he plane crash, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO independently of getting a ride in a small plane which crashed. Being related to notable people, by marriage, is not sufficient grounds to justify an article. Edison (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. — MusicMaker5376 20:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to John F. Kennedy, Jr. airplane crash. Individual flunks WP:ONEEVENT. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to one of the several other articles please. I thought the other one was bad, this is actually worse. The sister of the wife of the son of the President? o: She went to university, got her degree then died? Her sister met and married the son of an important political figure? Nothing else? Reads suspiciously like a MEMORIAL, sounds almost like a joke at this stage, please let this unfortunate family rest in peace in a non-Wikipedia article capacity... --candle•wicke 17:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the crash Notability is not inherited. What most the world knows about her is known because of her relationship to John F. Kennedy, Jr. and Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy and her involvement in the John F. Kennedy, Jr. airplane crash. Eauhomme (talk) 14:39, 3 September 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. JForget 22:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Saunders

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Russell Saunders
Russell Saunders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Russell Saunders" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Only appearance has been in the Conference. EchetusXe 14:16, 30 August 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) Unionhawk Talk E-mail 04:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Forward class

Forward class (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Forward class" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I have tagged this article for deletion on the ground of violation of WP:NOR, the article is indeed an original research which aims at discovering communities to qualify under it under dubious grounds which has no acceptability elsewhere and tries to mislead readers in general. Ikon |no-blast

NOTE" See previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward Castes initiated by same nominator and closed as keep. Abecedare (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. I created this AfD page after seeing the request by Ikonoblast at Talk:Forward class#Listed in AFD. I express no opinion on the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarify, please: does the notion of forward class or caste, as defined in the lead, exist in modern India? From a far it seems logical then if some groups get preferential treatment then the rest will identify themselves as something. NVO (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems largeley OR. I have never come across the term "Forward Class" or "Forward Caste" in any government forms. If you do not fall under any affirmative action groups, the option is usually "General Category". Renaming may be an option instead of deleting. Reserving my vote till things become clearer.--Deepak D'Souza 02:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Forward class (also referred to as forward caste, or forward communities) are terms used regularly by Government of India, Supreme Court of India, and in Parliament of India [17]. Ditto for state governments, media, books, and scholarly literature. Indeed there is a Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to deal with the forward class-backward class divide. Given its subject, there well may be OR and POV issues with the article, but as was pointed out in the previous AFD by the same nominator, an AFD is not the venue for dealing with them. Abecedare (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The article could use some editing, but it is referenced alright and a casual google search for both the article name and the redirect from move (an alternate name) is good enough to show notability. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 03:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The forward class or caste is a well known term which is frequently used in Indian political, legal and administration circles. Shyamsunder (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no such term exist in indian constitution. this is completely misguiding article.OR at least rename the pseudo term "forward class" to "general category".--Rxee (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the term Forward class is used every where in India to refer those ethnic groups who do not benefit for affirmative action. In fact, the term is as old as Hinduism itself, as it differentiates higher castes of Hinduism from lower castes. Government of India uses the category "Forward Caste/Class" in various household surveys and is currently planning to include caste, and there by FC in the 2011 census. 202.13.138.32 (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The category "Forward Caste" is used by Government, Media and various NGOs. No one is opposing to articles like Other Backward Classes or Scheduled Castes. Axxn (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I am seeing this term used widely throughout various TV channels every day and in newspapers. Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 12:32, 5 September 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 redirect to Dance Gavin Dance. JForget 22:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Travis

Kurt Travis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Kurt Travis" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Delete, I have paired down the extras but other then one qustionable source I wasn't able to find any mention of the guy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete: non-notable musician. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per WP:MUSIC, which should really have been done originally. Ironholds (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dance Gavin Dance per WP:MUSIC: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. talkingbirds 15:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect - to band as a plausible search term. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 31 August 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. Tone 12:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jaime Carroll

Jaime Carroll (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Jaime Carroll" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable actor. News and web searches for "Jaime Carroll" generate plenty of hits, but a vanishingly small number appear to be for this individual, and none of those suggest anything approaching WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Maybe in a few years. Bongomatic 08:52, 30 August 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. Spartaz Humbug! 13:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Kuala Lumpur

