Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John MacReen (talk | contribs) at 11:05, 14 September 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 13 September 15 >

Purge server cache

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. seicer | talk | contribs 19:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Atherton

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

nn bio John MacReen (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Through my searches I discovered that Paul Atherton is running a campaign to raise funds for the National Centre for Domestic Violence by releasing his docudrama Silent Voices on DVD with all profits going to the charity - so I hope this deletion request is just coincidence.
  • This entry has been posted on Wiki for nearly 4 months with no issues. When The Ballet of Change was first drawn to my attention in November 2007 the online coverage was significant, it was mentioned on national radio sites, the online streaming of BBC news etc. which is why I believe it wasn’t marked for deletion in the first place and as the notes suggest in Notability is not Temporary “If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic”.
  • However, over the course of time, much of that live news has now been removed from the sites and much of the printed news is of course, not on line.
  • The claim is that Paul Atherton was the first person in the world to be granted permission to use the Coca-Cola Billboard’s advertising hoarding to show a film on a world famous landmark.
  • I believe that cannot be in contest.
  • A quick search through Google using the term “Ballet of Change” brings the results of a variety of confirmation sources not least the sites owner (i.e. the Landlords of the Billboards) Land Securities on their Piccadilly Circus Lights Website Piccadilly Lights The British Film Archive at the British Film Institute where due to the notability of the film it has been secured in perpetuity at The BFI the acronym of NFA (stands for National Film Archive), The British Film Councils website Britfilms and in the listings magazine publication TimeOut, the industry standard magazine for the Broadcast Industry in the UK Broadcast and as it was Heritage Lottery Funded the funds can be proved to have been made from the source on the HLF website.
  • As such I would request the NfD to be removed.
  • I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 15:35 16 September 2008 (GMT)
(I have indented your comment, I hope you do not mind) Upon a second look on Factiva I found an article that mentions Paul Atherton: "Charities refuse proceeds of DVD", Hannah Jordan, 17 September 2008, Third Sector. I am not familiar with that source, but it could be reliable.
Anyhow, the problem we face is: do reliable third-party sources exist to allow us to write a Wikipedia article? I don't think press releases count as reliable sources and the "Silent Voices" link above appears to be a press release (I am happy to be corrected on this point). If the press covered the press release (and Factiva will give a good indication, covering many news publications, including printed news that is no longer online) then we would have reliable third party sources, but we do not currently.
One question to illustrate the problem, which reliable source exists stating that Paul Atherton attended Cardiff Business School? If we can't find a source then that should be removed immediately per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This is also the case with the Coca-Cola information, please provide reliable sources.
P.S. I just realised that the reason I didn't find the Third Sector article last time is that the source is brand new! If there is coverage in reliable sources in the future then there is the possibility that an article is fine for Wikipedia.--Commander Keane (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Commander Keene I appreciate your corrections. I am new to Wikipedia and have not had to defend my articles before - so your patience, understanding and corrections are much appreciated.
Many of my sources for both my articles this and the "Ballet of Change" will never have been or are no longer online - but I will happily provided them if you believe this helps.
The issue here though, must be, first and foremost, do the Wikipedians think the first person to have his film shown on a globally famous landmark (i.e. The Coca-Billboard in Piccadilly Circus, London) notable? If the answer to that question is No, then there is little point pursuing my lines of inquiry. In my opinion Paul Atherton's notability comes from his success at achieving a first - if The Ballet of Change is considered notable then by definition so does its creator and vice-versa.
Are we measuring notability merely by online press coverage at any given time?
For example, you asked where I sourced some of my references - Paul's University career was found in his Alumni magazine from Cardiff University and also referenced in the South Wales Echo (The National News paper for Wales) in 1996, which of course you wouldn't be able to source online.
HIs work career, such as his time at Prospect Television (at least in part) can be verified by an online presence Skillset arrange a "Lucky Break' at Production Show in 2002. However the remaining part of his career, Touch of Silk for instance was again referenced from the South Wales Echo South Wales Echo "Local business man rescues Revlon President" Pg 7 November 1994 , The Sun Newspaper "Charles props up Naughty Knickers" Pg 7 December 26 1994, The News of the World, News In Brief Pg 3 "Brief Encounters" November 23 1994 , BBC Radio Wales, News Article Broadcast October 16th 1994 at 11:00am, Vogue Magazine, Diary Editor Clarissa Brooke Turner "A Touch of Silk - Something to remember " April 1995 to name but a few, but back in 1994 none of these publications had an online presence and they don't make their back copies available through online search engines but does this make them any less notable or reliable.
These references can all be checked publicly (as I've done) they just require an investment of time and Money.
His PR career can be tracked through the trade publications of PR Week. Articles like "Capital Gold - A Case Study" Pages 16-17,5 May 1998, "Harvard appoints new Account Manager" Pg 5, 9 February 1999 and "The Telegraphs' Match of the Day" Pg 28 4 April 2000.
This brings us up to date. I notice Vasile states that this is not IMDb. However, IMDb's entries are rigorously researched by independent researchers and only allowed to be published when every fact has been checked (unlike Wikipedia). Is this not a reliable source under Wikipeadia's definition?
As for Silent Voices this is available on Amazon and as you rightly pointed out in the Charities Trade Publication Third Sector so I think enough reliable sources for that.
But back to the Ballet of Change, here are some of the references to the articles published at the time BBC News (closed the programme) – Friday 23rd November 2007 18:55 – 19:00, Evening Standard, Pg 2 "Piccadilly Lights up its own History" 23rd November 2007, London Lite Pg2 "Films beamed onto Piccadilly Circus Ads" 23rd November 2007, Time Out – 20th November 2007 Press Association "Historic Film Event" 20th November 2007, London Paper "Lighting up History" 21st November 2007, LBC – Announcements throughout the day and mentioned numerous times by Nick Ferrari 23rd November 2007, Capital Radio (covered by Johnny Vaughan on his morning show) Thursday 22nd November 2007 08:30 – 09:00, Colourful Radio – Arts - (30 Minute interview) Thursday 22nd November 2007 between 14:!5 – 14:45 and again I reiterate these can all be checked but most can no longer be found online.
I have the cuttings for al these articles in PDF formats if you want them, but you cannot find them online. Either they were time limited such as the radio shows or the news story never made it from print to online in the case of The Evening Standard.
This is the link to the BBC news site which aired the event "The Ballet of Change" but is no longer current - instead it is showing this weeks news - as it changes every week.
Thank you for putting this up in the United Kingdom related articles. I hope some wikipedians from the UK will be able to assist me in my quest.
I would also like to clarify that the press release on Land Securities website, is on their website and other than recording the event and naming Paul Atherton it has nothing to do with him. This proves that the owners of the Coca-Cola billboard not only acknowledge that the event happened but also that it was the first time a film had been shown there. Why is it a Press Release published by a globally famous company about a third party would not be established as a reliable source?
And finally, could someone please explain why The BFI (The British Film Institute), which caries the largest film collection in the world and as such is incredibly selective in what it accepts as contributions, wouldn't be acknowledged as a reliable source?
Again, I'd request the removal of the NfD.
    • I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 20:43 19 September 2008 (GMT)
  • Comment Amanda Paul I have sent you an email it would be great if you can email me a couple of reliable sources discussing Paul Atherton. I can not respond to your entire comment above, but on a couple of points... I was able to find in the Evening Standard "Piccadilly Lights up its own History", but there is no mention of Paul Atherton. Reliable sources that are not online are still entirely reliable. About the "Wikipedia is not IMDB" comment, I think the point is that even if a film is carried by IMDB, or the BFI, it does not mean that the producer will have enough reliable sources to create a Wikipedia article.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment::Apologies as I stated in my previous post I am new to this - I have discovered from a user that I had voted twice it was not intentional - I'd be grateful if you could correct anything I have done wrong. But I believe I've corrected it appropriately now.
No-one has yet addressed the question in regards to the British National Film Archive especially in respect to the notability guidelines in general notability .4 and also in terms of it being the first film to be shown on an advertising billboard (an accomplishment made even more significant by the fact that Coca-Cola gave up prime advertising time for it to be screened) in respect to other evidence of notability .5. As its is the nature of the films achievement and not the content of the film - many of the criteria normally associated with a film are difficult to apply. For instance as previously mentioned it did not and should not be expected to get a general release. The style of the film would not make it suitable for festivals or awards and would by definition never be reviewed (just taking into account of the size of the screen it was edited and broadcast on - it would make this an impossibility for a normal release it neither being 16:9 or 4:3 Formats).
DGG I refer you back to my previous post to VG in respect to reviews.
Commander Keane has requested the pdf cuttings I have referred to above by e-mail, which will be sent in due course. If he could confirm he's received them on Wikipedia I'd be very grateful and could you also please tell me where you were able to source the Evening Standard Article - Thanks.
It would be incredibly useful as part of this debate if Wikipedians would address the questions I have raised.
Are there any Wikipedians in the UK who could back me up - which leads onto another point. When we talk about Notability is it Global or Nationwide?
As previously stated in this discussion I believe this and The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus's AfD entry are intrinsically linked. Is there anyway of merging the two discussions.
Thanks
    • I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 10:20 20 September 2008 (GMT)
  • Comment I sourced the Evening Standard using Factiva (subscription based) I can email the article to anyone who wants it, although it is rather short and does not mention the names of the films displayed. I do not trust what is said on Notability pages, at the end of the day all Wikipedia content must be able to be verified from reliable sources and notability is a result of this. Any notability guideline comes second to verifiability.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Keane can you please confirm that you have received my email - I had trouble sending it (File size 6MB).

