Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 22

< 21 April	23 April >

Guide to deletion

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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Nigerian relations

Another random pairing with no attempt made to establish notability from an obsessive stub creator. The existence of a Nigerian community in Greece is unremarkable and can be discussed somewhere else. IfYouDontMind (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts DGG (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources indicate anything other than a routine, non-notable relationship here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 10:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of significant relationship. This details 2 rather unremarkable agreements between the 2 countries. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added some content and references. I assume US-Anycountry relations would automatically be considered notable. Let's not be parochial. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First, not all US-X relations are notable; but then again, the US is a superpower, and we also generally consider Russia-X and China-X to be notable, so there's no question of being parochial here. Second, a few kind words, the signing of a document the type of which is signed every week of every year, and pledges of "further cooperation" do not exactly constitute a notable relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of anything other than a routine, non-notable relationship, but nice try. Canvasback (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Canvasback (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DGG (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So I think the argument is that although the relationship clearly exists, and reliable independent sources show that the two countries are exchanging bland diplomatic bullshit, it is not very interesting so should be deleted. Personally, I would prefer that all relationships between two countries were routine and boring, and see no reason to reject articles for this reason. I wish there were more of them. Is it factual? Aymatth2 (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's part of it - if this article weren't here and editors didn't feel the need to "fill in" the details, things like Greece's $5.4 million annual imports from Nigeria (which is nothing for an economy worth $350 billion) would never be considered notable enough to make it onto Wikipedia. In essence, we're lowering the bar. But the more important fact, one that I'm sure you're tired of hearing from me by now, is the lack of sources discussing the relationship as such, for which we compensate by plucking out random facts we find in news searches, etc. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have filled in some details on diplomatic, trade, people etc. relations. Still a skeleton article, but I think it is now clear that the relationship is notable and interesting. Greek investments in Nigeria today exceed US$5 billion, although that has nothing to do with notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as IfYouDontMind. Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deja-vu, yadd-yadda. Dahn (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deja-vu, yadda-yadda. -- llywrch (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete behind all of the sources in the current version there is no evidence of a notable bilateral relationship. $5 billion of cumulative private investment by greek companies in nigeria over 60 years (sourced to greek government press release, but whatever) is not very much -- Nigerian GDP is about $170 billion and Greece's is about $300 billion. Even if we assume that $5 billion was invested over a five year period (instead of 60 years, but again, whatever) that amounts to private investment of about 0.7% of Nigerian GDP per year -- and that says nothing about gov-to-gov relations (the trade numbers are really trifling -- a total of about $100 million is what, 0.05% of Nigerian GDP). What else? Greek dominance in shipping means that Greek ships often call at every major port in the world. That they call at Lagos, too, says nothing about the bilateral relationship between these states. That 300 Greeks live in Lagos and 3,000 Nigerians live in various greek cities also says nothing about bilateral relations (and giving the globe trotting habitual to citizens of both nations seems empirically small).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the dollar value of the relationship determines whether it is worthy of an article. The article describes some of the many official and commercial ties between the two countries, and is fully sourced. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they were added in using primary sources in what appeared to me as an effort to use SYNTH to establish some kind of notability. And on that basis, the relative value of those commercial relationships is important. For the sake of the argument -- if you could point out the single best source that demonstrates notability for this topic, i'll give my honest assesment of it. Remember, verifiability is neccessary but not sufficient for inclusion (that is, to say something is "sourced" is not sufficient to detemine if the topic at hand merits inclusion).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious independent sources are:

Guardian News shows some press interest in the official relationship. There are a couple of other news stories like this, never very exciting articles!
Athens News gives some human interest about Nigerian immigrants in Greece
Philippine Daily Inquirer discusses issues with Greek shipping in Nigeria, backed up by a couple of other other news sources

This content was slapped together very quickly after the stub showed up in AfD (it beats me why anyone would churn out a bunch of stubs like this.) I am sure that a more careful check would find many more independent sources. There is a lot going on between the two countries, particularly in trade & investment, and the papers are bound to be reporting it.

I don't see SYNTH. To me that is stringing together two statements from different sources to reach a novel conclusion: "X said the USA stands for freedom, Y says the Tamil Tigers are fighting for freedom. So the USA supports the Tamil Tigers." Obviously unacceptable. I suppose you could stretch the SYNTH definition to say that the collection of statements from the independent sources is being used to imply the relationship exists. The only statements that directly discuss the relationship come from primary sources such as diplomats who are clearly biased - the relationship is their job. But I think that is stretching it. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I read the first source from The Nigerian Guardian. (since you placed it first, assuming that is the strongest). The outgoing greek ambassador to nigeria said very nice things about nigeria in his going-away event, and this single-sourced article in a nigerian newspaper is about that. I don't see that as establishing this is a notable bilateral relationship. Unless he's been PNG'd, every outgoing ambassador for country x says nice things about host country y.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would be easy enough to add many stories similar to the one from the The Nigerian Guardian from the leading Nigerian and Greek newspapers. They will tend to report stories like "Meeting with his counterpart in Athens today, the Nigerian Minister of trade said he wanted to strengthen economic and cultural ties between his country and Greece." These really would be reliable independent sources reporting on the relationship. Also, they would be extremely boring and would add nothing to the article. So how many different articles from how many different newspapers would be enough to establish notability? (be reasonable - I have a day job) Aymatth2 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At that level of trivia? You could have millions and it still wouldn't help. Let me put it this way -- various mediocre high school sports programs have been written up thousands of times in local/semi-local papers (for the mediocre high school teams i played on, that would have been the newark star ledger). Would the existence of thousands of trivial game reports justify inclusion of individual high school sports teams in wikipedia? No. These sort of single source stories, written from press releases aren't much different. There is no in-depth coverage of this supposed relationship in any of them. I'd like one source that isn't trivial and is about the relationship. Just one.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question - I am not sure where to look. I tried searching for Ελλάδα Νιγηρία σχέση, but the results were all Greek to me. Apart from the government sites, which have a lot to say about the relationship, they seemed to mostly be about the Siemens scandal, Commerce or the trade in prostitution. I am starting to wonder if Greece has any diplomatic or economic relationships with Nigeria, or if it is all an elaborate hoax: the two countries have never heard of each other and the newspapers are just making it up. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The material discussed by Bali is proof that there is a significant relationship. International trade is a major part of world affairs, and it canot really be discussed except in bilateral terms. So there will often be content for such an article. DGG (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -Most of these international relations articles ARE notable. They just need expanding. This is obvious notable ,good work expander. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the English language sources found by Bali. There's probably a lot more in Greek.--Oakshade (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Dr. Blofeld FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japan–Ukraine relations

No evidence of notability provided, apart from routine trade relations, and visits by heads of state which are routine and highly staged events IfYouDontMind (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. DGG (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, this one could use some better third-party sourcing but unlike some of these random country pairings this one seems to contain some encyclopedic information - high-level visits and balance-of-trade information is the kind of thing these articles should contain. Obviously the relationship between these two countries is not exactly extensive or close, but there seems to be sufficient useful information to support a stub. ~ mazca ^t|c 09:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this topic is better covered in Foreign relations of Japan and Foreign relations of Ukraine respectively. Goesquack (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the above user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. DGG (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as IfYouDontMind. Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sure, there've been the usual ceremonial visits, the carbon deals signed, and so forth, but with no historic, cultural or geographic ties and fairly low-level economic ones, it's difficult to see a coherent, well-developed article being written about this subject. - Biruitorul ^Talk 10:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one in a series of Japan-"Country X" foreign affairs articles that could benefit with substantial expansion and references. --MChew (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be pedantic, but where are those sources? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a few refs from the first few search results on "japan ukraine trade". I assume there are many more if anyone cares to expand the article further, and more to be said about other aspects of the relationship (cultural exchanges etc.) Not very exciting, maybe, but trade beats war in my book. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article shares knowledge = that what's wikipedia is all about! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Canvasback (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Canvasback (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DGG (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as IfYouDontMind. Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft and clutter. Dahn (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:' "cruft" = IDONTLIKEIT. "Clutter"=ITHOUGHTWEWEREPAPER. DGG (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Nah, I was just tired of repeating the exact same points I've made on numerous similar AfDs. You can pick it up, mutatis mutandis, from other such pages I've edited recently. Dahn (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, this is OK article. Agree with DGG. Delist/keet for procedural reasons. This is pure disruption.Biophys (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to refs found by Aymatth2 and due to comments by DGG. This is a disruptive nomination by someone whose intent is disruption. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Nihonjoe, whom I note hasn't weighed in on any other related nominations. -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 17:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masters: London Live '68

No sources, no context, barely no sense. Just not clear enough to fit in any speedy category. Sources exist for Alan Bown (who is also mentioned as artist various other musicians recorded albums with) but I can't find any record under this name for this artist on Google. MLauba (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#A9, now tagged as such. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There has been somewhat successful progress to add reliable sources to the article; we expect to see more of them. No prejudice against renomination should the additional sources fail to materialize. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom)

This article, along with two other characters from this five-part miniseries, was AfDed three months ago for reasons lack of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources (i.e. WP:NOTABILITY) if you check Google News/Books/Scholar for "Virginia Lewis" "10th kingdom", and no source is cited in the article. The article is also WP:REDUNDANT to the parent article The 10th Kingdom, contains WP:OR (the "Personality and traits" and "Cultural references" section, honestly, read it!), and if the original research were removed as it should, the rest of the article would consist of plot details that fail WP:WAF and WP:UNDUE (I'd add WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT if they weren't under discussion at the moment). The article has been tagged for over half a year for these issues, and no improvement is in sight. Speaking from experience writing the FA article on the highly influental six-part miniseries Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial), the main articles already gives due weight to the all the characters and nothing needs to be merged from the current character subarticle. If few new legitimate elements were added to the article, I'd still argue to WP:AVOIDSPLIT until a sizeable article without much redundancy to the parent article has been written. I boldly redirected the article yesterday per these reasons without being aware of the last AfD, but the redirect got reverted.