Sri Kuala Lumpur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Sri Kuala Lumpur" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Notability not established. Short article just lists parts of the school with a short timeline and a link to its website noq (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - bad article but that is an editorial matter not grounds for deletion. This institution contains both a high school and, soon, an international school and, by long consensus, is therefore notable. There are also plenty of sources from which the page can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability has now been demonstrated with sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep.My article has been backed up(Sri Kuala Lumpur). I'm just a new user, so I won't know how to use the editing section Wikipedia! noq, stop insulting me and my school Yoongwaichong (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Javért  |  Talk 09:31, 6 September 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Animosity (White Dawg album)

Animosity (White Dawg album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Animosity (White Dawg album)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:ALBUMS. Album never charted. Even the article admits it only sold 5,000 copies. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Another of his albums is up for deletion here: [18], as is the artist: [19]. I intentionally did not group nominations because one of they may actually pass AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:47, 30 August 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 no consensus. Many of the arguments for retaining the article are rather weak in nature, and lack the support of relevant policies. However, this obviously no consensus for deletion, hence no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Don Alden Adams

Don Alden Adams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Don Alden Adams" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No notability outside JW literature. Jeffro77 (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as per Jeffro77. Role of president is now an administrative appointment only, with no input into doctrines or practices as was the case with his early predecessors. LTSally (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Eleven other Wikipedias have found him worthy of an article, and his position is a very important one, so I see no reason we should not have this article. The lack of independent media coverage is a concern, but we should make efforts to remedy that without considering deleting this article. __meco (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion in other Wikipedias is not an indication of notability. Wikipedia does not have articles about everyone in 'an important position'. Please go and read the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion of articles about people. If the foreign-language articles do have reliable third-party sources, they should be included in this article and expanded. However, if they are not based on reliable third-party sources they do not lend weight to keeping the English article, and should also be removed themselves.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if it's not an important policy position any more, it would then be a notable honorific. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
If you can provide more than merely incidental information (such as lists people who have occupied the position) in reliable third-party sources about him, that would be fine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The reference to "an important honorific" makes no sense. If you mean that he is referred to as "President Adams" (which I doubt) that still fails to meet the criteria of WP:N or WP:BIO. The latter guideline requires that to be deemed notable, Mr Adams has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. So far no such sources are cited in his article. LTSally (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The other individuals listed are notable for significant changes they instituted in the religion. Please present third-party references for such notability of Adams.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am convinced that this article do include information that is of interest for the readers. If there is no third party source, why not try to search for some? Summer Song (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
If you, the creator of the article, believe such sources exist, feel free to present them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Added sixteen secondary sources (see diff). --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Do any of them say anything particularly notable, or do they just list him among people who have been in the position?--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Don Alden Adams#Redundancy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 5 September 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 -- Y not? 04:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] White Dawg

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/White Dawg
 Articles for deletion/White Dawg/2004-11-25
Articles for deletion/White Dawg/2005-05-25
Articles for deletion/White Dawg (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/White Dawg (3rd nomination) Articles for deletion/White Dawg (4th nomination)
Articles for deletion/White Dawg (5th nomination) Articles for deletion/White Dawg in the 77th Century
White Dawg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "White Dawg" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This bio has survived 4 nominations based what I consider faulty reasoning. Allmusic shows the song charted solely on the Rap Singles chart. This is a sub chart, not the Billboard 200. That chart only ranks against others within that particular genre. It would not be the "nation chart" that WP:MUSICBIO refers to. I see this as an end-run around that fact that it never cracked the top 200. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Charting on a genre-specific chart still meets WP:MUSIC; it is indicative of significant success consistent with encyclopedicity. The longstanding consensus is that the Billboard hip-hop charts "count" as charts. Chubbles (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Is that a long-standing consensus? Would you please link me to the guideline that shows me that charting within a specific genre only counts as "nationally charting"? Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If we look at WP:MUSTARD we see: "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart." He didn't make it on Billboards airplay or sales charts that I can find. So it shouldn't be used in a table. If it's not appropriate for use in a table, how can it be appropriate for establishing notability? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    That is a different type of chart. For instance, the Billboard Pop 100 chart had three component charts, the Pop 100 Airplay, Hot 100 Singles Sales, and Hot Digital Songs charts. These three "feeder" charts measured different aspects of things and were weighted in specific ways to generate the Pop 100. The Hot Rap Singles chart is not a component chart. And even if it were a component chart, if that's the only placement it had, it would be appropriate for display. This is really a technicality about chart display on discography pages - that's why it's given in that guideline, not for notability inquiries. Genre-specific charts are key indicators for notability of artists that are not mainstream pop acts (who make up the vast majority of the Hot 100) or who do not have strong album sales (the Billboard 200). They are still measuring national success, but for a particular oeuvre. Chubbles (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. With a charted single (albeit one of the many unconvincing Billboard charts), and at least some significant coverage (Allmusic ([20]) plus pay-per-view articles from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel ([21])) there's enough for a short article.--Michig (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Genre charts are appropriate for establishing notability. WP:CHART even includes a couple - U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Club Songs and U.S. Billboard Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs - in its examples of how to record chart positions in articles. Rlendog (talk) 02:31, 6 September 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. JForget 21:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Victorian Champions League