In addition this may help with verifiability.

  • Comment An extract from the British Film Archive Collecting Policy to be found as a Download
4.2 Cultural significance
25. The overriding criterion for acceptance into the national collection of moving image material for the United Kingdom is that the work should be of cultural and/or historical importance to the British people, recognising the diversity of British communities.
26. Because this is the national collection of moving image material in the UK, acquisition of British-produced and British-related material will be prioritised over non-British material, especially for the preservation collection. However, much non-British material is also of cultural importance and some non-British material may be highly relevant to particular cross-cultural audiences for the reference collection.
27. The bfi does not aim to hold a comprehensive collection, even for British- produced material. It aims to collect works that have or had real cultural impact, or historical significance, or that are highly representative of production, society or cultural values, or which are valuable for educational purposes or as information resources for study. Examples include: - High quality productions, where the production values and treatment are of a high artistic merit or information content.
And of course we are not talking any advertising billboard - we are talking about one of the world's most famous billboards in one of the worlds most noted landmark. If this isn't regarded as a unique achievement then I think the scope of WP:MOVIE#cite_note-5 needs to be revised.
I believe there is talk of doing it at Time Square, New York, next year.
  • Weak Keep. Sources seem to exist and newby editor making good faith effort to address concerns. Clean-up and help them through sourcing offline material, and yes, press releases can be used as sources although independent coverage is preferred. Amanda Paul, you need to become familiar with Wikipedia:Citation templates, the links on the article, in many cases, should be coverted to a citation to support the content. -- Banjeboi 08:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most (poor) references refer only to his work with the film. Any verifiable material can be merged with that article if it survives AfD. Tassedethe (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have received a few pdfs from Amanda Paul and they tend briefly mention Paul Atherton in the context of the film The Ballet of Change so I tend to agree with a merger/redirect of Paul Atherton to the film's article if it survives. Incidentally, I don't understand the relevance of links to social networking sites (ie Bebo) above.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a lot of the references are to a different Paul Atherton, and the others mainly refer to the film. Delete and redirect to the film, if that is kept. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Commander Keane I would be grateful if you could confirm that the Google search PDF. I sent you clearly showed that LBC covered the news story and that The Museum in Docklands, London, acknowledged the event and screened the films and neither can now be found on the Internet. Also that you have the London Lite article I cited above has also been received and again cannot be found on the internet.
It should also be pointed out that Paul Atherton has made numerous television appearances not least, Junipers Production of The Great British Black Invasion for the UK's Channel 4, which as a contributor (he is the caricature in the hat and the scarf, Top Row third from the left), looks at Paul's history in relation to his mixed race heritage. A clip from which can be found at YouTube.
What do I need to do, if anything, to prove the other not-online sources I cited above?
Stifle could you please explain what references you believe not to be associated to this Paul Atherton. If you are doing a Google search could I recommend that you use "Paul Atherton" "Simple TV".
It should also be noted that Paul was asked to make a reading contribution to an Oxford University charity project called Reading for Life that included a select contributions list including Clive James, Tom Stoppard and Michael Horovitz.
-- Banjeboi Thanks for the advice. I'll attempt to tidy up this article in the manner you suggest this weekend - if it still exists!
  • I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 16:11 24 September 2008 (GMT)
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. seicer | talk | contribs 19:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus

The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn film John MacReen (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Through my searches I discovered that Paul Atherton is running a campaign to raise funds for the National Centre for Domestic Violence by releasing his docudrama Silent Voices on DVD with all profits going to the charity - so I hope this deletion request is just coincidence.
  • This entry has been posted on Wiki for nearly 4 months with no issues. When The Ballet of Change was first drawn to my attention in November 2007 the online coverage was significant, it was mentioned on national radio sites, the online streaming of BBC news etc. which is why I believe it wasn’t marked for deletion in the first place and as the notes suggest in Notability is not Temporary “If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic”. However, over the course of time, much of that live news has now been removed from the sites and much of the printed news is of course, not on line. The claim is that Paul Atherton was the first person in the world to be granted permission to use the Coca-Cola Billboard’s advertising hoarding to show a film on a world famous landmark. I believe that cannot be in contest. A quick search through Google using the term “Ballet of Change” brings the results of a variety of confirmation sources not least the sites owner (i.e. the Landlords of the Billboards) Land Securities on their Piccadilly Circus Lights Website Piccadilly Lights The British Film Archive at the British Film Institute where due to the notability of the film it has been secured in perpetuity at The BFI the acronym of NFA (stands for National Film Archive), The British Film Councils website Britfilms and in the listings magazine publication TimeOut, the industry standard magazine for the Broadcast Industry in the UK Broadcast and as it was Heritage Lottery Funded the funds can be proved to have been made from the source on the HLF website. As such I would request the NfD to be removed. I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 15:35 16 September 2008 (GMT)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Commander Keene I appreciate your corrections. I am new to Wikipedia and have not had to defend my articles before - so your patience, understanding and corrections are much appreciated.
Many of my sources for both my articles this and the "Ballet of Change" will never have been or are no longer online - but I will happily provided them if you believe this helps.
The issue here though, must be, first and foremost, do the Wikipedians think the first person to have his film shown on a globally famous landmark (i.e. The Coca-Billboard in Piccadilly Circus, London) notable? If the answer to that question is No, then there is little point pursuing my lines of inquiry. In my opinion Paul Atherton's notability comes from his success at achieving a first - if The Ballet of Change is considered notable then by definition so does its creator and vice-versa.
Are we measuring notability merely by online press coverage at any given time?
For example, you asked where I sourced some of my references - Paul's University career was found in his Alumni magazine from Cardiff University and also referenced in the South Wales Echo (The National News paper for Wales) in 1996, which of course you wouldn't be able to source online.
HIs work career, such as his time at Prospect Television (at least in part) can be verified by an online presence Skillset arrange a "Lucky Break' at Production Show in 2002. However the remaining part of his career, Touch of Silk for instance was again referenced from the South Wales Echo South Wales Echo "Local business man rescues Revlon President" Pg 7 November 1994 , The Sun Newspaper "Charles props up Naughty Knickers" Pg 7 December 26 1994, The News of the World, News In Brief Pg 3 "Brief Encounters" November 23 1994 , BBC Radio Wales, News Article Broadcast October 16th 1994 at 11:00am, Vogue Magazine, Diary Editor Clarissa Brooke Turner "A Touch of Silk - Something to remember " April 1995 to name but a few, but back in 1994 none of these publications had an online presence and they don't make their back copies available through online search engines but does this make them any less notable or reliable.
These references can all be checked publicly (as I've done) they just require an investment of time and Money.
His PR career can be tracked through the trade publications of PR Week. Articles like "Capital Gold - A Case Study" Pages 16-17,5 May 1998, "Harvard appoints new Account Manager" Pg 5, 9 February 1999 and "The Telegraphs' Match of the Day" Pg 28 4 April 2000.
This brings us up to date. I notice Vasile states that this is not IMDb. However, IMDb's entries are rigorously researched by independent researchers and only allowed to be published when every fact has been checked (unlike Wikipedia). Is this not a reliable source under Wikipeadia's definition?
As for Silent Voices this is available on Amazon and as you rightly pointed out in the Charities Trade Publication Third Sector so I think enough reliable sources for that.
But back to the Ballet of Change, here are some of the references to the articles published at the time BBC News (closed the programme) – Friday 23rd November 2007 18:55 – 19:00, Evening Standard, Pg 2 "Piccadilly Lights up its own History" 23rd November 2007, London Lite Pg2 "Films beamed onto Piccadilly Circus Ads" 23rd November 2007, Time Out – 20th November 2007 Press Association "Historic Film Event" 20th November 2007, London Paper "Lighting up History" 21st November 2007, LBC – Announcements throughout the day and mentioned numerous times by Nick Ferrari 23rd November 2007, Capital Radio (covered by Johnny Vaughan on his morning show) Thursday 22nd November 2007 08:30 – 09:00, Colourful Radio – Arts - (30 Minute interview) Thursday 22nd November 2007 between 14:!5 – 14:45 and again I reiterate these can all be checked but most can no longer be found online.
I have the cuttings for al these articles in PDF formats if you want them, but you cannot find them online. Either they were time limited such as the radio shows or the news story never made it from print to online in the case of The Evening Standard.
This is the link to the BBC news site which aired the event "The Ballet of Change" but is no longer current - instead it is showing this weeks news - as it changes every week.
Thank you for putting this up in the United Kingdom related articles. I hope some wikipedians from the UK will be able to assist me in my quest.
VG makes the point the film wasn't reviewed. I bring it to the attention of Wikipedia not to the content of the film, but the films achievement. A film of this nature, not expecting general release and having (as far as I know) not been entered into competition would not have received reviews.
I would also like to clarify that the press release on Land Securities website, is on their website and other than recording the event and naming Paul Atherton it has nothing to do with him. This proves that the owners of the Coca-Cola billboard not only acknowledge that the event happened but also that it was the first time a film had been shown there. Why is it a Press Release published by a globally famous company about a third party would not be established as a reliable source?
And finally, could someone please explain why The BFI (The British Film Institute), which caries the largest film collection in the world and as such is incredibly selective in what it accepts as contributions, wouldn't be acknowledged as a reliable source?
Again, I'd request the removal of the NfD.
  • Delete I have carried out a search of Newsbank, an online database of full-text content for over 77 national, regional and local titles in the UK and Ireland going back three decades, which is accessed through the reference sections of libraries in the UK, for the phrase "The Ballet of Change". There is not one result. I conclude that it was not in the news at the time, clearly had no notability then and obviously has no enduring notability now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment::Apologies Malcolmxl5 as I stated in my previous post I am new to this - it was not intentional - I'd be grateful if you could correct anything I have done wrong. I believe I've corrected it appropriately?
I'd also be grateful for the link to the Newsbank you mention the only one relevant to the UK that I could find was this Newsbank based in East Sussex, England. This could find no result for "Piccadilly Circus", "England Cricket Captain Michael Atherton" or "Richard Branson". All the articles it was finding were East Sussex based. A link would be incredibly helpful. I would refer you back to an early post about notability not being temporary in respect to your comments there.
No-one has yet addressed the question in regards to the British National Film Archive especially in respect to the notability guidelines in general notability .4 and also in terms of it being the first film to be shown on an advertising billboard (an accomplishment made even more significant by the fact that Coca-Cola gave up prime advertising time for it to be screened) in respect to other evidence of notability .5. As its is the nature of the films achievement and not the content of the film - many of the criteria normally associated with a film are difficult to apply. For instance as previously mentioned it did not and should not be expected to get a general release. The style of the film would not make it suitable for festivals or awards and would by definition never be reviewed (just taking into account of the size of the screen it was edited and broadcast on - it would make this an impossibility for a normal release it neither being 16:9 or 4:3 Formats).
DGG I refer you back to my previous post to VG in respect to reviews.
Commander Keane has requested the pdf cuttings I have referred to above by e-mail, which will be sent in due course. If he could confirm he's received them on Wikipedia I'd be very grateful.
It would be incredibly useful as part of this debate if Wikipedians would address the questions I have raised.
Are there any Wikipedians in the UK who could back me up - which leads onto another point. When we talk about Notability is it Global or Nationwide?
As previously stated in this discussion I believe this and Paul Atherton's AfD entry are intrinsically linked. Is there anyway of merging the two.
Thanks
    • I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 10:20 20 September 2008 (GMT)
  • Delete (I think Newsbank may have rebranded as NewsUK) Searching NewsUK for ballet change piccadilly (and variants) or piccadilly circus atherton produces exactly 1 relevant hit which is a 2 paragraph notice in the Evening Standard, a shortened version of the press release. (michael atherton or richard branson produce >1000 hits for reference). As regards the National Film Archive it seems from their page that they pretty much keep everything, notable or not. To quote from their collecting policy "It also includes new cultural products and records enabled by modern technology: moving images embedded or presented with sounds and texts; interactive computer games with close links to film culture; animated shorts produced with games authoring tools; CCTV and webcam images; works are created for websites, game consoles, PDAs and mobile telephones." I can't see being in the archive as enough to pass WP:N, otherwise every youtube clip or flash movie would pass. As to being the first film to be shown on an advertising billboard, again it has to be declared as notable by independent reliable sources. As the WP:MOVIE#cite_note-5 says ""This should not be too widely construed, as any film could claim a unique accomplishment such as "Only film where seven women in an elevator carry yellow handbags."" All in all no significant, independent coverage, fails WP:MOVIE Tassedethe (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An extract from the British Film Archive Collecting Policy to be found as a Download
4.2 Cultural significance
25. The overriding criterion for acceptance into the national collection of moving image material for the United Kingdom is that the work should be of cultural and/or historical importance to the British people, recognising the diversity of British communities.
26. Because this is the national collection of moving image material in the UK, acquisition of British-produced and British-related material will be prioritised over non-British material, especially for the preservation collection. However, much non-British material is also of cultural importance and some non-British material may be highly relevant to particular cross-cultural audiences for the reference collection.
27. The bfi does not aim to hold a comprehensive collection, even for British- produced material. It aims to collect works that have or had real cultural impact, or historical significance, or that are highly representative of production, society or cultural values, or which are valuable for educational purposes or as information resources for study. Examples include: - High quality productions, where the production values and treatment are of a high artistic merit or information content.
And of course we are not talking any advertising billboard - we are talking about one of the world's most famous billboards in one of the worlds most noted landmark. If this isn't regarded as a unique achievement then I think the scope of WP:MOVIE#cite_note-5 needs to be revised.
I believe there is talk of doing it at Time Square, New York, next year.
  • Comment: Could you single out the search results you find notable; all I see are wiki links, directories and video sites? As to WP:NTEMP, the film is less than a year old, and the article less than 6 months old, references for notability should not have disappeared in that time.Tassedethe (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, and even if all these sources are ignored, I am still waiting to learn why the guideline's specific instruction of "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive", can be ignored. Closing Admin, please take note of this film being preserved in a national archive per WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: per the sources that MQS found. Also, the film was selected for preservation in a national archive which shows notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on sources I still don't see a single reliable source in the list above. It includes press releases (not independent), bebo and flickr (self-published), and trivial coverage e.g TimeOut. As to the national archive, I assume that notability guideline is aimed at covering films that get accepted to something like the National Film Registry. That archive contains 475 films. The BFI archive contains "more than 50,000 fiction films, over 100,000 non-fiction titles and around 625,000 television programmes"[1]. My earlier comment still applies, the much lower notability threshold for this archive should not automatically confer notable status on an accepted film. Tassedethe (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And clean-up. Newby editor is making a good faith effort to comply with concerns. Sources on article and here show this wacky promotional event did get coverage and the films are a part of a museum exhibit. There's enough here to craft a good article out of it all. -- Banjeboi 07:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Stifle could you please explain why you think this title should be reviewed per my other comments to DGG and VG?
Tassedethe I really must take issue with your notion that the most important film archive in the world has "a lower notability threshold" than a section in a library, albeit The Congress one. The National Film Registry is just a small collection housed in a relatively small library, whose existence needs to be renewed by government every couple of years (this current run being just 7), whose selections are made by a Librarian and which, has only been around for a few years. To compare that with the BFI which has existed for nearly 80 years, exists in perpetuity and its selections are made by the most significant players in the Media industry (not just in the UK but on a global playing field) including in the past the actor Lord Richard Attenborough, Film Directors Sir Alan Parker and Anthony Minghella (who would have agreed to acquire the Ballet of Change titles) and the current Chair of the BFI Greg Dyke who headed up the BBC from 2000-2004, the most important media position in the world - seems somewhat ridiculous. The BFI hosts the London Film Festival and its Archive is responsible for saving films that otherwise would be lost to the world. The size of the collection and the running costs of hosting such a vast array of media, means that the selections are more NOT less significant when a title is accepted.
    • I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 18:06 24 September 2008 (GMT)
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) 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Greatest Warriors