I do not think three months is too early to start a new AfD. Additionally, the last AfD only ended in a keep because an editor claimed that "Principle characters in the major series deserve an article" and that a merger would be appropriate, followed by "per him" votes. However, a five-part TV miniseries is not a "major series" in any way, and I stated above why a merger or redirect doesn't make sense [anymore]. Plus, this is an unlikely search term. I'd like the closing admin to review and balance the presented arguments in this new AfD very closely against my full deletion rationale. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case this isn't obvious, the current cited sources (which were added after the nom) are also present in the main article, The 10th Kingdom. That's why I specifically named AVOIDSPLIT in the nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is just an extension of The 10th Kingdom, with even more in depth plot details that I do not believe are suitable for an encyclopedia. Can be adequately covered in the main article. Lacks any sources. Searching mainly gives plot summaries, and there doesn't seem to be much reputable coverage of the character. Quantpole (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The 10th Kingdom and trim. Edward321 (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Edward321, with no prejudice against a re-spin-out when sources speak to the character specifically. Jclemens (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the one line of reception to the main and per my original AfD; the rest is just an excessive repeat of the plot that was culled from the main and doesn't need to be added back. Generally, miniseries are considered films rather than a television series, as far as Wikipedia purposes are concerned, and this sort of split is both unnecessary and inappropriate. Articles had been merged before, but were resplit under new article names without discussion by a banned sockpuppet. Needs to be taken back that way again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included at Talk:Kimberly Williams-Paisley, Talk:Christine White, Talk:The 10th Kingdom Ikip (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP and further source the individual per coverages in WP:RS diff diff. While the nomination seems a tad WP:TLDR and perhaps more suitable to discuiison on the article's talk page, coverage in RS is available, a few sources HAVE already been added, and saying that a rewrite ("original research were removed as it should") would reduce the article to "plot details that fail" does not account for the fact that what is being called WP:OR might itself be found in the sources available, making it NOT OR. It is a pity that the article itself has not addressed all of these issues in what the nom considers a timely manner, but his timeline for improvement is not Wiki's, and Wiki never demands that it itself be perfect. Bringing his concerns to AfD is laudable, and may now force improvement, but even that may not satisfy him ("If few new legitimate elements were added to the article, I'd still argue to WP:AVOIDSPLIT"), (Sorry, but I DID read the entire nomination summary). As for the name being an "unlikely search term", I found enough even through google to show that it is not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed the added content and found less than 2.5 kB worth of non-redundant information (most of which is the refs themself), which I have added to the main article while paying particular attention to rephrase the sources so that the COPYVIO and GFDL don't apply and doesn't necessitate an {{R from merge}}. The main article is now 14.5 kB big, still in the lower part of WP:SIZE's 1-40 KB range of prose size where "Length alone does not justify division", which is exactly the point of AVOIDSPLIT. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unjustifiable spinout per the well-formulated and presented nom. Eusebeus (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed last time. Also there is enough information to warrant its own article, and it has a reference section. Dream Focus 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no utility in merging, the material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information in this article that isn't either plot duplication of the parent article, original research, or just flat out unsourced, amounts to the following:
Virginia Lewis is a fictional character and the main protagonist of the Hallmark Entertainment's, and NBC's 2000 cult miniseries The 10th Kingdom by Simon Moore. She is played by Kimberly Williams. Ron Wertheimer describes Virginia as "that plucky waitress...on her way to self-confidence." John Levesque writes that "Kimberly Williams is annoying yet somehow captivating as Virginia."
The portrayer information, as well as the 17 words of critical reception, fit easily and handily into the 10th Kingdom article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By that same argument, all of wiki could be set as a 3 word redirect: "Wikipedia: See Britanica". How one trims something and how it is then sourced is a matter for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as MichaelQSchmidt has offered a pretty good rebuttal to the nomination. Now here's what we have in this case:
- 1. WP:PRESERVE - at least the reception section is mergeable as even the above editor who despite the bolded delete agrees as well as the first bolded delete who also says it can be covered elsewhere.
- 2. WP:N - concerns the main character in a multi-part show that aired on a major network is played by an actress worthy of a Wikipedia article and that has been made available on DVD as well
- 3. WP:V - subject can be verified through multiple Google News and Google Books hits that include The New York Times and TV Guide, which discounts the first bolded deletes claims of "lacks any sources."
In an instant such as this, we should be able to at least agree on a merge and redirect with edit history intact as the article is clearly a valid search term for those who created and worked on the article as well as those who come here to read it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Argument (1) could always be used to defy any merger attempt, so it doesn't have much weight for a particular article either. Argument (2) is rather subjective considering that WP:N calls for sufficient sources (since the article isn't even C-Class, I'd be wary to call the present sources "sufficient"). Argument (3) ignores much of my deletion rationale where I specifically said that the available sources and the main article together do not justify a WP:SPLIT. I would have been fine with a merger (by someone else; I didn't see mergeable content myself) or a redirect the first time around (and am still), but the past AfD result and the continued article restorations defeated attempts to implement these changes without an AfD (and the alternatives of an RfC or dispute resolution would simply have been overkill). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources demonstrate the topic is notable by providing some in-depth critical discussion of the character, and all of the reviews cited establish her as necessarily notable. Moreover, the article passes User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable, which probably has more consensus behind it anyway than the divisive WP:FICT, which has had so many versions, this probably passes at least some of them. And the bottom line is that there is no consensus to delete this article. After all notability is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because if we go by any reasonable inclusion criteria, i.e. it is verified in multiple reliable secondary sources and appeared in a multi-part series on a major network that got a DVD release, we would obviously keep, as has happened twice before already (note both closed as "keep," not "merge and redirct," or even "no consensus" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10th Kingdom character articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine White). I can somewhat understand renominations when something was deleted but recreated or the close was "no consensus", but we have two "keep" closes already and no one can deny that the article has improved since then. What is more, are video interview with the actress, too ([1] and [2] for example). Wasn't one of the compromises of WP:FICT that we can use such DVD interviews as a reliable source for these sorts of articles? Anyway, please note that I have been making numerous revisions since nomination: [3]. At this point, the right thing to do would be to not have a deletion discussion when the community has twice spoken already against redlinking and most of the bolded deletes within this discussion actually call for merges, which means we can't deleted per the GFDL. Given the suggestions by some in the first AfD for creating a character list as some sort of compromise, I strongly encourage you to withdraw this nomination and start a merge discussion concerning such a list. When I have more time, I would gladly help, but per WP:PRESERVE, we absolutely do not delete cited material that has any potential for mergers or redirects. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nothing has been shown that this character is notable in the real world. Notability isn't inherited from a notable show to its characters. Each subject in itself must meet WP:N by being the subject of in-depth discussion by reliable, third-party sources, and nothing in this article, or in my searches, has shown that it meets WP:N. This article also violates WP:WAF as its written from an in-universe perspective. Everything mentioned about her from the real-world has only been a trivial mention. There hasn't been a degree of discussion about her that warrants an encyclopedia article. Most of this information shouldn't be preserved as its not encyclopedic. The in-universe plot summary is much too long per WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. No offense to Michael Q Schmidt, but no amount of cleanup in the world can magically make a subject fit for an encyclopedia if it doesn't meet the notability guidelines and isn't discussed adequately in the real-world. The other material can be cited and look nice, but its still inappropriate. Verifiability != Notability. A redirect would also be acceptable, but I doubt that many people would search "Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom)" and Virginia Lewis already redirects to the 10th Kingdom. Them From Space 20:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An argument for proper cleanup, not deletion. That you do not belive it can be done, does not mean it cannot be so done in the time constraints Wikipedia allows for such. And again, as for the name being an "unlikely search term", I found enough even through google with exactly THAT search term diff diff to show that it is not an unlikely one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You misread what I said. Proper cleanup is impossible for this article, for the reasons I listed above, which you haven't addressed. Them From Space 05:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I read was your opinion that cleanup was impossible. I and others disagree and I am pleased to see that it is indeed being improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources that establish independent notabilty for this fictional personage. Redirect to the show after delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding sources diff diff is a matter for WP:CLEANUP per WP:ATD, not one for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But how many of those sources are reliable secondary sources about the character rather than about the show. From a quick look through those links I couldn't find any that were mainly about the character. Rather, she is mentioned generally in the context of plot summaries, which isn't enough to show notability. Let's see some specific reliable secondary sources mainly about the character, then you might be onto something. Simply quoting ghits establishes nothing. Quantpole (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since the character exists only within the context of the 10th Kingdom, such an expectaion for individual notability would be neigh impossible and is not expected nor required. There are numerous precedents on Wikipedia for inclusion of major characters that exist because of their shows, not because they exist apart from them. Not being offered as Other Stuff Exists, but solely as examples of existing and established precedent... Hawkeye Pierce, Radar O'Reilly,Hot Lips Houlihan, Adrian Monk, Archie Bunker, "Tim The Tool Man" Taylor, Al Borland, and many, many others... all of whom are discussed in WP:RS in direct context of and because of their shows. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the main character in a TV series, some of the printed (but not online) sources will discuss the character in an out-of-universe fashion. This highlights the importance of printed material Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per A nobody and Michael, noting the cleanup and sources added. Ikip (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved--there are now, considerably to my surprise, enough sources. (I had advised A Nobody it wasn't worth working on, but I was wrong). DGG (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator's statement indicates that he thinks that the article should be redirected not deleted because this is what he has just tried. Bringing the matter to AFD again after failing to establish consensus for that redirection/merge seems an abuse of process contrary to WP:GAME/WP:POINT. The topic is clearly notable as the sources demonstrate. The organisation of the material and which article it belongs in is not a matter for AFD, being instead a matter for ordinary content editing. AFD is not dispute resolution and per WP:BEFORE should only be used for hopeless cases. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only two ways to handle redundant subarticles that have no content to merge. Gentle und undramatic redirecting (didn't work), or a dramatic AfD. Unless someone presents a third option, I guess I'll just have to accept my damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation on my quest for a better wikipedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources don't demonstrate the topic is notable, the sources demonstrate that The 10th Kingdom is notable. I'd like to seem some in-depth critical discussion of the character, but none of the reviews cited establish her as necessarily notable. AniMate^talk 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then just a matter of adding sources per WP:CLEANUP and per WP:ATD. Deletion diminishes wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note this AfD has been canvassed by one of the editors here. Them From Space 07:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice above he actually posted "Note: This debate has been included at Talk:Kimberly Williams-Paisley, Talk:Christine White, Talk:The 10th Kingdom Ikip (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2009(UTC)" That does seem like an odd way of doing it. The articles are all related, so those involved in one, would want to know of the others I suppose. Wasn't done in secret, since he mentioned it four days ago, when two of these other articles were up for deletion too. Dream Focus 10:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Three impartial, neutral, friendly notices, do not a canvas make... and such courtesy is fully supported by guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability has not been established as required. Verbal chat 12:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither WP:PERNOM nor WP:JNN are valid reasons for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good thing I didn't use those, or WP:DICK. Sincerely, Verbal chat 08:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U can haz Badger-ring… I'll go find it sometime. Jack Merridew 07:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm sure you meant to say was "An essay suggests that WP:PERNOM and WP:JNN are not strong arguments." Stifle (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice to normal editorial process undoing the merge if consensus considers it appropriate. Direct merge should generally be used to accomplish the goals of this AfD, and then normal process followed in the event of conflict over merge. Far less disruptive than AfD, more likely to result in stable consensus. As noted, merge would allow efficient restoration of the article if better coverage appears in RS. --Abd (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And here we have the problem of Wikipedia reduced to one afd. The article is contentious to teh community, and good faith efforts to edit the page become confrontational because neither party will compromise. The plot borders on entertainment as opposed to information and also borders on copyright violation, if not going beyond. However, how likely is it the plot summary could be reduced? If it can't be, and the article still proves contentious... we're basically just gaming the system and turning Wikipedia into a battleground by insistences on black and white absolutes which can't be entertained and respect WP:CONSENSUS. I pity the admin who has to close tis, because no-one is engaing with teh actual issues that face the article. It's just become the latest venue to have a fight. Best of luck with it. Hiding T 18:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per excellent, well-reasoned nomination. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And with respects, the opinions to keep are themselves well-reasoned and support the continued improvement of wikipedia... for the readers and the future of a paperless encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Non-notable fancruft. The reception section states that someone said "Kimberly Williams is doe-eyed and pretty" and that's what this piece of shite article is about; fans of a hottie prattling-online. Use the "doe-eyed" bit in Kimberly Williams (which does not mean 'merge'). sgeureka and others have covered all teh good reazons twoz delete; juz dooz-zit. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that the character is simplistic, and the whole work derivative, does not detract from notability, or give a reason for contempt of the articles. I am as little a fan of this as anyone is likely to be, but then I dont expect most people here to be fans of some of the stuff I like. The presentation of the plot gives information about the plot--viewing it might conceivably give entertainment, but merely reading the bare plot could not possibly --whether or not one liked the series. Nor is this very rough outline anything like copyright vio. Even for doe-eyed, that remarkably trite method of visual characterization, any pleasure is perhaps seeing it, not reading about it. The few short quotes are used appropriately. all this article really needs is sources for the generalizations in "personality and traits". DGG (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge (with preference to the former) per excellent, well-reasoned nomination countered by inapplicable and badly argued arguments. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable character of a notable series. Also the article is too large to be merged in The 10th Kingdom unless we trim it significantly. However, I see no reason to trim it down since the article is properly sourced. Laurent (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources cited refer to the series as a whole — there is no coverage or consideration of this character in particular, depriving it of the real-world notability that our inclusion guideline requires. Merging would not be suitable; given the history of this page I would expect it to be demerged against consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. No worthy independent content, no notability attested by outside sources. Dahn (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Hiding touches upon a good point. This AfD has now become the subject of two ANI threads and it is pretty clear that there is a degree of bad faith and inaccuracy in some of the above as relates to these ANI threads. It is also clear that there absolutely is no consensus to delete. Thus, rather than persist in augmenting any animosity here, we should be able to do what Hiding suggests, i.e. come to a reasonable compromise. Clearly a good segment of our editors and readers believe these articles are Wikipedic, hence, why they were kept in two AfDs already and why there is no consensus to delete this third time. As such I have started a location where we can merge (no, I have not yet merged this particular character's article yet) and a discussion at Talk:List of 10th Kingdom characters. Character lists are a sound way to compromise on these sort of things and if we use the many interviews, previews, and reviews of the mini-series that discuss the characters as a whole, we have a good chance to develop such a list into three sections: 1) on development; 2) the list of characters; and 3) on reception a la what I did when I revised this particular character's article. Plenty of out of universe information exists and it is undeniable that these characters are indeed notable as a whole. So, let's follow Hiding's suggestion and work together on this compromise solution. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blessed are the peacemakers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference: file an ANI report then use it as a reason for shutting down the AfD... If you can improve the page, fine, but I don't see it yet. Verbal chat 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 10th Kingdom or the list article. As has been pointed out previously, the sources here are also in the main article. There is, in my opinion, insufficient mention of this character in those sources to justify a stand alone article; however, deletion clearly is not appropriate. I see no reason why this can't be merged back to the main article given the identical sourcing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until peaceful route to a "characters of" article is created. Also a suggestion to look for likely redirects of other character names so newby articles don't create more problems. Fictional subjects are some of our finest articles and there's no reason that compromises can't be sought that address the needs of our readers and adheres to policies. -- Banjeboi 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kasper T. Toeplitz