Victorian Champions League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Victorian Champions League" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Doesn't seem likely to be a notable competition as a good faith search for reliable source coverage turned up nothing. ThaddeusB (talk) 04:53, 30 August 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. If there were any sources in the article, this would be a merge. Since there are no refs, the outcome is a deletion. Tone 12:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] White Screen Of Death (VHS Tape)

White Screen Of Death (VHS Tape) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "White Screen Of Death (VHS Tape)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Nonsense about the blank recording at the end of videotapes. Trivialist (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge Seems of interest as a semi-notable feature of a technological era. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge There's nothing here that couldn't be mentioned (as a sentence or two...) in White screen of death. Gigs (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 03:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Keep and DO NOT merge. This article is not a computer topic and should not be merged to screens of death. SYSS Mouse (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge into VHS or similar; entirely unsourced, no way to tell how widespread the term is. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sources, no indication this supposed colloquialism ever enjoyed any significant use in the claimed context. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and, even if verified, utterly non notable. 52 distinct Google hits[22], none of them trustworthy at all, and nothing in Google News c.s. Things that are mentioned once or twice on some fora and posted by someone on Urban Dictionary should not be kept or merged, but simply deleted. Fram (talk) 13:54, 4 September 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 redirect to Death Troopers. Target article's AfD closed as keep. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Death Troopers (novel)

Death Troopers (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Death Troopers (novel)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Not notable per WP:BK#Not yet published books. Duplicates Death Troopers also nominated for deletion. Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I have just added a few sources and done some cleanup, article should be more respectable now. As for WP:BK#Not yet published books, take a look at any Star Wars forum, this article is notable due to the anticipation for the novel. Cerebellum (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Death Troopers is the correct name, delete this article and keep the other one. Cerebellum (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 03:04, 30 August 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 redirect to Damages (TV series). Spartaz Humbug! 13:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tastes Like a Ho-Ho

Tastes Like a Ho-Ho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Tastes Like a Ho-Ho" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

An episode with no significance. In fact consists only of a short plot summary. A short summary of the plot already exists in List of Damages episodes. Magioladitis (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. No one is questioning the notability of the show. This AFD is for an episode of the show. Every episode isn't instantly notable for it's own article, just because it's a popular show. Wikipedia isn't a TV guide of every episode. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete & rd to the LoE per nom. No demonstrable real-world impact. The TV-review guff can, if desired, be easily accommodated there as well. This is merely a plot vehicle, for which see WP:NOT. Eusebeus (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to list of episodes. There is nothing that suggests this episode is notable by itself. A brief summary on the episode list is just fine. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete As of now I have not found significant reviews of the episode that would make the episode meet the general notbality guideline; just blogs and recaps, nothing meeting WP:RS. There's the TV Guide review and I found a passing mention from The Observer that does not qualify as significnt. Martin Raybourne (talk) 23:29, 5 September 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. Fram (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] John O'Shaugnessey

John O'Shaugnessey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "John O'Shaugnessey" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a news source or a true crime publisher. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor any truly biographical sources (where the one event he gained notoriety for aren't the subject). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news articles, and that is all. Delete. Dominic·t 09:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:25, 30 August 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. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] End-Time Illusion