The Five Greatest Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

un verifiable fails WP:CRYSTAL only return on google search is this article Brilliant trees (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 06:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto S. Gallerani

Alberto S. Gallerani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can only find one source for this person, "Business Update; Makeover corporation delivers on site medical services at Florida facility" that lists some of his qualifications. I do not know whether that is enough. Are there more sources out there, or should this article be deleted? Commander Keane (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Watson

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

I don't believe that a bikini model is notable for coming 3rd in a Miss Australia pageant. Grahame (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 11:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wichita Waterfront

The Wichita Waterfront (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable "mall". It's hardly a strip mall. (yeah, I live near it) The only thing notable, if it's considered notable, is that P.F. Changs and Bonefish Grill are located near it. They are not part of the mall itself. It fails WP:N and WP:RS. Also, the "Wichita Waterfront" is not the name given to the mall itself, but rather to the area as a whole. (mainly because it's located on the water front) Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sources do appear trivial, and two relists failed to salvage the article. Ultimately notability is fatally low. — Coren (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lupertazzi crime family

Lupertazzi crime family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article, almost completely in-universe, searching for references reveals only trivial coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is trivial coverage, however there isn't significant coverage, so it should be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The many sources seems quite significant in covering the various members of this family and here are some more. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't seem to decide what needs to be done for this article, but it is a branch of "what some call the greatest show of all time" which may give it notability. I can't decide. — ^.^ [citation needed] 08:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ffm 23:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seems like most everyone agrees these two are notable. Closing early per WP:SNOW. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Gillespie

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

I am not convinced that science fiction fans are notable even if they get nominated for awards for best fanzine. This could lead to articles on soccer or Neighbours fans. Grahame (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it is similar.[reply]

John Bangsund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Add that Gillespie has an entry on p. 137 of the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Literature by Brian M. Stableford, (Scarecrow Press: 2004) ISBN 0810849380 N p holmes (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (both) Three Hugo Award nominations, a 2007 Chandler Award win, and a whole bunch of Ditmar Award wins for Gillespie? Three Hugo noms, three Ditmar noms, plus a Ditmar win and a 2001 Chandler Award win for Bangsund? These are all notable awards and thus both subjects clearly meet notability. (And these nominations should have been split.) - Dravecky (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Bruce Gillespie, clearly passes WP:CREATIVE, at a bare minimum he meets the requirements of: has won significant critical attention and has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in a case like this one I suppose it always comes back to: can we write a verifiable article based on reliable sources? Although winning awards can help indicate if reliable sources are bound to be available, it does not mean that an article can be written. Where can we find third party reliable sources about this person? I am not sure where the best place to look is, the only relevant resource I have available is a newspaper database (Factiva). I found some mentions of this person, but nothing substantial enough to write an article:
  • About the 57th World Science Fiction Convention: "Guests of honour are [...] Australian critic and fan Bruce Gillespie", Canberra Times, 22 August 1999
  • About The MUP encyclopaedia of Australian science fiction & fantasy: "Graham Stone [...] receives a relatively truncated entry, as does editor, writer and publisher Bruce Gillespie, Canberra Times, 12 September 1998
  • He has a quote and is introduced as: "Bruce Gillespie, publisher of SF Commentary magazine since 1969" in the Courier-Mail, 27 April 2002
Someone should follow up the entry in The MUP encyclopaedia.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Stableford reference I gave above provides more or less exactly the thin data that the Wikipedia article has (minus the award details). You can see it on Google books. Searching Google books with search terms "Gillespie", "Brian" and "Science Fiction" turns up a huge mass of references – it's just hard to sort out casual references or non reliable sources. Another reference work (one of several) which seems to have an entry (though you can't look at it on Google books) is Peter Nicholls, Science Fiction Encyclopedia Doubleday 1979, p. 253. N p holmes (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for Google books tip :-) There more I look at the article the more it seems a short entry based on these sci-fi encyclopedia entries is suitable for Wikipedia (and hopefully someone will come along and source the article as soon as possible). The list of awards may not be found in a source and may have to be removed though.--Commander Keane (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added refs for the Hugos, the Chandler Award was already there, the Ditmars can be referenced here [1], though there's no convenient point in the article at the moment on which to hang the reference. N p holmes (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I think it's snowing outside... Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nong 7

Nong 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No release date and unconfirmed: clear failure of WP:MUSIC. Ros0709 (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter House

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

Non-notable band. A google search throws up nothing but Myspacey type things (and stuff about unrelated things that are also named Baxter House). They've self-released a single album. There are a handful of sources, but I don't think they meet what WP:SECONDARY asks for. Reyk YO! 07:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deletion. Kralizec! (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jhon Minths

AfDs for this article:
Richard Jhon Minths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Clearly fails WP:BIO. Article has had multiple {{hangon}} tabs placed, suggesting that any speedy or PROD would be contested. Also recommend creation protection (WP:SALTing). MuZemike (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note — User:Tralalazxers, who has repeatedly created this article, has a history of vandalism and reposting of deleted material. I went the AfD route since this user keeps placing {{hangon}} templates everywhere. Hence, I also request further administrative action against this user, as this user has absolutely no regard for basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. MuZemike (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Article has been cleaned up. Contains 8 External Links and 4 references. This discredits WP:N (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samer al-Masry

Samer al-Masry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contributing editor unilaterally removed speedy delete tag. Subject fails notability standards. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 07:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep- Well, there is this article: [2] and this one here [3] that show some individual notability. Incidentally, his name can also be spelled Samer al-Masri, which brings up a whole boatload of ghits. Page needs a massive amount of work, but it does seem he's notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep after improvements made during the course of this afd. L'Aquatique[talk]

The God That Failed (song)