This article about a music composer includes no references, doesn't appear to be notable, no reliable and independent sources available, page appears to have been created and mostly written by its subject. Conical Johnson (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sorry to disagree here, but I found a number of articles and references concerning this individual, as shown here[4]. Granted most, if not all, are in French. However, they are from third party – creditable – reliable and verifiable sources. I'll start sourcing over the next day or two. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No need to be sorry, I'd rather have the page if can be shown to be notable and can be sourced. If there are only French sources, though, perhaps this means this guy is not notable for English Wikipedia? I'm not really sure what the policy is there, WP:NONENG doesn't really elaborate. For example, an American high school might be relevent enough to warrant a page on English WP, but not on French WP since it is so far removed from relevence in French culture.Conical Johnson (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the word English in "English Wikipedia" only refers to the language we use to write. It has no bearing on the topics we should include. Policies and guidelines about referencing and sources say that English language sources are preferred where available, but that sources in any language are acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't speak French, but I took a look at his French WP page[5] and I can tell that he wrote it with basically the exact same wording as he wrote his English page, which was terrible before I rewrote it. If anyone who can write French well would like to redo his page using my English version as a guide, that would be great. He didn't write it in an encyclopedic way at all, more like an artist statement, and further, he writes about some of his achievements, especially the "BassComputer" as if it were some revolutionary new instrument design which is at once a bass and a computer. In fact, it's simply a custom bass which he interfaces with a computer, something that many thousands of people do every day.Conical Johnson (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Shoessss. Sources indicate notability, it doesn't matter what language they are in. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Shoessss. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Mongolia relations

another random pairing from the obsessive article creator. a very insignificant relationship In 2006, Mongolia was Estonia’s 134th trade partner (53, 000 EUR) and 125th export partner. For the second year in a row, there were no imports from Mongolia to Estonia. !! LibStar (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, official visits by heads of state are routine and highly staged events. JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts DGG (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - good comic relief perhaps, but little actual notability to the "relationship" demonstrated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email | Editor Review 08:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or re-direct and merge into Foreign relations of Estonia. If relations between these two countries are not be notable by Wikipedia standards, they exist never the less. There are 192 countries within the UN, the Estonian foreign ministry lists relations with 72 and this is one of them. So it is not a random pairing. Martintg (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Come on guys, let's not be parochial. Much more important than Canada – United States relations to the people that live in these countries, just a bit less content available in English. I added some material with refs from a very quick search, and am sure there is much more out there. Too much to be a sub-entry in Foreign relations of Estonia or Foreign relations of Mongolia, and which would it fall under? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there is little trade between Mongolia and Estonia, there's significant cultural exchange -- both now and during the last century. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the expansion contains nothing unremarkable for this kind of relationship, and fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Canvasback (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Canvasback (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DGG (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as JustOneMoreQuestion. Uncle G (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Documenting nothing. And no, no "parochialism" here: I don't think anyone is opposing the aricle on grounds that it's "not American" (neither am I!), though I knew that the very principles on which the "X-Y relations" articles, American or whatever, were tolerated would come back to bite all of us in the ass. personally, i feel that all these articles are ill-conceived (I have said this before), but in this case, and in many others, no matter what the principle, we're simply dealing with nonsense. Dahn (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not nonsense - reliable independent sources attest to the fact that Mongolia and Estonia have relations, which may go a long way back. They are talking about strengthening economic and cultural ties - unusual maybe, but a good thing. Surely this article will grow as interested editors add detail. There are many reliable independent sources - that is enough for me. More important than some punk rock group from Halifax. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What those reliable independent sources "attest" is something which an editor has chosen to interpret as relevant for the article, not something relevant in itself. For one, we have the utterly non-encyclopedic info about visits (significant only because the editor who wanted to find something on the relationship attributed them significance) which, btw, are not attested by independent sources, they come to us as passing mentions from the parties involved - the government, the NGO participating in bilateral meetings, the Mongolian News Agency. Aside from these, we have the info about Von Sternberg, which has nothing to do with Estonia, and very little to do with Mongolia. And just how "far back" can these "relations" reach, with Estonia having had two terms of independence, interwar and post-1991, and Mongolia having dropped its puppet state status in 1991? To add: the frankly atrocious manner in which the article is written (see what the WP:MOS has to say about linking, capitalization, punctuation and other things) attests to the haste in "rescuing" this article, which, in this case, as in several others, only bundles up trivia. So, yes, the article is nonsense. And who, pray tell, is discussing punk rock groups from Halifax? Dahn (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus is achieved at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Martintg (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources establish this as a notabie relationship. The puff tossed up there now is a violation of SYNTH as well.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not WP:SYNTH. That principle is that editors should not string together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. An example would be: "A said the USA stands for freedom. B says the Tamil Tigers are seeking freedom. Therefore the USA supports the Tamil Tigers". Obviously this is unacceptable. The "puff" or "diplospeak" in the article supports the fact that there are indeed relations between the two countries, and tells something about these relations. As one would expect, they are not very intense. But the article is clearly factual, backed up by various solid sources. Is the subject important? See WP:BIAS. It may be quite important to the people of Mongolia. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It may be quite important to the people of mongolia?" I strongly doubt that, but of course my opinion is worth as much as yours in this case (zero). Do you have reliable sources on how important this is to the people of mongolia? Alrighty then.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you were a Bandy fanatic, you might have a different point of view. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but since when are we creating articles to keep users with a certain POV content?! Dahn (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just meant that if there are a lot of Estonians and Mongolians who are passionately interested in Bandy, like a lot of Canadians and Americans are interested in Ice Hockey, they could be interested in the relations between their two countries. English is sort of the global language these days, so they might look in the English Wikipedia to find out. It is plausible to think that people in these two ex-Soviet satellite states may have some interest in each other. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back. In the Bandy World Championship 2007, Mongolia was trashed by Estonia 5-0. My guess is that the Mongolians don't want to hear anything more about Estonia right now. Could be wrong - I don't know what is happening in the playoffs this year. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Estonia was not a satellite state, it was *in* the Soviet Union. My question still stands, but let me rephrase it for clarity: since when are we creating and keeping articles because people may be passionately interested in something that may be said to relate to the object of their passion? Wikipedia does not structure itself around POVs, does it? As for the (otherwise valid) observations about the status of English, let me note again that you are discussing this with me, a Romanian in Romania, and that I have already answered about what works and what doesn't work in that argument. Let me repeat my points: writing on obscure but contextually notable subjects (which we have both admittedly done) is not the same as compiling trivia to create a topic which may not exist at all; we already have equivalent coverage of even the more minor topics in Mongolian contexts, so this is certainly not an issue of bias. Let me add a relevant fact: as a Romanian who has contributed countless articles on Romania, I obviously want to improve coverage of my country, but I have a realistic expectation that this will not, could not and should not even try to reach a level comparable to America's or Britain's. No matter how you stretch it, something will not necessarily apply to Romania just because it applies to the US. I can't ignore the simple facts that we are a comparatively small culture/society with a total number of people you could fit into NYC, that we speak an insular language, that we were not patrons of anything resembling Hollywood (or even Bollywood). In these terms, I can accept that Romania's relationship with its neighbor Bulgaria may factually not as important as the US' relationship with Nicaragua (not the same stakes, logistics or global doctrines involved). Working my way down from that, I'm certain that Romania's relations with Mongolia/Estonia/Cambodia will be as worthy a separate article as is the US' relations with, say, Andorra. Mutatis mutandis. Dahn (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I have been in any way offensive. I am so used to finding editors who think that "foreign stuff" is unimportant, I suppose I throw in WP:BIAS almost as a reflex when I seem to detect the argument that this cannot be important because it is about a pair of trivial little countries. My people come from a small country too. At risk of repeating, I prefer to be as non-judgmental on the value of articles as possible. Everyone has different viewpoints on what matters and what does not. Deleting an article on the basis that "I don't think this is important" seems totally wrong to me. If an article is coherent, describes a clearly identifiable topic, is not a fork and presents sufficient well-documented information, I think it should stay - and that is almost always the consensus in an AfD discussion like this. Not always. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should clarify this: aside from the reservations I have toward the "bilateral relations" system in general (if anything, because it created a problem where there was none), I had and will have the same objections to articles compiled from similar trivia and involving any of the "major players" (US, UK, France, Russia, whatnot) or countries "in-between" (from Romania to Chile, passing through Libya). If the articles in question only cover a vacuum, they are not around for any reason. Of course, that would primarily (always?) apply to articles where the other term is a [comparatively] minor country, so the "systemic bias" argument could be resurrected as a twist in the plot in just about any case. Regardless, "bias" is not the real issue, whatever the X and Y.