End-Time Illusion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "End-Time Illusion" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I can't find significant coverage for this band. The creator contested the prod on July 4, 2008 with an edit summary of "This band is the top seller for Spare Change Records on iTunes sold internationally. No copyright is needed as it is written by founding member Dave Sharpe". Joe Chill (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable and label's article is also up for deletion. Clubmarx (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This band is a notable underground player in the heavy metal scene and a touring band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.155.227 (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Prove it. All of the quotes from the media have no source so I don't trust the info. Joe Chill (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:21, 30 August 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Backyard Bard

The Backyard Bard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "The Backyard Bard" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

fails WP:ORG and WP:N. hardly any third party coverage. [24], article has remained unreferenced for over 2.5 years. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Tried to find some sources, but they are mostly behind payscreens. From what I can tell, they appear to be about completely different groups using this same name in the US and Canada. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 02:17, 20 August 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) 01:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Look closely at those results. They are the same one's I got when I searched. There are multiple groups using this name, most of those results are from North America, not Australia, so they are not relevant whether they are pay-per-view or not. (I realize you did say delete but you seemed kind of reluctant about it, as if it almost could be kept if we were able to utilize those sources) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Naw... not at all reluctant. Phrased it as I did in case someone wished to point out that not being available online is not a reason to dismiss a source... which is a valid point... but as we both saw, the sources are either about Lewis University's traveling Heritage Theatre Company and their Backyard Bard program, or about the actual Australian group's founder performing in America... like when the Washington, PA Observer-Reporter speaks about Simon Camilleri being up from Australia [26]. And yes... it's a pity about the NOEFFORT.. as having something sit unloved is always kinds sad. Perhaps when the article was first wriiten more was available... but now? Nope. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I am the original creator of the page. I'm sorry about the WP:NOEFFORT. Guilty as charged. I've recently added some references in the article that don't reference The Backyard Bard's own website. Hopefully this shows notability. RobertTurnbull (talk) 13:21, 4 September 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Everblue Training Institute

Everblue Training Institute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Everblue Training Institute" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I was unable to find evidence that this is notable; no significant coverage in 3rd party sources. A search of this company did however lead me to this [27] which shows that this was the work of a COI editor, and combined with the fact that the page has an advert layout, I would say delete. Triplestop x3 19:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:17, 30 August 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. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Death Troopers

Death Troopers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Death Troopers" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Suspected advertising. Subject is unclear but talk page says this is a book to be published in October: delete per WP:BK#Not yet published books. After the book is published, if it becomes notable per Notability (books), will be the time for an article. No commercial publisher is identified and this may be vanity published. Article was created by a new user and edited by anonymous user. WP:PROD template removed with no explanation except "it is notable". Cyclopaedic (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, article duplicates Death Troopers (novel), though that article suffers from the same issues and should probably also be deleted per WP:BK#Not yet published books. Cyclopaedic (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I have just added a few sources and done some cleanup, article should be more respectable now. As for WP:BK#Not yet published books, take a look at any Star Wars forum, this article is notable due to the anticipation for the novel. Cerebellum (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:15, 30 August 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 redirect to Savoyard League. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ligue savoisienne

Ligue savoisienne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Ligue savoisienne" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Better page already exists: Savoyard League —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrovic-Njegos (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect and incorporate info in to the English page. Agree with above that the French name is likely to be typed into the search box. Tgv8925 (talk) 07:39, 30 August 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. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peace Revolution

Peace Revolution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Peace Revolution" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable web group--apparently distinct from a probably non-notable UK band [29]--common phrase, and therefore difficult to search, but none of the apparentlinks on the web seem to refer to this group except for blogs and the link--and the article itself refers to its Facebook group as a core activity--one with only a claimed 260 participants. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - I could find no coverage in reliable sources that were about this group. References in the article are self-publised and do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 26 August 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) 01:36, 30 August 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. Fram (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suspect guest house, Konduz