The God That Failed (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rather unfortunate that this needs to take up anybody's time or effort. We have here an album track - admittedly from a very notable album by a very notable band, but still just an album track. This was prodded and deleted (by me) for the same reason last year, but was re-added. I prodded it, and in fact the prod was there for the requisite five days, but nobody zapped the article. I would've done so, but it simply slipped my mind. So here we are. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep- The song does have some individual notability for its subject matter, as shown here: [7], [8] and [9]. Each of those three discusses the song in detail, I think giving it some notability separate from the album. Umbralcorax (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those three results are hardly convincing. The first one, unless I'm doing it wrongly, is just a record that a book has been written about Metallica, which fact shouldn't surprise anybody. That doesn't confer any notability on the song by itself, although if there's a way of looking inside it, then it might do. Of the two remaining sources, the second one provides some level of background (generally just on why it was written), while the third only mentions the song in passing (even in the section which borrows the title) as indicative of a general trend, along with a number of other songs. Most of the highlighted text is of the word "Hetfield", rather than the song title, even. That doesn't add up to non-trivial coverage in multiple sources as I see it, although as I said earlier, it could do. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a stub, but considerable information exists in reliable sources, and can become more than simply one. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where does the information exist? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can I ask a question? Did you search; Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar?. As you would expect, not all of these sources deal with the song in depth, but there are plenty that do. As you would expect for a major song by one of the world's largest bands (at the time), on one of their largest records. The Notability standard is substantial coverage in reliable sources. This subject very clearly meets that (although the article does not yet - but this is not a valid deletion reason). Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Accusing me of not doing research that should've been done by either of the creators of the article is hardly a productive course of action. When there's actual evidence of this coverage presented, rather than vague pointing that "it's over there somewhere" (or, as in an above discussion, the presentation of trivial coverage), then I'll agree with that point. Calling something a "major song" without any evidence that it is indeed such a thing is simply fudging the issue. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless claims of notability are substantiated in the article. As it stands, it fails WP:MUSIC. Those claiming notability have to provide some details, not just vague claims that it's mentioned in some books, per WP:BURDEN. VG

☎ 10:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. For those interested in merging the page elsewhere, I'd suggest taking up that discussion on the talk page. However, there does not appear to be a consensus to delete this article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Flynn

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO: She has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. She was sacked for being pregnant, like thousands if not millions before her. Scolaire (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scoláire, the Marguerite Bolger article could be described as secondary - it's written by someone who wasn't a party to the issues involved. The High court decision could be considered a primary source as it was the result of Eileen Flynn taking an unfair dismissal case. Her significance goes far beyond being just one woman sacked for being pregnant, it involves what grounds an employee can be dismissed for (the High Court and Employment Tribunal she appealed to ruled against her) as well as issues of church/state separation. Autarch (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While people would probably be much more sympathetic to a teacher fired in such a situation now, the question of whether a teacher could be fired for the same reason is still open - see the article by Marguerite Bolger linked to in the article. As I understand it, the equality legislation has exemptions for educational institutions run by religious bodies (i.e. the vast majority of schools in the Republic) and the controversy 'was' widespread at the time. Autarch (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article does not survive this process then it should definitely be merged into the article you mention, though I'm not as sanguine about such a dismissal not happening again. Autarch (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say it couldn't happen now, and the Eileen Flynn article specifically says it could still happen. Best to get that sorted out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I phrased that badly - I meant that I'm afraid that it could happen again. The equality legislation from a decade ago grants exemptions to religiously-run educational institutions, such as the one Eileen Flynn was fired from in 1982. Autarch (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting. But fails WP:BLP1E Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Rename to an article about the case or an article about the wider context. Eileen Flynn isn't really an encyclopedia topic; her court case and the wider context ARE encyclopedic, though, and I don't think Wikipedia should lose this information just because it's at the wrong place. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Very notable. Yes, many women were sacked by the Sisters of Cruelty for being pregnant but Ms. Flynn stood up to them and refused to go quietly and took several court cases, all of which she lost. Flynn took on the Catholic Church at the height of its power in Ireland. How many former teachers' deaths make the front page of the Irish Times? [10]. This article doesn't violate WP:BLP1E, she became famous for being sacked but the subsequent, Employment Appeals Tribunal, Circuit case and High Court case, are all separate and notable events. It would be a shame if an article about a courageous and heroic women gets deleted, while rubbish like this: Mr_G and this: Lauren Cooper remain, and they're not even real! Snappy56 (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - evidence of enduring notability as she has been the subject of several obituaries in national newspapers, twenty-six years after the event for which she is notable. Warofdreams talk 17:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Of marginal notability, admittedly, but the article passed WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see enough Google Book sourcing [11] to be certain that we should have an article. I see evidence that in 1985 the incident got coverage in the U.S. [12] (though admittedly in the 1980s the Boston establishment was largely an Irish group that just happened to be in the U.S.) I don't particularly care for the idea of renaming; no better name is obvious, as the sources all talk about her rather than some incident name. Given how biographical the root events are, this is not too surprising. GRBerry 19:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'Delete. 05:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Joe DeVita

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

Subject fails notability requirements. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 07:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catie Smith

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

Add Cathryn (Catie) Phipps, Phipps Institute, Catherine Phipps and American dietology to this nomination. Corvus cornixtalk 05:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable person. A Google search for '"Catie Smith" dietology' comes up with a grand total of 56 hits. Only 9 hits for "American dietology". Seems like self-promotion. Corvus cornixtalk 05:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

César Eduardo Hernández

César Eduardo Hernández (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This looks like a hoax to me... There's no actor by that name on imdb,[13] and of two of the productions with characters names a) he is not listed as an actor, and b) there is no character listed by that name.[14][15] Additionally, being made by User:Cesar16 suggests WP:AUTO/WP:COI. No other google hits seemed to bring up anything: [16][17][18]

He is actually listed on the Wikipedia page for the telenovela - Cuidado con el ángel - but was added by a similarly suspiciously named User:Cesar1992.[19]

I could be completely wrong here and he could be real, but either way, no sources are cited to establish notability, and the above google links don't show any sources with which to establish that notability. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 04:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 23:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the very best violates WP:N, but could be a Troy Rodriguez style hoax- similar name, similar age, purported film star... not saying Troy is at work again but this could be a copycat attack. Nerdluck34 (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]


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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that material has been found with which the article can be improved. If an article can be improved, it should not be deleted but rather fixed. TravellingCari 01:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bair

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

Non-notable penciller and inker of comics. No awards, so it's hard to see how he would satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article isn't doing him any favours. A quick look around shows he has been working solidly in the industry since the mid-1980s and has a number of high profile books under his belt [20] [21]. It also appears he has been exclusive to DC for a while [22], which is quite a big deal, and that press release has a senior editor saying he is "one of DC's premiere inkers." Also this from Geoff Johns "Helping Johns rebuild life for the Hawks is the artistic team of Rags Morales and Michael Bair. 'They are the most underrated art team in the business," Johns said. "Their work is majestic, detailed and kinetic.'" (also here). Also Morales on Bair's inking (and if you read on you'll see how it is a true team effort with Bair deciding to go for Hawkman): "when I saw the magic that Michael Bair added to my work, I knew I had to stick with this dude" Also his earlier pencil work was well received working on Hellstrom, Vampirella (with Grant Morrison) and Daredevil, Gregory White on his Daredevil work "I don't think that story could have worked at all if it weren't for the terrific artwork of Michael Bair." Granted it can be difficult for pencilers turned inkers to make a big splash but Bair is one of the leading inkers in the business and has worked on a lot of the big name titles - see for example this article on his Identity Crisis work. I could go on but I think there is potential to improve the article and demonstrate the importance of his work. (Emperor (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Xy7 (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I can see how the subject meets notability, but there's just no worthwhile content in this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment once the AfD is done I will be expanding it and adding in things I found while looking around - I just didn't want to put a lot of time into something that could disappear the next day (I don't have enough free time and plenty of other things to be doing). (Emperor (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
That works for me. Good luck with its survival and your expansion of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: First, there is no content here at all. It is two sentences, which say, without evidence at all, that he's important and that he worked on this. Well, that's nice, but it can't be called a biography. Working on something is not sufficient. The guy who sweeps up the studio can't say that he "worked on 'Gone With the Wind'," can he, and get an article? Utgard Loki (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Nevard