I take no offense at any of your comments, and did not want to come across as such. In fact, given the precedents, I would even expect the comments I made about my own country to be taken as offensive by some of the less realistic of my compatriots - but they are nonetheless accurate. The awareness of these truths certainly does not make me bitter. In terms of absolute importance, Romania does not rank below other countries because of subjective issues ("Americanocentrism", "Anglocentrism", "Francocentrism" etc. - however relevant these may actually be in general). It does so because of objective, easily determinable, issues. Here's a couple: the population of the US is 14 times that of Romania; while Britain was already home to a railway network, published the most trusted newspapers, and owned an empire upon which the sun never set, Romania was starting to consider building its first railway, adopting the Latin alphabet and a literary language, and finding a powerful patron to finance its emancipation from an empire; throughout the 19th century, qualifying as a schoolteacher in France would ensure you a lifetime of cultural prominence in Bucharest. Given that I wouldn't consider a relationship between US/UK/France and X state inherently notable, what is left to say about Romania, or Mongolia? Let's not delude ourselves. Dahn (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add: whatever anyone of us says can be transformed into "I do/don't think this is important", and therefore be seen as subjective. That said, I do believe I and others have presented arguments as to why it is unimportant, and, what's more impractical, ill-conceived, and against wikipedia's nature (every part of "coherent, describes a clearly identifiable topic, is not a fork and presents sufficient well-documented information" has been challenged, not to say refuted, by now). It's always assumed that none of us has access to an absolute truth, but that doesn't mean it's all in the eye of the beholder. And, even if it did, it still doesn't mean that the article discussed with such arguments should be kept because it has had a beholder. Furthermore, once expressed, that attitude would primarily endorse the notion that any article (existing or conceivable) should be kept by default. After all, who's to say what article is "coherent, describes a clearly identifiable topic, is not a fork and presents sufficient well-documented information" - using the "viewpoints" argument you referred to, it too is a matter of opinion. Dahn (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a synthesis in the sense that it strings together various stuff (the last two paragraphs also having nothing to do with Mongolia and Estonia as such, and already covered in more appropriate venues) and concludes "notable relationship!" But that's not how it works. We don't take Presidential visit + ambassadorial consultation + e-governance experts' visit and deduce from that "notable relationship". Putting aside that that is trivia and news that we would never, ever be covering here if this series of nonsense articles hadn't been created and editors now felt the need to fill them in, it also constitutes a synthesis, given the lack of sources about the relationship as such. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I note how those sources are no longer "independent", but are now "solid" - even though they are entirely primary. WP:SYNTH applies to the measure where these articles don't discuss anything other than courtesies exchanged, and outline basic activities for which they are payed; no commentary on these notions exists in secondary sources, the editor who used them simply tried to replace that void with info that asserts no relevancy, and attributed it a personal relevancy. Why? Simply because it was believed that editors who objected to this article say "it can't be done" (as opposed to "it shouldn't be attempted"). For the third time: trivia + trivia does not make notable.

And the WP:BIAS claim (btw, why are we finding that relevant what other editors in some project perceive as a flaw?): adding trivia on Mongolia is equivalent to adding trivia on the US, and neither should eventually be spared "the scissors". If we are talking about notability, lack of coverage and weird dynamics, let me note this and that - I'd say we're beyond "bias" claims now. Yes, Mongolia will get less coverage than many other countries. For quite valid reasons, such as it being an underdeveloped country, and - with only a fraction of the media and academia other countries can afford - producing less coverage of its own stuff at home. But, regardless, we already have reasonable coverage of even its pop scene. As for the expectation that a Mongolian internet user would visit this article and this article over all, needing this exact piece of trivia, puh-lease. Let alone the ridiculousness of probabilities invoked, but it's quite clear that wikipedia should not even begin to strive to create articles around specific needs, otherwise we'd have articles on any potential subject for any potential high school paper, we'd start including DIY guides, etc. In other words, we'd be discarding WP:NOT. Dahn (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What started the article" is not relevant, or "I am not interested". I prefer to stick to the criterion that the content is backed up by multiple reliable sources. They attest to the fact that there are relations and give some information. Boring maybe, but "I think this is boring" is not a criterion for deletion. Look at all the trivial articles in Wikipedia - maybe someone is interested in Balmaclellan - beats me who. Are the sources reliable? Well, maybe the government of Estonia is lying when they announce a visit by the president of Mongolia, and maybe the government of Mongolia is lying when they say their ambassador presented his credentials to the Estonians. I am inclined to believe that in this case the sources, although primary, are reliable. Perhaps an editor who spoke Estonian and/or Mongolian could dig up newspaper sources. (I deleted the last two paragraphs - agree they are distractions.) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are fairly trivial (or at least routine) news stories that would never feature here were editors not now feeling compelled to "fill in" details, and say nothing about Estonia–Mongolia relations as such, but rather bring together trivia that editors - not reliable secondary sources - have decided constitute evidence of a notable relationship. And by the way, you do realise that ambassadors present credentials every week of every year, right? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Nobody has claimed this article is not worthy because it's "boring" (it's not, I for one find it rather amusing), but that it's trivial (meaning that the factoids it contains are not up to the standards). Speculating about the possibility of more random newspaper articles (on what?) only highlights the idea that this article cannot possibly go anywhere. And no, the primary sources are not worthless because they may be false, but because they don't actually establish notability. It's like citing Jesus to establish why Christianity is important. Dahn (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about citing the Pope on why Jesus is important? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a hugemongous article such as Christianity/Jesus, once you're done with all the reliable third-party sources, you could of course cite the pope somewhere if you really think it adds anything relevant, with what the pope says. You'd have by then established notability. However, even in that unlikely scenario, I'd think you'd want to avoid the whole issue, since it would also be a good idea to cite the leaders of all other major branches (just to be on par), and since everyone of those branches has expressed its doctrine in a corpus of works far greater than the pope's press releases (not to mention itself discussed to death in academia). But let's assume Christianity was a cult whose importance is not immediately apparent, and Jesus its prophet. Would you establish their notability by relying on quotes from the cult leader? Dahn (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, some editors appear to be taking a fundamentalist approach to notability, when the issue hasn't been decided yet at Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Bilateral_international_relations. Martintg (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure deeming that opinion "fundamentalist" when the issue has not been "decided" there is okay... Dahn (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what do you expect? This is Wikipedia. It views notability through the teen POV, and teenagers never were into international relations. But soon they'll lose interest and go after obscure cartoon characters from a bygone era instead. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 04:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what all of us voting oppose have been doing, me especially...