Suspect guest house, Konduz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Suspect guest house, Konduz" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. Guest houses are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and should not be treated as if they are. Note that contrary to claims by certain users on similar AfDs I have no idealogical feelings I'm trying to push, and I am not trying to censor the wiki - I simply want to demand of these articles the same standards we demand for everything else. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep -- The nominator and I have discussed his interpretation of "significant coverage". I honestly believe he is misinterpreting our policies. He has argued, in other {{afd}}s, that multiple references can't cumulatively add up to significant coverage. I disagree. We know some things about the suspicious guest houses. We don't know everything. But complete knowledge of all aspects of a topic, while ideal, should not be required to draft articles of encyclopedic value. Geo Swan (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    Don't portray my argument in a misleading fashion - I've argued that multiple, individual mentions of the guest houses within documents not focused on the houses in any way, shape or form, not even as a secondary subject, do not add up to significant coverage. Your comment, either deliberately or accidentally, makes it sound like I've argued multiple references aren't "significant coverage". Ironholds (talk) 22:18, 29 August 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) 01:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete No coverage in secondary sources. Also no information in the article about the suspect guest houses, only that they were mentioned in intelligence reports (primary sources). This goes beyond original research to original collection of raw data. It could be important but still has 2-3 stages to go before it's ready for WP. Borock (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete only sources are mentions in US intelligence documents and nothing more than very brief mentions elsewhere. This isn't enough to satisfy WP:N. Hut 8.5 10:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: the existence of the topic, a hypothesised single 'guest house' in Konduz, is pure WP:Synthesis of WP:PRIMARY sources. No independent sources demonstrating that these reports are about the same house, let alone giving it sufficient (i.e. "significant") coverage to demonstrate its notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:59, 3 September 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) 15:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Southern California Supermarket strike of 2003-2004

Southern California Supermarket strike of 2003-2004 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Southern California Supermarket strike of 2003-2004" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - the news test that I apply is whether there are consequences from the event that are both significant and lasting. I think that is the case here. Sure the page needs sourcing and cleaning up but that is an editorial matter. Sources are available - [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] etc Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:48, 29 August 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) 01:08, 30 August 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. JForget 21:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 CN Rail workers strike

2004 CN Rail workers strike (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "2004 CN Rail workers strike" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 13:18, 23 August 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) 01:04, 30 August 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 delete. 11:15, 5 September 2009 Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) deleted "Bryan Emler" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: unsourced BLP; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Emler) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Emler

Bryan Emler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Bryan Emler" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Assertions of importance, but a couple of TV appearances and a cameo don't really spell out notability. Was not able to find any independent coverage anywhere about this person. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:02, 23 August 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) 01:00, 30 August 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Love Letter (variety show)

Love Letter (variety show) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Love Letter (variety show)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Contains trace amounts of information. Unnecessary since it is already briefly described in Real Situation Saturday. May be elaborated there, but separate article is unnecessary. Author claims to have "watched it on YouTube" and "hope other people add more in future". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman329 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 30 August 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. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AIMMS

AIMMS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "AIMMS" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Old article, but appears to be mostly productspam. Zero independent references, and a quick google search didn't turn up much other than the documentation and our article. Also, most of the content is documentation and pitch. This just doesn't seem that significant.

  • Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:26, 23 August 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) 00:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Let me see, I count 14 external links, all going to the AIMMS site: there's spamming, then there's spamming your own Wikipedia page - how novel. I did do a search but I really can't be asked to trawl through any more of it, I cannot believe how many organisations are using that acronym. So it's probably notable if I bothered to research it properly (or if the authors put in some decent refs) but I !vote delete on the grounds that its a copyvio of its own website here and here. SpinningSpark 17:49, 30 August 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. Article was improved since the start of this discussion which helped the article on meeting WP:V and does pass slightly WP:N with the improvements. JForget 21:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Joris Jarsky

Joris Jarsky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Joris Jarsky" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

DELETE cutting to the chase here this person does not appear to be noteworthy enough to receive a Wikipedia page. JBsupreme (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable. Clubmarx (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. As is, this article does not currently meet WP:V; however, I think the subject probably meets # 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. He has been in many films [[37] and has had significant roles in a number of them [38] including the role of Seth in Saw V[39]. Location (talk) 18:46, 26 August 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) 00:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is currently being improved. Even as of this timecode, the unsourced one-sentence stub has already been expanded to show his stage, film, and television career... and it now has the inclusion of two nice in-depth article about him. More is in the offing, but I believe it has now been made a keeper... and one that merits further improvement. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Per improvements made to article as referenced by MichaelQSchmidt. --Milowent (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Four nice in-depth articles sourcing it now. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:14, 5 September 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. NW (Talk) 02:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Baron of Cartsburn