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

Obscure creationist. Only claim to fame is to being the secretary of the likewise-obscure Daylight Origins Society -- itself under AfD. The article currently cites no third party sources, and the majority of the sources it does cite only make trivial mention of the topic. HrafnTalkStalk 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Regardless of whether the Society is notable, this person is not notable. Fewer and less notable google hits than, say, me. (A good litmus test, to be sure!) HG | Talk 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems clear that being involved with running an organisation, even if notable, does not confer notability. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Being the head of a not-well-known group doesn't seem to be a claim to notability. (Even if the group were notable, we wouldn't very often have individual articles on the group's officers unless they had outside claims to fame). EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[modified my comment after further research.]
Update: The other article at Daylight Origins Society has been kept, following an AfD closed as "no consensus." I've reviewed the details and sources in this article (as of this current time stamp) and confirmed that there is nothing on this page that is not already in the other article, except for a couple of sentences that are unsourced. Therefore, if the decision is to merge and redirect, no merging of content is needed. This page can simply be redirected to the other one, and all the information is already there, as far as I can tell. There seems to be no need to delete this page and its history, when a redirect will do just as well. If the decision is to delete, it would be a good idea to add a redirect after deletion anyway, since just about all of the sources that discuss the organization also mention Nevard. It's not a big issue to me either way, but it seems the redirect would be the best solution. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reply to that is here. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, this is your second "delete" !vote here - your prior entry on this page is at 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC). Would you like to strike through one of them, or change one of them to a "comment"? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed his first !vote. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jerry, my impression was that this ws a new vote discounting those that were qualified by mergying any useful information into the main article. So, my view is to delete. . dave souza, talk 12:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This master is whipping the slave into oblivion. seicer | talk | contribs 00:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N.I.G.G.E.R. (The Slave and the Master)

N.I.G.G.E.R. (The Slave and the Master) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NM, non-notable song. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 03:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Healthcare Strategy and Market Development

Society for Healthcare Strategy and Market Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:CORP. Cited references are either advertisements for events this group has put on, primary sources, or not related. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - Nom's argument is sound, though if the claims made in the article could be verified with multiple non-trivial reliable sources, notability would be established. As it stands now, though, it should go. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article has been edited to address nom's evolving concerns... as for advertisement's for events, I am not sure what multiple non-trivial reliable sources would qualify to prove the group has a conference, but I have tried to accommodate. Please advise on progress, as much of what may count as "verifiable" is not online, I fear. I don't feel this page has issues that are different from the majority of Wikipedia pages, IMHO. Dbrowell (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having a conference doesn't qualify the organization for an article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest it did, as you pointed out there were already claims made in the article to make it notable that just needed more sources - I was trying to specifically address the comment the nom made about advertisements for events. I would hope that being a group of over 4,500 professionals involving every hospital in the country would more than qualify it considering how small some of the professional organizations are that Wikipedia does have. Any comment on the changes I did? I made them article-wide and included 3rd party references from business journals, etc. Thanks for your help. Dbrowell (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your interest in cleaning up this article. You are correct, I did say that the claims seem to be enough to establish notability if the claims can be verified. The major stumbling blocks are twofold: WP:CORP states that

An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

Reliable sources are defined by WP:RS. I'm still having trouble overcoming the objections I noted above, as all of the sources listed seem to be self published blogs and primary sources. A lack of reliable, published, secondary sources is usually a strong indication of questionable notability. Are there any published sources that deal with this organization specifically that we may use for verification (JAMA, etc)? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, still trying... I have added and replaced some sources, including articles from Hospital & Health Networks Magazine, a published dissertation featuring SHSMD data, and knocked out a few sources that were considered unreliable. I guess it's particularly frustrating when there are entries for groups such as the American Marketing Association which has no active sources, and also take the American Nursing Association which uses only their own Nursing World primary source website as sources. It seems like if I just posted the article with only two references, it was more likely to be left alone. (Entries about dead malls like Tanglewood Mall being included in Wikipedia and yet a large, AHA-related professional organization has to struggle for notability is a bit frustrating too.) Anyway, I'm still working at it if you can provide any more direction needed to get this deletion specter removed... Thanks for your help. Dbrowell (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I've felt exactly the same frustration you do. I don't necessarily think that those other articles should exist, but I do believe that we have to abide by sourcing and notability requirements. If we can come up with a few demonstrations of published studies that use data published by this organization I believe notability would be established and I'll gladly change my position. I'll try to do some digging around too. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the LSU dissertation and the HHNM I added?Dbrowell (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a single newspaper article about this group? Sources do not have to be available online. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are several - I'll see if I can solidify references. I have yet to see many Wikipedia entries survive arguments using references that weren't online.Dbrowell (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Just because it has a lot of members and organizes conferences it does not mean Wikipedia should have an article on it. Hopefully some reliable references will appear... VG ☎ 10:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Keep. There are enough 3rd party sources to establish notability. VG ☎ 17:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Professional organizations like this are myriad. Every profession has several. When they break away from being merely another item in a series and into being encyclopedic is when these organizations raise their profile outside of their industries or turn into the guides or controllers of their professions. While PHARMA is encyclopedic, a particular organization for hospitalers is not. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG based on the sources. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the large number of footnotes in the article is confusing. Only the St. Luis Business Journal is not a blog or self-reference. And it devotes only a paragraph or two to this organization. VG ☎ 17:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is patently false- there are references from a published dissertation who used SHSMD research, healthcare magazines references and more; it certainly could be cleaned and culled of some references, but just a skimming of this discussion can see how the references piled up in order to satisfy questions; I completely agree, however-- an article so short shouldn't have to have so many references and may be the focus of undue scrutiny, see my "Keep" comment below.Dbrowell (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By "self-refereces" I meant to include those from the parent organization. SHSMD is indeed mentioned, and not just in passing, in an MA thesis from Louisiana State University, so I stand corrected on that point. VG ☎ 17:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into AHA article. This is not a separate association, it's just a division of the AHA. "The Society is a Personal Membership Group of the American Hospital Association (AHA)." [24]. special interest groups such as this are not independently notable. All national professional organization are probably notable, but not the subdivisions--regardless of how they choose to name themselves. DGG (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think this is a gray area in the guidelines, and in practice we have poorly enforced criteria here. I've started a guideline discussion. VG ☎ 17:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
point is that it is not an independent organization, but essentially a SIG -- a special interest group, like the numerous special interest groups in ASISIT or in most professional organizations. Can you show any information to the contrary? I gave a quote from your own web page that says so. In full "The Society was formed as a result of the merger of the AHA American Society for Health Care Marketing and Public Relations (founded in 1964) and the AHA Society for Healthcare Planning and Marketing (founded in 1977). The Society is a Personal Membership Group of the American Hospital Association (AHA)." Your logo reads:"Society for Healthcare Strategy and Marketing Development of the American Hospital Association" There is no indication of separate existence. The parent organisation has a page [25] that lists its various membership groups, and says that they are the ways individuals join the main organization... and gives a list of the 16 sections, with a special section for members at large who are not members of one of the groups. [26]. From your bylaws [27] "The Society is organized exclusively for charitable, scientific and educational purposes as an integral part of the American Hospital Association (hereinafter "Association"). (my italics) You are merely one of the sections of the larger association. I see no indication on your web page that you have a separate corporate existence, not even a separate registration as a non profit organization. I see no indication you are a separate legal entity. Organization that are give their tax registration as a nonprofit organization very prominently, and their WP article invariably says so in the first two sentences. You do not have it anywhere.
If you were an independent organization, then you would be notable. The sources are sufficient for that. I recognize the difficulty of sourcing for the leading professional association in afield, for there's nobody outside of it to refer to them. DGG (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your last point is where I am confused - why is the organization only notable if it was not a part of a larger whole? Why does it's history nullify it's notability and are there any other examples of this? This doesn't seem like a Wiki policy argument. Clearly the org is not trying to hide it's roots, in fact i would suggest that because of he AHA page it lends itself to sub-pages dealing with sub-organizations (if SHSMD was looking for notability in a vacuum it would be a paltry orphan without an AHA entry, no?) Wikipedia is full of entries that break down a whole into its parts, and with great reason.Dbrowell (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queer West News

Queer West News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. "Online newsletter for the southwest of England". Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I didn't finish the AfD process - now it's up. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 03:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EUTRAN

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

Future technology, not out yet, no good sources that reference it as imminent, poss advertising? Fr33kmantalk APW 03:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Snow'ed in Houston. Completely unencyclopedic article. seicer | talk | contribs 00:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Hurricane Ike Houston Apartment Status

2008 Hurricane Ike Houston Apartment Status (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Slightly messy, just a table and a few words. This article is not very useful to many users. I suggest move it to Hurricane Ike. Jer10 95 Talk 03:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Frasier. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Bay Towers

Elliott Bay Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable show location. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BJTalk 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiphoid

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

There is no actual term called "Xiphoid" to reference wirstblades and its variations. The term is simply an idea of a few people in a forum and thus is not widespread enough to have an article of its own. In the dictionary, Xiphoid appears as: 1. "Shaped like a sword, ensiform." and 2. "Of, or relating to the xiphisternum."