(And I can't help but notice: this argument about irrelevant subjects being prioritized over serious content is brought up here, in a discussion about an article relying on primary sources about a couple of visits which no one in Mongolia or Estonia is likely to honestly have remembered for some reason. Now that "teen POV" is mentioned, let's note how bandy games and what Mongolian people may find interesting for no apparent reason were brought up as arguments in favor of keeping the article...) Dahn (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Miacek (t) 11:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC). Digwuren has explained this humorously and yet very well above. --Miacek (t) 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

above should be disregarded as per WP:JUSTAVOTE— Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)

Comment: I have expanded the article a bit. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming surreal. What you added is yet more clutter about Estonian being related to Mongolian and about two teams facing each other in the game of bandy (with the mention "which is similar to hockey"!), neither of which has anything whatsoever in common with the conceivable topic (see WP:COATRACK). I'd picture this sort of editing to save a topic is in itself a reason not to keep this article. Dahn (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pattern with these uncalled-for "expansions". See Canada–Haiti relations: "here's a thumbnail sketch of Haitian history for you! And by the way, the Queen's representative in Canada comes from Haiti, not that her biography and the article on Haitian Canadians don't mention it already, but hey, we have nothing else to say, so why not mention it again?" - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The basis for this article is the usage of non-academic sources belonging to the Estonian government. Non-resident ambassadors. Presentation of credentials of ambassadors is a routine thing in diplomacy. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOHARM is not a valid rationale. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aymatth2 and Marting have done a fine job of digging up interesting facts about this relationship, well supported by citations. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to look like a coterie voting blindly. Aside from the one visit, which I understand you would assume is inherently notable (even if it is not covered by independent sources, contrary to what WP:GNG, WP:PSTS and WP:NOT require), what "facts" would those be, FeydHuxtable? The lack of an embassy on location? The minuscule trade? The glaringly non-notable info about a game of bandy? The info about Von Sternberg, which Aymatth himself deleted before it was reintroduced from a primary source, and which, outside of that primary source, is not mentioned in connection to Estonia? Let me remind you that we are not here to discuss whether those facts are interesting, but whether they are encyclopedic. Dahn (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, btw, for all you editors out there who are ready to assume that such sourcing helps the subject achieve more notability. If you think that the (distant) relationship between the Mongolian language and Estonian is a relevant detail and establishes something, consider what a similar level of detail would mean for any article on any two countries were Indo-European or Semitic languages are official. (And do take some time to read the corresponding edit summary...) If you think it's cool that the article mentions a face-off in bandy, have the good sense to consider what it would mean for the corresponding Canada-US or France-UK articles to mention all the similar confrontations in hockey, football and whatever other sport. If you think mentioning Von Sternberg adds anything relevant, imagine what it would mean if a Canada-US article would reserve space to detail the achievements of any Canadian-born American and American-born Canadian. Btw, judging by the article on him, Von Sternberg wasn't even a Baltic German per se, since he was born in Austria! In other words, this sort of absurdity is biased in favor of minuscule relevancy, and favors trivia in articles where there's really not much to say. It is therefore a clear violation of WP:NOT. I have already confronted FeydHuxtable with this on the centralized discussion page, but, you see, he can't hear me.

I hear you loud and clear Dahn. You’ve made a strong case that the keep votes for some of these bilateral relations articles aren’t consistent with existing guidelines. I’ve agreed you’re right. Where we differ is you and your supporters seem to want to maintain the status quo (or possibly have guidelines amended to make deletion of borderline articles even more clear cut) , whereas I and others would like an amendment to more tightly define the criteria that would establish notability for these relationships. This would be similar to the existing specific guidelines for music or academics – which allow notability to be established for reasons that wouldn’t be accepted by a strict reading of general policy. With a change the community can keep articles that many clearly want while staying with in guidelines and also provide useful topics for our audience. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you still can't hear me, since the above in no way answers the points I raised, but outline an idea which has nothing to with the relevancy of the info. And if you want a special guideline to say that sport events or other such trivia count as relations between states (do you, or are you just speculating?), and hold this article accountable to a non-existing guideline, your vote is nothing more than one of these. So is your circular argument about "borderline articles", which is being fed by your perception that such info is relevant. Dahn (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sporting encounters can be significant in the early stages of an international relationship. There are several studies that suggest sport can effective in developing relationships between nations, and in easing tensions between ethnic groups within a nation. Now your comparison with England / France seems strong at first glance, but consider how in the early stages of a relationship certain actions are immensely notable, whereas in a mature relationship they are not. Considering a human relationship might help, lets take the courtship between Elizabeth I and one of her Spanish suitors. Now these never even got as far as a first kiss as far as Im aware – but say it did that single kiss would have been immensely notable!! Not just as Beth was very notable in her own right, but it would have signalled much better prospects for the whole England – Spain relationship at the time. The Spanish Armada might never have happened! Whereas with any couple once they've been together for a while, a single kiss or even a mad all night session isnt likely to be all that noteable, no matter how significant the couple. Back to the matter at the hand, the world is now in a unique epoch where just about every nation is reaching out to every other – a hundred years back many either didn’t exist or only had formal relations with their immediate neighbors and the great powers. These fledgling relationships are significant because they have a bearing on international trade, cultural exchange , collaboration at international summits etc. So yes sporting events can sometimes be most notable, belong in articles , and yes Id ideally like that stated in a guideline. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH. I'm obviously not asking you about the "sometimes" when such a sporting event etc. is mentioned in a work dealing with international relations, I'm asking you about editorializing events whose notability is not established by outside sources, but by editors. I. e.: this case. So, back to my original question.

In this particular case, my guess would be youre probably right the game of brandy might well be trivial. But that’s just speculation on my part , very possibly the editor who added that knows a lot more about the Estonia Mongolia relationship than me. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the "unique epoch etc." theory - WP:NOT. You see, even if I'd want to be interested in this sort of speculation, several sections of that policy tell me that I shouldn't. Dahn (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I weren't more interested in WP:POINT than these users are, I'd remove all such "interesting" ad lib detail and leave you to ponder the bare article; see if the remainder phrase or two on something sourced on primary material is worth keeping on what strives to be an encyclopedia. Dahn (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pending Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations outcomes and working groups' recommendations. -- Banjeboi 23:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assess the notability of the topic, and try not to invoke as a "keep" reason a discussion that will drag on for a long time and may not even reach a conclusive result. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see plenty of sourcing on this article and these one by one noms rather disruptive. To me it's rather foolish to even nom them as one can find numerous sources to support the topic. What's more helpful is to establisha guideline how best to integrate the material to best serve our readers. hence I fully appreciate those willing to work on a task force dedicated to exactly those issues. We aren't in a rush here. Shorthand, keep unless that working group works out amore appropriate solution. -- Banjeboi 01:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd be surprised if you could actually show sources meeting WP:GNG here. And that's the crux of the matter - not the uplifting "let's all wait until the working group reports back" rhetoric. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of good sources, past colonies of USSR, relatively large trade, ongoing high-level contacts, etc. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's see you provide some of those "plenty of good sources". Dahn (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Babylon A.D. (band). MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syrym

Non-notable subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. GripTheHusk (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Syrym District. The band itself fails to establsh notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Dunno why the admin closed off the first AfD, it wasn't much of a discussion!!!!! Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a non-admin closure by the nominator as they withdrew their nomination, hence the reason for it's very early closure. Dpmuk (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhhhhhhh, I see. Thanks. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep: appears to meet #6 at WP:BAND by having members who were in a (dubiously?) notable band Babylon A.D. (band). --JD554 (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B.A.D.'s self-titled album charted at #88 on the Billboard Top 200 [6], so their notability is without question. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MUSIC, validation for a band or musician entry might include magazine articles. Syrym has been written about in PowerPlay Magazine, Fireworks Magazine, and Hardline Magazine (German publication), among others. I have physical copies of both the PowerPlay and Melodic Rock publications that I can scan if I need to provide proof. Also, why would you refer to Babylon A.D.'s notability as "dubious?" It seems they meet the WP:MUSIC criteria and, thus, the comment about their notability appears much more subjective (your personal opinion of the band or music) than objective (based in fact, and in keeping with the overall purpose of Wikipedia). Jenxer (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As this AfD is about Syrym and not Babylon A.D. my comment was indeed meant to be subjective and tongue-in-cheek. --JD554 (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understood. Thanks for the clarification. Please let me know what else I can provide to further establish the validity of the entry--physical magazine articles, music featured on television broadcasts, radio airplay, endorsements, online media coverage (articles, awards, interviews, reviews, etc.). Jenxer (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to band Babylon A.D. (band). They don't appear to have done enough for their own article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Babylon A.D. and then fully prot the re-direct so that this doesn't happen anymore. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Syrym has been written about numerous times worldwide, both online and in print (PowerPlay Magazine, Fireworks Magazine, and Hardline Magazine, among others); receives radio airplay worldwide on a regular basis, including being featured on the playlists of Play Radio UK and ARfm (both in the U.K.), Activ'Radio (France), Hurricane Rock (Germany), 97 Underground and Amped FM's Rock and Hits stations (two of many in the U.S.), and Antenna2 Radio (Italy), among others; their music has been featured on a San Jose Sharks' television broadcast; and has appeared in several "best of" and "Top 20" album lists for 2008, including Best New Band of 2008 in the HardRockHideout Reader Awards, Artist of the Week on MelodicRock.com, Hair Metal Mansion included them in their Top 20 Albums of 2008, Steve Price showcased Syrym as his Album of the Week on ARfm's The Steve Price Show, HellSpawn.be writer Thierry listed them in his Top 20 - 2008, and they were listed in Heavy Harmonies' Best of 2008. All these references are verifiable and combine to make Syrym a notable band, worthy of inclusion. Jenxer (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Isaias Lora

Contested prod. Prod reason was: "Self-published (PublishAmerica) author without claims to notability. Fails WP:BIO". Prod removed without improvements. Author's books are self-published[7] or could not be found (the other two). 52 Distinct Google hits[8], no Google News hits[9]. The author reviewing his work (Roberto Carlos Martinez) is an article created by the same editor, and is also put up for deletion by me (although that one at least has some claim to notability). The cited review seems to come from Martinez' page on Amazon. Fails WP:BIO quite clearly. Fram (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable selfpublished author. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information on the page can not be verified by non-trivial sources, and the only critical response I can find is from the author the article quotes, who is himself non-notable, making the source less-than-non-trivial Mrathel (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fremont-Elizabeth City High School

This page should not be here as Fremont-Elizabeth City High School has its own website which all information is kept up to date. Data can be changed on this page (As it has been before) to include non relevant material. People wanting to know more about the school should be going directly to the schools website and not to wikipedia. Chadinsky (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large secondary school, appears notable from quick look. Nominator's reasons are spurious. Quantpole (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General consensus seems to be to keep secondary level institutions and merge/delete lower level ones unless particularly notable. ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long-standing consensus is that all high schools are notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are available to meet WP:ORG. Also, no valid deletion reason by nominator who seems to have a COI. TerriersFan (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the community consensus, sources and the fact that no valid reason for deletion was given. Speedy keep anyone? --J^mundo 18:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - As per notability arguments above even if the article is currently a stub. Also, the nominator's first (and only) actions are to create this AfD. Mark Hurd (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Carlos Martinez