Please note: Page has been moved to Barony of Cartsburn in light of comments received. ~~ Editor8888 talk ~~ 20:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Baron of Cartsburn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Crawfurd of Cartsburn" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
(Find sources: "Barony of Cartsburn" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Scottish barons (not to be confused with Scottish lords) are merely owners of a particular stretch of land. They neither belong to the ranks of nobility nor had politicial power (seats in the House of Lords). In contrast to peerages, Scottish baronies can be sold and are not bound to hereditary succession. While I don't think that the articles in question are candidates for speedy deletions, I nevertheless consider them extremly dubious and can't see any indication of notability. It might be perhaps helpful to read previous AfD's of another baronies some years ago (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Baron_of_Fulwood, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron of Dirleton).

I am also nominating the following related articles :

Thomas Crawfurd of Cartsburn, 1st Baron of Cartsburn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Thomas Crawfurd of Cartsburn, 4th Baron of Cartsburn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Thomas Macknight Crawfurd of Cartsburn and Lauriston Castle, 8th Baron of Cartsburn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

~~ Phoe talk ~~ 00:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The article concerned, Baron of Cartsburn, connects via the link 'Baronage of Scotland' to a clear reference to the status of these baronies, so there is no doubt of what is being referred to.

Phoe makes a number of statements above that are not clear.

Phoe asserts that the articles are "extremely dubious". Nothing in Phoe's post above gives any indication why this is so. All facts referred to in the articles are independently verifiable via other sources. Yes, there are further sources which I am working on, however these will be added when I have time. We have to start the articles somewhere! I do not see why Phoe should have the right to deny other researchers access to this information in the meantime. At the very least, retention of a single web page on the dignity of Baron of Cartsburn is warranted if not single entries on its particular holders. Yet, for example, Historic Scotland and the Burns Encyclopedia, among other sources, feel the individuals are notable enough to be worthy of mention, so why should we not note them in Wikipedia? I think you should allow the articles to develop. There are many other sources to incorporate. Furthermore, there is connected content in Wikipedia. For example, notable buildings have been owned by the Barons of Cartsburn. Lauriston Castle in Edinburgh and Ballumbie Castle in Angus are examples.

It is not right to say "They neither belong to the ranks of nobility nor had politicial power (seats in the House of Lords)" (Phoe) without clarification. They (feudal barons) sat in the ancient Scottish Parliament as a part of the nobility. When this was modified, they sat as an Estate (the Baronage) in their own right. The last amendments left them not being compelled to attend, but their rights to a seat in parliament were never formally removed. To say they never had political power was incorrect. Also, political power does not only manifest itself as a seat in the House of Lords. Barons such as those of Cartsburn had a legal jurisdiction, which is another form of political power. They could try civil and criminal matters on their estates. Barons of Cartsburn have supplied museums with artefacts from this period in social history, such as thumkins, which were used as a form of restraint. Such barons have always constituted part of the minor nobility, but not the peerage.

It is incorrect to say that feudal barons are "merely owners of a particular stretch of land" (Phoe). They actually own a dignity that is recognised by the Crown. See the website of the Lord Lyon: http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/536.html. They have particular forms of address, as is acknowledged by Debrett's: http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/scottish--and-irish-titles/scottish-feudal-baronies.aspx.

While we might not like the fact that "Scottish baronies can be sold and are not bound to hereditary succession" (Phoe), this affects neither their legitimacy nor their place in history. It is certainly not a reason for them to be written out of the history books, or encylopedias. ~~ Editor8888 talk ~~ 09:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I have looked at the debates on the article on the Baron of Dirleton. This seems to be a different instance, as that was an article serving a self-publicity role and that made dubious claims about the barony being a peerage. The Baron of Cartsburn article does not now name the present incumbent and accurately portrays the status of the dignity.