The article provides interesting, even useful, details about a pop-culture phenomenon. Currently, there is no wikipedia article for "Wristblades". If the only objection is the name, then I'd suggest simply retitling the current article as "Wristblade", with a possible redirect from "Xiphoid" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.4.152 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Two of the three sources are fictional movies; they're not reliable sources for the notability or alleged significance of this word, and the items it is purported to describe. While there may be a valid subject for an article here, it needs to be written from an academic perspective by someone with a grounding in the history of armaments, using terminology which can be shown to have a wider usage, and without the present focus on fiction and amateur projects of dubious safety and legality. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno (truck)

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

There's no evidence that this truck is notable per WP:N. While the series it races in may be notable, that doesn't extend to this individual truck. Cf. also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avenger (truck) (2nd nomination). B. Wolterding (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Del Rey (band)

Del Rey (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable band. The entire article is an unverifiable timeline. Tavix (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakout Degree

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

Contested speedy. Subject lacks WP:RS, probable failure of WP:BAND. Movingboxes (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Data Airlines

Data Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article fails WP:BIO and is a borderline speedy deletion candidate anyway. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Buchwald

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

Unsourced article on non-notable brother of a famous journalist. Since notability is not contagious, the subject doesn't qualify in his own right. Subject is cited in the article as founding a company, but that company's own extensive article doesn't mention him at all. Prod removed with the edit summary "notable" and no other commentary.  RGTraynor  14:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. We'll call this one a snowball close. Mmm, hoaxalicious. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Soulja

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

Hoax. You would think that if an album sold nearly 3 million copies, there would be some mention of it on the Internet. Corvus cornixtalk 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos amador munoz

Carlos amador munoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable person, never mind that it reads like a copyvio and appears outdated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article shows the work of a central american composer who is working in a very different and special field. Searching in Universidad de Costa Rica files www.cariari.co.cr I found references of the value of this investigation about the almost extinct oral traditions of Guaimy , Cabecar and Bri Bri indian branches in Central America. In stead of recomend the delition I suggest that Wikipedia editors should recomend the author to include all the missing information about native oral traditions that this musician is recording and documenting. (Mrak Sandowsky (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)) I included this article to show an interesting work of a costarican composer who make real efforts to preserve culture and traditions in his country. If it is possible to improve the article please tell me, you are the experts! Is your decision and I'll accept it.(Mikaelangelo777 (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note: All users above this line appear to be single-purpose accounts. Please remember AfD is NOT A VOTE and that users who are repeatedly commenting on the discussion using multiple accounts will be blocked according to policy. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The latest editings and references improve the article. Please don not copy this article or post it with different name it doesn't help.(Mikaelangelo777 (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result was Speedy close withdrawn, nac. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Butler Hansen Bridge

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable bridge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Drew (cartoonist)

Norman Drew (cartoonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not see clear evidence of notablity in this article Boleyn (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 02:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also don't see a clear assertion or demonstration of notability. He is one of over a 100 people who worked on Yellow Submarine - one of 178 animators. I've had a quick look on the internet, and I only see Norman Drew's name in relation to Yellow Submarine when Drew is talking about it himself. I don't see anyone else talking about Drew himself in relation to the film. I'm sympathetic to the fact that he is involved in the film, so I'm not going for a delete, though I would like to see more evidence of notability so I can't say I'd like to see the article kept. SilkTork *YES! 03:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, some suggestions of potential notability, but nothing really substantiating it. --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep If it were Yellow Submarine that he relied on for notability I'd be saying delete, but looking at his entry at IMDB I see numerous cases of being credited as either "Animation Director" or "Assisant Director". That would seem to be "a major role in co-creating," per WP:BIO. The next issue is the next part of WP:BIO, "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of ..." I suspect we could find the required references for the TMNT TV series, amongst others. The bits about "industry standard training" and the Presidency of the industry org (Not sure how all-encompassing it is - OK, having taken a look, it's more a promotional vehicle than an industry org - strike that comment) would also lend weight to the keep. MadScot (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw the weak keep. As things stand the text is pretty much a direct cut and paste from the subject's webpage. Its close to copyright violation as a result, I think. Its going to need a pretty thorough rewrite to address that issue. MadScot (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has gone through a couple of discussions now and editors have looked carefully for evidence of notability. No one has yet confirmed it. We cannot have an article on Wikipedia for everyone who has a very minor part in the entertainment industry; it makes a mockery of our claim to be an encyclopedia. The editor who created it does not seem to have improved it since it was tagged or argued for it to be kept. The creator has only contributed to three articles, 1 of them Norman Drew and one to add info on Norman Drew. All contributions were made within three days, and to write a complete article on someone as your first contribution seems to me suspicious. So far, four editors have contributed to this discussion and they have all, in the end, voted to delete. Boleyn 09:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Meets WP:N and WP:BIO standards. Consensus was keep (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Lappin

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

Doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Bio#Politicians. There is no assertion of notability other than she is a council member. Consensus is that being a member of a city council is not in itself reason enough for an article on Wikipedia. SilkTork *YES! 02:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ethier

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

Nonnotable autobiography from a user with a blatant conflict of interest. Themfromspace (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - his career as an actor based on the roles listed in IMDB is undistinguished. There is no coverage bout him as a hotel executive. No reliable sources exist to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this seems to sum up the sort of information returns a quick research turns up. He was a TV actor, but appears not to have been one notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Consensus says that an actor should match one of these criteria: WP:CREATIVE - this person doesn't appear to do that. SilkTork *YES! 03:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Starter Kit (2006)

The Starter Kit (2006) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album that never was... Not only are we not a crystal ball, but we don't keep articles on subjects that never even happened... completely lacking in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, there is no way this article can survive. One or two en passant mentions in interviews does not a reliable source make, especially when the scheduled release was two years ago, and never occurred. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:MUSIC. One of many articles by an overzealous new editor.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 02:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civionic engineering (civionics)

Civionic engineering (civionics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is a neologism. There is not wide acceptance of this term in the engineering community. The "coining" of the term by one civil engineering professor does not establish notability. Wikipedia should not be a place to further establish a neologism. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health care politics

Health care politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Consensus seems to have been reached on the article's talk page that the references used in this article are shamefully bad, and have no place being used as serious citations of fact. Aside from poor references, the whole article seems to be just a fork of Health care reform or Health care in the United States used to air a laundry list of criticisms of certain healthcare systems. The article throws out lists of poorly cited theoretical arguments, treats them as fact, and then fails to analyze, discuss, or so much as qualify them.

These things add up to make a very biased, unreliable, not to mention unencylopedic article. It seems to me that this article is of poor enough quality that it would be better not to have it than to have it in it's present form. After being tagged for these issues for a period of over a year, it doesn't seem like it is going to be fixed.