Contested prod. Prod reasn was: "Self-published (PublishAmerica) author who has received nominations (according to the article, this could not be verified) for some minor awards, but hasn't won any. Has not received significant attention in reliable independent sources, so fails WP:BIO" Prod removed with addition of a source for the nominations for one award, which make sit more verifiable but still insufficient for WP:BIO (author's collection is one of twenty poetry books nominated that year). Evidence that the books are published through PublishAmerica:[10][11][12]. The many other people of the same name make a Google or Google News search harder, but e.g. for the Library of Virginia nomination, we have no Google News hits[13], and the same goes for the Indie Excellence nomination[14], which could not be verified at all. So fails WP:BIO, despite having one (or two) nominations for a literary award. Fram (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject does not have any notable references from non-trivial sources; none of the information on the page meets the requirement of verifiability Mrathel (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: an editor has added a link to the 2007 Indie Excellence Awards to the article. Martinez was supposedly nominated for one in 2007, but the list of 2007 winners and finalists[15] does not list Martinez anywhere, even though the poetry section has a winner and 8 more finalists. He's not included in the 2008 list either[16]. It looks as though everyone can nominate a book, making a nomination for these award essentially worthless, with only winners an finalists having some potential notability. Fram (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Churchill College, Cambridge. The sources still do not establish that the JCR is notable; either they are primary or they do not mention the subject. Allowing for the merger of any useful content. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill College Junior Common Room

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

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

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

After closing this article's first AfD as a "delete", I was contacted by the author who indicated there were more sources available for the article. I restored the article so they could add the sources. This is a procedural nomination to see if consensus has changed based on the new sources in the article. I have no recommendation as to the outcome of the discussion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possible redirect to Churchill College, Cambridge). The Independent source does not talk about the JCR. The compassyouth blog source makes a passing reference to the sixth reform act, but no mention of the JCR. The Times reference is the best in that is does mention the JCR, but only in passing in an obituary on Dick Tizard, not good enough to establish notability. The Hansard reference doesn't mention the JCR either, and the remaining sources are from it's own website. Searching does not reveal any extensive coverage by secondary sources, and a google scholar search comes up with nothing. Though the 1969 act is very notable, the JCR's involvement is discussed on the page for the act itself, and there is not enough to establish notability for the JCR itself. Quantpole (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Churchill College, Cambridge (and possibly add a link from there to Representation of the People Act 1969, I don't know). Quantpole gives a good summary of the sources: none of the third-party sources give significant coverage (ie, more than a line or so) of the organisation itself. I think there's definitely enough to justify some mention of the JCR's role at Representation of the People Act 1969, but not in its own article. The author, WikiWebbie, says here "This is the main organisation which brought about one of the most major pieces of legislative change in the UK in the 20th century. How is that not notable?" The answer is that Wikipedia editors are not responsible for making that decision directly: per Wikipedia:Notability we rely on coverage in newspapers, books, journals and so on. Since the best we can find there is a mention in passing in an obituary, the JCR doesn't seem to warrant an article of its own. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. As the author of the article, I am obviously going to be biased, but I believe it warrants its own page for a number fo reasons. For anybody who is not sure, I should specify that the Junior Common Room is not a literal room, but a students' unions. In general, students' unions serve a large number of people. They often do not become notable for one thing, but for being a large organisation over a long period of time. A google search (as of 22/04/09) gives 2,080 hits for "Churchill JCR"[17], shich signifies this. Over the 50 years of existence, the JCR has had around 8,000 members. There are many articles on Wikipedia which describe a hamlet in which 5 people lve. This has affected the lives of thousands of people.

In addition to its notability as an ordinary students' union, Churchill JCR led the NUS to push for the Representation of the People Act 1969. the Act itself lowered the voting age across the whole country, so has affected most of the population of the UK! NUS is mentioned several times in Hansard and the other reference shows that it was the JCR that led the NUS. Without Churchill JCR, the NUS would not have had a stance and the issue would not have received parliamentary consideration. Given that this was 40 years ago, it is not surprising that this is not covered much by the internet which did not exist at the time. Instead, it was featured in the newspapers at the time and so is hard to reference in this article. There are huge amounts of documentation in the Churchill Archives Centre such as the communication between the JCR, the NUS, the Government and the High Court, right alongside the papers of Churchill and Thatcher. Unfortunately it is very hard (especially at a time of my exams) for me to be able to scan in the files and put them online as evidence within the next few days. If you have any doubts about the notability, please contact the Churchill Archives Centre and ask for their opinion first.

There are many students' unions listed on Wikipedia, which are nowhere near as notable as Churchill JCR. See UFV_Student_Union_Society for example and for the large number of student unions, see [18]. All college boat clubs also have their own pages. Churchill JCR is older than the boat club, has many more members, has a larger influence on college life and is far more notable. To delete this page, would be to imply that nearly all students unions should be deleted off Wikipedia. It would be ridiculous to keep the 30 boat club pages (e.g.New Hall Boat Club) and not keep the page of the student union which has affected the lives of tens of millions of people.

I hope this clarifies things. I'm happy to reply to any questions. WikiWebbie (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)/[reply]

With regards to student unions, they are not inherently notable (see Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Student_life). Please note the information regarding coverage in secondary sources. Also, just because other articles exist with dubious notability, does not mean that gives a right of existence to an article with slighlty better notability (see WP:OSE). In terms of Churchill JCR, the 1969 act does give additional reasons for inclusion. However, we still have to give secondary sources. At the moment the problem is that it's hard to comment without knowing what the sources are. Also, if the JCR really is notable due to their involvement in an act from 40 years ao, I would have thought there would be secondary sources detailing the story. Letters and so on between the JCR and NUS do not prove notability, as they are not secondary sources (in my understanding). Sources should also be mainly about the article, not a passing mention. For instance, there would no doubt be lots of coverage of the 1969 act from newspapers at the time, but how many of these are about the JCR itself, as opposed to the Act? Quantpole (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a conflict of interest from WikiWebbie, as the user identifies themself as being a member of the organisation. However I have also noticed that there is a similarity between the username and the current president of the organisation. I think this could be a potential COI problem per Wikipedia:Coi#Close_relationships. Quantpole (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that I have a COI because I have been mandated as a representative of the JCR to speak on behalf of the students annoyed at this decision. A COI is separate from the notability of this article, however.

It sounds a bit weird that people have mandated you to come on here to be honest! A COI can be a problem because it means you may not be able to assess the notability or otherwise of an article neutrally. It is something that I imagine may be taken into consideration when the closing admin reviews the discussion, but so long as you make your case in accordance with wikipedia guidelines then it shouldn't be a problem. Quantpole (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ - On behalf of sociality, who posted their comments in the wrong place, see Talk:Churchill_College_Junior_Common_Room.

In response to sociality's points on the Talk page, I have heard about the Varsity page and that is certainly a secondary source as some have asked for. The 50th edition of Varsity in 1981 identified the campaign as one of the top 5 most significant news stories for Cambridge University. In response to the COI identified earlier, I have checked that sociality is not a student here, so the same COI does not apply. I feel that at the very least we should give sociality a week to receive a reply from them.WikiWebbie (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through the vote. I think it's fine to refer to these other points posted somewhere else, but I don't think you can vote on their behalf (no doubt someone will be along to tell me otherwise!). Quantpole (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I studied the original before tentative removal and thought it added some useful history. I know the poster and his credentials in this regard seem impeccable. Quibbles seem to have been addressed in subsequent talk, my vote is to restore the page with whatever clarifications and move on, why not? Kirbyurner (talk)Kirbyurner —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Do Not Delete I've reinstated the vote on behalf of Kirby Urner (no doubt someone will be along to tell me otherwise!). Sociality —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete University wide student organizations can be notable, but not those for individual colleges like this one. DGG (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are straight away saying that it can't be notable, but ignoring the Representation of the People Act completely. The article also now has a secondary source, so meets the notability requirements in the guidelines. WikiWebbie (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read Wikipedia:Rs#News_organizations. Quantpole (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Source - I have uploaded the secondary source you require onto our website here: http://jcr.chu.cam.ac.uk/theforum/index.php?topic=3591.msg9349;topicseen#new. This details the correspondance between the Home Secretary and Ian Benson, President at the time. It also shows the newspaper article, which is a secondary source. I will reference it on the article soon. WikiWebbie (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this effort WikiWebbie (I appreciate you must be busy as Easter Term begins). The trouble is neither the letter nor the Times article make any mention of the role of the JCR specifically: in the former case we have no indication that Ian Benson was acting in his capacity as JCR President rather than just as a concerned student, and in the latter the JCR or College is not mentioned at all. So this source is useful for information about the event, but not for establishing the need for an article on the JCR itself. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, the letters are primary sources, not secondary. if someone were to write a book or paper that is deemed a reliable source, referencing the correspondance, then it would be a secondary source. Quantpole (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I am a scientist, not a historian, but my understanding was that a secondary source was something writing about the event, which is the case for this Times article. If you want anything else, then ask, but please give me time to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWebbie (talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Times article is secondary but makes no mention of the JCR. The letter is primary. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"*Do Not Delete 24.4.203.234 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Ian Benson was acting in his capacity as JCR President, and the costs of the Churchill Students were met from Legal Aid and the [[19]] National Union of Students (as this was a test case for all students in the UK)"[reply]

— 24.4.203.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete No significant third-party coverage. Most of the sources in the article are either self-published (or from Churchill college's own website), or are other things and don't really mention this organization (for example, the various obituaries). Notability requirement not met. This article might be more appropriate on Churchill College's own wiki, but the organization doesn't appear to be notable outside that institution. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have a COI, but I really can't see how this isn't notable. Everybody I have spoken is very surprised by this and hence why I have been desperately taking time away from my exams to find these sources for you. It is most definately notable outside of Cambridge and has affected the lives of tens of millions of people who were given the right to vote at an earlier time. I guess that most people involved in this discussion have benefitted from the actions of the JCR. It meets the notability requirements that have been specified. It was written about heavily in the newspapers at the time and has featured in the Times obituary in the past few years. I have provided tons of primary sources and loads of secondary sources as you require. Please can you specify which line of the notability requirements it does not meet. WikiWebbie (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The part of WP:Notability it fails to meet is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Some of the sources you've provided are reliable sources independent of the JCR, such as the Times obituary. Some of the sources give significant coverage, such as the JCR's own page. But none of them is both: we don't have a single independent newspaper article, book or the like which actually covers the JCR rather than just mentioning it passing. That is what you'd need to provide. (And sources that mention the event but not the JCR are not enough, any more than newspaper articles about an influential court case justify Wikipedia pages about the judges and lawyers involved.)