The Barons of Cartsburn are well documented in the historical record and there are even publications focusing on the barony. This seems to attest to notability. The articles are very much in a stage of infancy and I would like to be given a chance to expand on these history articles before they are considered for deletion. For example, the grandfather of James Watt, the famous inventor, was Bailie of the Barony, and George Crawfurd, the celebrated writer of the Peerage of Scotland was a member of the family. ~~ Editor8888 talk ~~ 10:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep per creators compelling argument. Hawkspur (Falcon8765) 16:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- As an Englishman I am not familiar with the precise nature of Scottish baronies. My understanding is that it is something like the lordship of a manor in England. The baron is not a lord of Parliament (which is why we have articles on peerages). I would be happier with this article being renamed and restructured into one on the barony, rather than the barons who owned it. The articles on individual barons should be merged back to the "baron" (or "barony") article, unless any are notable for other reasons. Notability is not heritable, so that the indirect association with James Watt (which has just been added to that article, and ought tom be reverted) and that to George Crawfurd do not save it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec) Keep the article on the Barony, delete/merge the articles on the holders. This is of historical interest no matter what one's opinion is of the office or the holders. However, the individual holders of a minor title need to establish notability in their own right before an article is justified and this has not been done. We unfortunately do not have a WP:ARISTOCRACY guideline but WP:POLITICIAN gives automatic notability to first-level sub-national office holders, the rest are judged on their individual merits. On the other hand we have an article for Broxbourne (borough) (amongst many others) which is third-level sub-national political entity. I would not, however, expect to find articles on individual Broxbourne councillors unless there was something else that made them notable. I am applying the same principle here, the political unit is notable, the members are not (necessarily). One more point, really Editor8888, James Watt does not make your article notable. While an interesting factoid, notability is not inherited, you certainly cannot inherit it from your employees. SpinningSpark 17:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for your very useful advice above. I think these suggestions are the right way forward. Not realising where the individuals would lie in terms of notability, it seems right that that I delete/merge their entries, but keep the main article. It also seems much more sensible to focus on the barony as an administrative unit rather than on its personalities, so a rename and restructure also seems appropriate. This is particularly fitting considering its historical importance as a burgh of barony and a port for trade with the Americas (Cartsburn's harbour is part of Greenock's shipping port and this barony's Royal charter established the original harbour rights). Thanks once again. What category would a Scottish baronial administrative unit come under? I have renamed the article, but will need a few days to rewrite and restructure it, as I am very busy right now. ~~ Editor8888 talk ~~ 20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is notable, and is referenced elsewhere in Wikipedia, as well as in sources that deal with nobility and honorific titles in the United Kingdom (see Burke's Peerage). Additionally, a 2008 decision by the Lord Lyon allows that the ownership of a Scottish baronial dignity will bring the new baron/ess within the heraldic jurisdiction of the Lord Lyon; thus the acquisition of a Scottish baronial dignity will enable the holder to petition Lord Lyon for a coat of arms QueenofBattle (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I have since found the 'Burgh' category, which applies in this case. Thanks for all advice. ~~ Editor8888 talk ~~ 20:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Editor8888 (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I have listed this article for rescue, as I do not believe the subject matter to be unnotable. If anyone rescuing can point out any essential amendments or additions for the retention of this article, I would be most grateful. I note other feudal Baronies are listed, so feudal Baronies in general have been held to be notable, see for example Barony of Ladyland and Barony of Halton. I do intend to expand on the article, but I cannot do so if it is deleted!~~ Editor8888 talk ~~ 00:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It looks like you're well on the way to collaborative and productive discussion here. I don't know that {{rescue}} that is going to make much of a difference, but I'm sure many of us who participate are glad to see a substantive, policy-based discussion going on. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep well referenced, 16 books mention the subject I am deeply troubled that the nominator put these articles up for deletion, in one case 17 minutes after an article was created, with absolutly no attempt at WP:PRESERVE or WP:BEFORE. This to a brand new edior.[40] Ikip (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • closing administrator please note this article has gone through signifigant improvements since it was first nominated for deletion.[41] Ikip (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The main book on the topic has not been digitally scanned, so does not come up in the Book search, but it is noted here. The Barons of Cartsburn for whom I was creating individual articles, the Crawfurds of Cartsburn, are mentioned in 142 books. I had thought this would constitute notability and am surprised that there was no attempt at WP:PRESERVE or WP:BEFORE before nominating the articles for deletion. Editor8888 (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have added relevant commentary from the Memoirs of the Chief of Clan Cameron to the article, together with the appropriate references. Editor8888 (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - good article, meets are note noteability requirements following following improvements Editor8888. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have now integrated the content from the pages Thomas Crawfurd of Cartsburn, 1st Baron of Cartsburn, Thomas Crawfurd of Cartsburn, 4th Baron of Cartsburn and Thomas Macknight Crawfurd of Cartsburn and Lauriston Castle, 8th Baron of Cartsburn into the main article Barony of Cartsburn, so that those individuals' pages can be deleted and so that the general Barony of Cartsburn page can be retained. Editor8888 (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
A redirect is better #REDIRECT[[ARTICLE NAME MOVING TOO]] #R Button in the middle above the writing box. Ikip (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Following above advice, the pages on the individuals are now set as redirects to the main page for retention. Editor8888 (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • An image of the House of Cartsburn has been added to the article. Editor8888 (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Any problems that the article(s) may have had have now been resolved. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per AdamBMorgan. Ben MacDui 19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Mentioned in enough books, and also having valid references in the article. Dream Focus 20:50, 4 September 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. The issue of merging is an editorial decision. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jump Up Jump Down Live