This is all aside from the fact that this entire topic is covered by Health care reform in the United States, in more depth and with better sources I might add. So this article's entire existence is repetitive. – Vikingviolinist (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but remove all poor sources. I agree with nom that cites such as Cato Institute have no business besides asserting Cato's opinions. However, these, and the claims, should be removed. If that means leaving just a stub then so be it, but the topic should have an article. We66er (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Noteworthy topic with serious implications. Ombudsman (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Film School

Colorado Film School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Little notability that is not trivial (a mention in the Denver Post) is all I can find. There are no independent reliable sources with which I can verify the information. Also, the page reads like promotional material. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 02:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration Covenant Church

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

Non-notable church; borderline advertising. justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I created the article. Celebration Covenant Church is notable for leading change and innovation in church media.

'Celebration Covenant Church in Frisco, Texas, recently completed the construction of a new facility that is on the cutting edge of media presentation for worship.', Media Merge, Inc http://www.mediamerge.com/projects.php?id=11

Celebration Covenant Church is notable in Frisco, Texas. It is one of the largest and fastest growing churches in the city. 'The Most Creative Place In The Universe', The Frisco Enterprise, May 2005 http://www.celebrationcovenant.com/D_Highlights/cccnews/news200705.asp

Celebration Covenant Church is currently building it's second phase building - the Cathedral of Frisco. 'The Cathedral of Frisco', Star Community Newspapers http://www.scntx.com/admarket/ads/10105446/ pepegatorPepegator (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have to disagree. To meet WP's notability criteria it has to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't believe the ones you've listed qualify, for the following reasons: This reference is from the site of the company that designed the sound system, this reference doesn't show up for me, but appears to be an ad. It's also unclear what the purpose of this article is. It reads like adcopy, and I couldn't find it on the newspaper's website [31] to confirm one way or the other. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was, under WP:CSD#A7. The article I read suggested membership in the thousands, which I thought was at least a claim of notability and therefore made it ineligible for A7. I considered WP:CSD#G11 too, but thought it might be less contentious to just do it this way. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback and info. Correct - The first article was deleted. It was deleted before any issues with the article could be assessed and addressed. This second article was posted which included references and better formatting. Our intention is to create a relevant article. We are not attempting to just promote or advertise.Pepegator
Thanks for your reply. I agree your intentions appear good, but the problem--in my opinion--isn't the tone of the article, it's that its subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. I've tried, but I cannot find any reliable sources covering the church (search results). You may find it helpful to read the guidelines at WP:CHURCH, which is what I'm basing my analysis on. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. notability and verifiability concerns addressed. seresin ( ¡? )  04:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch woodcock

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

Nothing to indicate this is a notable savory dish. In addition, it remains unverified. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep- it only has 2500 mentions in newspapers [32] , 724 in books [33] and 938 in scholarly works.:) [34]. We have many, many food stubs such as Macaroni soup and Cheese pudding and thhe hundreds of others. I don't mean 'other stuff exists' but that it's an acceptable type of article. I could find sources, maybe I'll put some in, but I spent hours working on the two articles mentioned because no-one else bothered. Why do people want to bring foods to AfD, especially when they haven't even looked to see if WP:RS existed themselves, as for this there are hundreds, or (shock) add a reference themselves? Do I have to spend hours on a food stub again like I did on the two I mentioned? It's not very exciting you know- maybe people could try it instead of bringing these to AfD.:) Sticky Parkin 18:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these references seem to be to othher things but this is a historical dish, with hundreds of years of use, similar to Welsh rarebit. Sticky Parkin 18:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment -I have now added eight references to the article, including ones from the New York Times, the New Statesman and the British Medical Journal. Sticky Parkin 19:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd heard of this?:) Sticky Parkin 23:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 08:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpin' house

Pumpin' house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This Pumpin' House thing does not exist. I've never heard of it. It's not real and there are no sources to prove its existence. Delete it. Fclass (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. could have been speedied earlier as blatant copyvio. Cirt (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drumagog

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

No indication of notability, and is unverified. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. it looks like it could be deleted or redirected; but, if someone is, essentially, vandalizing the redirects, a better approach is probably simply requesting protection for the redirect. slakr\ talk / 06:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Williams (Coronation Street)

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

Non notable character, Fails notability. Anonymous IP reverted conversation to redirect. Redirection is not really needed since character is very minor. No media coverage, no real world information, no third party sources. Magioladitis (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I just took a look at the Coronation Street characters category. Although one could argue WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS can't be used as a defence, the fact is I don't see any reason why this one character is being singled out among the dozens listed. If someone wants to push for a mass deletion ... even that wouldn't work because some characters may be more notable than others. A better idea might be to try and reach consensus on a "minor characters" article. As it stands I see no reason who single this one out. 23skidoo (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment for relisting. I stand by my original opinion, only because I feel something more organized needs to happen besides picking a single article out of dozens to nominate. Another issue is the fact that Coronation Street is an institution in Great Britain; therefore one must be careful not to fall victim to WP:OSTRICH; I've seen similar mistakes made regarding character articles from Doctor Who, for example. Again, no prejudice against a relisting or revisiting of this article later; I just don't see the sense of it being the only one AFD'd. 23skidoo (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:RS etc. I reason that the other bad CS articles should also be deleted (or be merged where appropriate) instead of this one kept. Cleanup needs to start somewhere. – sgeureka t•c 08:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment The last days an anonymous IP account, a sock puppet of a blocked user, reverted some (maybe many?) redirects. Coronation street characters need a serious clean-up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to a listing into a combination article, breaking it into parts if necessary--the question of how to arrange them is for the talk pages. Every named character there should have at least a redirect, so deletion without it is inappropriate. The onus is on the nom to indicate why a minor character shouldn't have a redirect. The reason why they should is that people may well come across the name--and how will they know it's minor if not here? Yes, I know there are a great many characters, but fortunately a/we are not paper, and b/we have editors who are interested in the series. It is, after all, an internationally notable series.DGG (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More as an attempt to explain the situation than trying to change anyone's opinion, but redirected articles (not redirects) are reverted to their former article-self without any discussion at times, and by the time it is noticed, a new merge proposal or AfD debate has to be started to confirm old consensus. That's why delete-and-redirects often suffer less abuse afterwards than just redirects. And Magioladitis noted above that improper article resurrections are already occuring for characters of this series (I haven't checked myself). – sgeureka t•c 10:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
agree it can be a problem, but it can be solved the same way many article problems here can be, by people watchlisting and paying attention. DGG (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think having literally thousands of redirects on my (anyone's) watchlist is the solution. And what happens when these watchlisting editors depart from wikipedia? (This is getting into a meta-AfD discussion, so I'll shut up now. Maybe I'll join the exciswting discussion on your talkpage.) – sgeureka t•c
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. MBisanz talk 00:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by British artists which reached number-one on the Hot 100 (USA)

List of songs by British artists which reached number-one on the Hot 100 (USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of songs by Australian artists which reached number one on the Hot 100 (US) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs by European artists which reached number one on the Hot 100 (US) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs by Canadian artists which reached number one on the Hot 100 (US) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trivial intersections, no sources. A similar list on the European charts is also at AfD for the same reason. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Love him or hate him, the feat can't be taken away from him. James Blunt yesterday proved his global appeal when he became the first British artist to top the US charts since Elton John nine years ago.

You're Beautiful, Blunt's plaintive tale of unrequited love, finally knocked Beyoncé off the top spot." - The Guardian

"Singer Leona Lewis has become the first British woman to top the US pop chart for more than 20 years with her single Bleeding Love.

Kim Wilde was the last UK female to top the Billboard Hot 100 chart, with her 1987 cover version of the Supremes hit You Keep Me Hangin' On. " - BBC News

I hope the above has demonstrated the list is of interest to others than the creator of the list. Dmn € Դմն 00:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the influence of British (and to a lesser extent, other nations') artists on American music is significant and these lists contain useful information regarding that influence. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.bfi.org.uk/nftva/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_14&oldid=238338554"