Wikipedia does not judge notability on having effected millions of people: there are plenty of unsung legislators, judges and activists who've done that. Those with significant coverage in secondary sources get articles; those without don't. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiWebbie: like someone said above, what's notable is Representation of the People Act 1969. That's the article that needs to be written. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"*Do Not Delete Sociality (talk)sociality is working hard to supply (a) copies of contemporary newspaper articles surrounding the JCR's campaign (b) confirmation from Varsity - a reliable source that is independent of the JCR that not only did it run the story on the JCR's campaign on its front pages in 1970, but reran the JCR victory front page in 1997 as one of only 5 notable front pages since 1947 and (c) legal citations to an earlier Cambridge Students Appeal on this issue which followed the passing of the 19th Century Second Reform Act. The Court of Appeal alluded to the defeated earlier attempt by Cambridge students when it overturned that precedent in 1970. The 1970 Court of Appeal was independent of the JCR. Unlike books and articles and similar secondary sources the Court's findings are primary. Surely Wiki editors also need to take account of a substantive argument that is in the public domain such as the case marshalled by the JCR, presented by its Counsel, Leonard Bromley QC and recorded in Rickett's et al vs Town Clerk of Cambridge (High Court Ref to follow). Or does due process not apply here?

- Just a question, but if all this information available, why is it not being used to make Representation of the People Act 1969 a better article? Also, there is no problem if information isn't immediately available. If an article gets deleted, you can always add it again, provided that it isn't the same as the previous article (otherwise it may be speedy deleted). In other words, if the article gets deleted now (though I wouldn't want to predict the outcome), there's nothing to stop it being created again if/when better sources are found. Quantpole (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"*~~Do Not Delete~~ Sociality (talk){struck second vote Quantpole (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC))* If this article is deleted the information below that is publically available in the College Archives (and lexis-nexis) will not have been collated for publication under this rubric. Quantpole and Jimmy Wales are of course free to visit the Churchill College Archives if they wish to read about a subject such as the 6th Reform Act more generally. The principle that is being debated by Editors here - we imagined - was whether wiki editorial policy permits UK Court of Appeal judgements to be cited as primary sources. If this is good enough for BBC editorial policy surely its good enough for the Welsh Volunteers.[reply]

Reference for 19th century case. contained in the Court of Appeal judgement: is Tanner v Carter 1885 16 Q.B.D. 231, D.C. "the cases of Oxford and Cambridge students under the Act of 1867"

In the Court of Appeal hearing held on May 12 1970, Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, said:

"There is one case which much influenced the judges below (ie the judges in the Cambridge county court): It is Tanner v. Carter (1885) 16. QBD.231, when it was held that "Students in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, who occupy room in their colleges under regulations which do not allow them to reside in or visit their rooms during the vacations withouth the express permission of the college authorities, are not entitled...to be regarded as voters....

"The judges below (ie the judges in the Cambridge county court) treated that case as establishing this general principle: A student has not the right to be on the register unless he has the right to occupy his rooms at all times throughout the year......

"....On this account the judges held that the students were not resident.........

"I think the judges were in error in placing so much weight on Tanner v Carter. That case was decided under the Representation of the People Act, 1867, which said that in order to qualify a man had to have been "during the whole of the preceding 12 calendar months...an inhabitant occupier, as owner or tenant, of any dwelling house within the borough." Tanner v. Carter was rightly decided under that statute. It has no application whatever to the present statute in which there is no qualifying period but only a qualifying date, namely one day in a year, October 10."

" I reject altogether the test of whether the students had a right to their rooms throughout the year. I prefer to go by the ordinary meaning of the word "resident". I follow Viscount Cave in Levene v Inland Revenue Commissioners 1928, where he said: 'the word "reside" is a familiar English word and is defined in the OED as meaning "to dwell permanently or for a considerable time, to have one's settled or usual abode, to live in or at a particular place."

He goes on to apply various tests as to whether a person may properly be said to be "resident".

Ending with the sentence

"I would, therefore, allow these appeals and hold that these young men are entitled to be on the electoral register."

The other Court of Appeal judges, Lord Justice Karminski and Lord Justice Widgery, also refer to Tanner v Carter, noting they agree with Lord Denning's view.

Newspaper references were given to the JCR Campaign in: Varsity: 28 Feb 1970 "Court ends student votes - for now." in which Brian Eads writes "student spokesman Ian Benson of Churchill was not disappointed by the decision "because we couldn't have expected a county court decision to go any other way." .. Both Ian Benson and his solicitor feel that success is more likely before an Appeal Court. "It would have a free hand," said Benson, whereas he feels that "stupid precedents .. and ambigious law" had led to the case's dismissal." There is at present no clear guidance from the Law. Students and Bristol and Oxford, in addition to Cambridge have been refused the right to vote in these towns, whiles students at East Anglia have been successful in their bid for registration. It seems that if the appeal which is being considered (Ed Sociality by Churchill JCR) meets with success in a higher court it could establish an important legal precedent." Varsity: 19 May 1970. "Students Win Vote." in which Keith Baird writes a lead story which included the words "Student representation has come of age. Eight thousand undergraduates will be able to vote in the Cambridge Parliamentary Constituency as a result of a Court of Appeal decision last week. In a test case by Hugh Ricketts (Churchill) the Court reversed the ruling at Cambridge County Court last February affirming the refusal of the electoral registrar to include undergraduates. Ricketts was put forward as a representative case among a group of student dissenters. He received legal aid from the state to finance his appeal. He said, "I am very pleased indeed and it was all very worth while."..... Says Ian Benson (Churchill) one of he organisers of the voting campaign, --Sociality (Emphasis talk) 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)"You can defeat bureaucracy if you try hard enough."[reply]

The Guardian: Feb 23 1970 "Confusion over student votes," in which is written: "Mr Ian Benson, aged 21, president of the Junior Common Room at Churchill College, said last night: "The case could set important precedents for students all over the country....." The Times: May 12 1970 Law Report section "Students want to vote in university towns" Cambridge Evening News: May 12 1970 "Student franchise: Judges sit in appeals"; May 13 1970 "Students to Sway the City Vote?" May 16, "New Force in City Voting" There are many other cuttings from National Press, including: a)"Students Can Vote where they read Judges Rule" b) "Students win the voting argument." which includes the words "Mr Jack Straw, president of the National Union of Students which sponsored yesterday's appeals, said last night that student votes would be much more noticeable in local elections - but parliamentary seats in university or college towns could also be affected."

I've got no idea what you mean by you first paragraph. In respect of the rest, you still have not shown how Churchill College JCR is notable. The whole bit you quoted does not mention the JCR at all, and I'm not sure what your intention in posting it is. Sorry. Quantpole (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"*~~Do Not Delete~~ Sociality —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC). {struck third vote Quantpole (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

The substantive aspects in the first paragraph are:

1) Rubric means ``heading on a document, statement of purpose or function, category : eg party policies on matters falling under the rubric of law and order (source Apple OSX Dictionary v202). In this case the rubric is ``http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_College_Junior_Common_Room

2) In this discussion the claim has been made that "Wikipedia editors are not responsible for making the (notability) decision directly they rely on coverage in newspapers, books, journals and so on." This suggests that wikipedia editors might usefully be guided by the best practice definition of media editorial policy.

3) Editorial Policy means a statement of values and standards. The BBC's are at http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/

The relevant paragraphs from the BBC guidelines are we must ensure that when a product, service or organisation is named in a news report or factual content it is clearly editorially justified. (page Producers Guidelines, page 120)

And, before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that:

• material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation; and

• anyone whose omission could be unfair to an individual or organisation has been offered an opportunity to contribute. (page 184, Producers Guidelines, Ofcom Broadcasting Code)

4) If we delete this entry under this rubric we are choosing to disregard material facts and we are adopting a lower standard than other media such as the BBC.

5) Material facts in this instance mean the funding, selection and promotion of 13 test cases taken to the Court of Appeal. These individuals were selected by Churchill JCR to go forward in a test case as clients of Leonard Bromley QC. The Appeal is known as Ricketts vs Electoral Registration Officer of Cambridge, Queen's Bench Division, May 17, 1970. (No.104 - CCA - 1970) Organisations per se have no standing in Court in matters of electoral rights - the only way in which the students' case could be heard was by means of individual appeals. This meant that the students had a considerable financial risk. That is why they chose to coordinate their work through Churchill JCR. The JCR officers raised funds on their behalf, instructed Counsel and were accountable to the students collectively for their action.

The Master of the Rolls noted in his finding that

Another important fact found was that in Churchill College the undergraduate members might without permission spend time in their rooms during university term but that during the vacation they had to get the permission of their tutors or other college authority if they wished to occupy their rooms, though such permission was readily granted if the tutor was satisfied that the undergraduate required it to be near the library or laboratories or in any way to further his studies; but that it was important that permission might be refused if thought proper.

The Court found that these individuals, selected by the JCR's officers, were indeed representative of all the students of the UK. They concurred by accepting the remaining appeals without further hearing (QBD No.15 - CCA - 1970). In all 29 student appeals were upheld. These included 16 Bristol University students whose case was heard alongside Churchill JCR's by the Court, as Fox vs Stirk and Bristol. The Bristol case arose when Mr Peter Stirk, Conservative Agent for Bristol North West, challenged the right of Julian Fox a student at Churchill Hall, Bristol University to be on the electoral register.

6) We hope that this explains what we meant by our first paragraph. That is, why the Master of the Rolls mentions Churchill College -- but not its JCR, and why his finding in support of Churchill JCR's campaign warrants this entry being retained as submitted by Churchill's JCR President (2008-9).