Jump Up Jump Down Live (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Jump Up Jump Down Live" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I can't find significant coverage for this film. We Four Girls Are Here To Stay is part of the nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:01, 23 August 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) 00:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment. Debate wasn't sorted so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge both to B*Witched discography - no substantial coverage, minimal information available beyond the basic info and a tracklist. Just including the release dates and tracklists under the relevant headings on the discography article will fulfil the same function more efficiently for everyone. ~ mazca talk 12:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    Points for humor go for the contrast between the DVD title We Four Girls Are Here To Stay and the sentence "The group split up in 2002 after being dropped by their record company." Face-wink.svg ~ mazca talk 12:45, 30 August 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. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GPapers

GPapers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "GPapers" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:54, 23 August 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) 00:27, 30 August 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 -- Y not? 03:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Zack Shutt

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Zack Shutt Articles for deletion/Zack Shutt (2nd nomination)
Zack Shutt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Zack Shutt" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Not notable. No google news hits. One of the two references does not have his name in it. The other is not a news reference. If it is not deleted, it should be a redirect to Geek show podcast. Clubmarx (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge/Redirect to Geek show podcast. Not notable in his own right but he is mentioned there so a redirect could help someone finding info about him. Tavix |  Talk  01:46, 23 August 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) 00:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep With a book being published soon, having accomplished notable things with popular musicians, and growing in prominence in regards to the Geek Show Podcast, it is an article that should be kept. Shadowkhas (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, claims like "he worked with a band that was on Leno" make him twice removed from notability. Future books are rarely notable. And I'm not sure what this image is doing in an AfD, being on the cover of a local weekly doesn't convince me of notability; local notability is not the same thing as wikipedia notability. Hairhorn (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Erm, my reasoning seems to have gone past you. Nowhere did I say that locally notable things are never wikipedia notable. I said they aren't the same; one does not follow from the other. To suggest otherwise would vastly expand wikipedia's understanding of notability. And apart from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, at least one of those pages should come up for deletion too. Hairhorn (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I would say that this individual is notable. It would be my vote that this entry be kept after looking through some of the content on the page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.225.162 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC) — 75.149.225.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete and redirect to Geek Show Podcast. I can find no evidence of significant coverage by reliable, third party sources as required by the general notability guideline. Everything sourced is either a trivial mention, not independent or not a reliable source - or a combination. A lot of the content is unsourced - and I think unsourcable - and what is isn't about him but the show with which he is associated. I cannot find any additional sources which would establish the individual's notability (by either the general guideline or the people specific guideline) or from which verifiable information could be added to the article. Looking at the content of the article I don't see anything which could be added to Geek Show Podcast or any other article and the article contains unsourced information about a living person so I don't see the advantage of keeping the history if redirected. I do not find the arguments for keeping convincing. 15,000 downloads (or 19,000 as the source says) isn't even a particularly big number to be arguing for an inclusion standard - many youtube videos and channels have order of magnitudes more viewers without them or their creators being considered notable without significant, independent, reliable sourcing. Being notable locally and covered only in local sources is not usually a good indicator of notability, school children who do well in their exams can receive local coverage, that doesn't make them notable. Similar articles may exist, but they are not being considered in this discussion, the topic should meet the various inclusion policies and guidelines on its own merit, it should not be kept purely because other articles exist (as other articles should not be kept/merged/deleted based on the outcome of this discussion). Guest9999 (talk) 18:48, 3 September 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_30&oldid=312182048"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export