Sociality said "If we delete this entry under this rubric we are choosing to disregard material facts and we are adopting a lower standard than other media such as the BBC." The BBC exists to report newsand Wikipedia exists to be an encyclopedia; as such we have a different standard for inclusion. The bottom line remains that Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is laid out at the notability guideline, and requires significant coverage of the JCR in third-party sources. A newspaper article that simply quotes the JCR president does not count as significant. If any of the other newspaper articles you mention does contain significant coverage of the JCR then feel free to provide us with copies: but so far no-one has produced a third-party source which mentions it more than in passing. Until they do, everything else is irrelevant.

Also, please sign your posts at the end rather than the beginning, as it makes conversation easier to follow. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The principle that is being debated by Editors here - we imagined - was whether wiki editorial policy permits UK Court of Appeal judgements to be cited as primary sources." No, I don't think it is. The relevant debate is over WP:N as I said above. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia has many rules. According to WP:COMMON (which qualifies WP:N) , it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something disruptive is not forbidden in a written rule doesn't mean it's a good idea (e.g., don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). The principle of the rules is more important than the letter. Invoking the principle of ignore all rules on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. A skilled application of this concept should ideally fly under the radar, and not be noticed at all. Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. While it is quite acceptable to justify your own actions by saying, "it seemed like common sense to me", you should be careful not to imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be seen as uncivil. Sociality 11:53, 27 April 2009 (PDT)

According to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law. A procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Similarly, do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy (see Wikipedia's guideline on gaming the system). If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.Sociality 11:53, 27 April 2009 (PDT)

According to WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users.

[edit]

I'm afraid I fail to see your point, Sociality. By citing WP:COMMON, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND are you suggesting that my request for sources somehow violates the spirit of WP:N, defies common sense, or is not aimed at improving the encyclopedia? If so why? Simply quoting policies is rarely as useful as explaining how they are relevant. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Source - Here's a new source from Churchill Archives Centre - http://jcr.chu.cam.ac.uk/theforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3591.0;attach=274;image. I believe this is a secondary source as has been requested. The article therefore meets the strict notability rules as well as the common sense rules. WikiWebbie (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I disagree, WikiWebbie. Sociality quoted from this article above, and I replied "A newspaper article that simply quotes the JCR president does not count as significant." This article is about the legal challenges which led to the change in law: notability could be established by an article about the JCR, as I have said previously. A one-line quote from someone named as the president of the JCR is not significant coverage of the JCR. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for coverage in newspapers. National newspapers like this rarely write an article just about an organisation. Newspapers express news and write about the things these organisations do. This article talks about what Churchill JCR has done. By your logic, nearly all Wikipedia pages should be deleted. WikiWebbie (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, perhaps I was slightly unclear. The point is not that the article is about "an action of the JCR" instead of "the JCR"; the article is about an event which it doesn't really connect to the JCR at all, except to give us a short quote from its president. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't think you have a point. The other references clearly show that Churchill JCR was the main player. There were no other student unions it could have been. The Hansard records clearly point to the NUS. The only NUS-affiliated body in Churchill was the JCR, but I realise that if you are not from Cambridge, you may not understand that.

This whole argument seems to be extremely nit-picking. It is common sense that this organisation should have a page. I urge you to step back from the endless arguments on definitions and see that. I am unable to continue responding to your queries as I have exams very soon. 'Neutrals' who contribute to AfDs are by definition interested in deletion. To those people whose sole aim is to delete stuff, please just admit it that every question you have asked has been answered. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and was hoping to contribute a lot, but now I just feel disappointed by the system. I wish I had time to give you complete copies of all sources from the Archive Centre. If you wish to reopen this discussion in July, I can sort that for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWebbie (talk • contribs) 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect This particular Student Union seems to meet the the criteria for inclusion within the Churchill College article and would be simpler to include within that article to improve it. There's no reason we can't redirect it. The list of previous presidents takes up almost half the article space. Short version: keep the info (mostly) and just redirect it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bodo's Bagels

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bodo's Bagels

Fails WP:CORP. Non-notable bagel shop (perhaps local interest), which has gotten some press (ghits = 1,330 but many are citysearch type repeats) but does not qualify as significant secondary coverage. Smells like advertising, though certainly not blatant, with a deep-link directly to the menu (I have changed the link to be to the corporate home page).

On a separate note (I realize web popularity does not equal corp notability) but their website has low alexa ranking with only 11 non-notable sites linking in. JCutter ^{{ talk to me }} 06:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm rather undecided on this. There are some Gnews and Gbooks hits, but a lot of the coverage seems trivial and/or local in scope (as opposed to regional/national/int'l). Here are the best of those sources, in my opinion: [20], [21], [22]. Are they enough to establish notability per WP:CORP? I think they fall just short of the bar. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I attended the University of Virginia, Bodo's Bagels on the Corner was infamous for having been "coming soon" for years. It was "coming soon" for the whole 4 years I was a student there and the next year when I still lived in Charlottesville. I don't know if that would give it any notability by itself, but I would expect there to be some coverage in the Cavalier Daily or local Charlottesville papers. Also, I don't think there is any reason to expect high website traffic for a small bagel store chain, regardless of if the chain is notable. Calathan (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found some of the coverage in the Cavalier Daily [23] [24]. Since this is local coverage, I'm not sure if it is enough to establish notability. Calathan (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, does not really claim any notability outside its own city. JIP | Talk 17:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stealthy advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not really my subject, so perhaps I'm qualified as neutral. I can however read some German, and the German magazine sources are sufficient to show notability. As for some of the delete arguments: that business software is less notable than consumer software is not supported by policy. The article seems information, not promotional. Sources in the professional field are appropriate ones to show notability, they don't have to be general mass-consumer mainstream, just respected and reliable in its subject. DGG (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tine 2.0

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

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

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

While the article seems to be about a fully developed and published ~~web browser~~ groupware system, ~~I don't believe it meets the general notability guidelines.~~ Hoping to be proven wrong, though! Khalfani Khaldun 06:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my stance to keep, as long as the notability Unomi has claimed is written into the article instead of just being discussed here. Khalfani Khaldun 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be my guest to include the references I have brought up. Since you brought the article here because you were under the impression that there were notability issues and you now seem satisfied that notability has been established I consider this discussion over and that the reasonable outcome is keep. As the person who originally brought the article here it would only be right if you edited the article to reflect the sources. Unomi (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tine 2.0 is not a webbrowser. Tine 2.0 is webbased groupware solution. Tine 2.0 meets the same criteria like any other project listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collaborative_software#Open_source_or_free_software . (Lkneschke (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC))— Lkneschke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That list is in no way related to Wikipedia policy, though. Being on that list does not require an established notability, and this article does not establish it either, or even provide any reliable secondary sources. Khalfani Khaldun 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Qualifies for a blatant advertising CSD, even. Just because it isn't (fully?) commercial doesn't exempt it from the anti-spam policies. 9Nak (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#G11 only allows for deletion of articles that are entirely promotional material. In this case the article is salvageable because a rewrite of the lead (and addition of reliable sources) would actually result in a good start-class article, since the history and features section are not especially spammy. Khalfani Khaldun 19:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tine 2.0 is opensource and not commercial software. I also added more external resources about Tine 2.0.(Lkneschke (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Advertising has two possible goals: increasing revenue and increasing brand awareness. Non-commercial products can still be advertising if they're trying to increase awareness of what they're offering. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seemingly fails to meet the notability and verifiability guidelines. Falls under WP:SOAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 17200+ ghits on "tine 2.0". Notable within its field enough to be nominated as runner up for 2 awards. Groupware is generally not something that is widely talked about, especially if it is opensource, and by orders of magnitude less if it happens to be under the much maligned agpl. Unomi (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search, too, before nominating. The first several pages of hits were blogs, aka no reliable sources. Please read WP:GHITS and WP:GOOGLE#Interpreting results.

Also, to address the rest of your comment (so as to not make it seem like I'm picking at the smallest flaw), you're going to have to demonstrate the notability of those awards for that argument to stand. Awards given out by random people for the sake of doing so don't contribute to the notability of this subject. On top of that, you just said yourself that Tine 2.0 isn't notable. "Groupware is generally not something that is widely talked about, especially if it is opensource, and by orders of magnitude less if it happens to be under the much maligned agpl." = non-notable. Khalfani Khaldun 21:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.openusability.org/index.php/about/ is not just 'some blog' also, I might add that for software online sources are perfectly relevant, you might for example refer to the discussion that went on at exim4 regarding the use of maillist posts.

That something is not widely talked about does not make it not-notable. If that were the case we should probably just mirror 'The National Enquirer'. The point I was making was that it is a fairly narrow and specialized field and that the lack of coverage is not surprising, as you can see with the lack of coverage on other groupware projects. If it is perceived that there is advertising or soapboxing going on, that can be resolved through editing. Do you think that www.trophees-du-libre.org is giving away 4.500 euros per category with a minimum of 500 euro for each nominee just for the sake doing so? The fsf seems to think it is notable. So does Linux Magazine. The French government and the EU seem to be sponsors of the awards. Unomi (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so maybe you're right. If you'll notice in my original nomination, I said I was hoping to be proven wrong. Can you improve the article to demonstrate notability, then? Just bringing up all these things here isn't helping the article any! ;) Khalfani Khaldun 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline, once notability has been established it doesnt go away, as you seem to have all this time on your hands that you go around putting articles up for deletion willy nilly perhaps it would be educational for you to get a feeling for what it is like to improve some of these articles. Unomi (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability requirements, blatant advertising/soapboxing. Verbal chat 20:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Can someone explain why Tine 2.0 is not noteable but other less know opensource groupware projects are? Just have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:FreeCollabManageSoftware. Have a look at ProjectPier and Simple Groupware for example. Why got pages about these projects accepted? I don't see any difference. Tine 2.0 is at least noteable as these projects. You should apply the same rules to all comparable opensource projects. This means either you start a discussion to delete all comparable pages or you need to keep the Tine 2.0 page. Any other decision would be to act arbitrarily. (Lkneschke (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You are correct on both counts. Neither of the those articles demonstrate notability either, and since you have pointed them out to me I am nominating both for deletion. However, you should read this essay on why your argument is not actually a significant argument against deletion. By the way, whenever you see words in blue, it is frequently linking to an essay or a policy somewhere on Wikipedia. If you wanted to know why it fails to meet notability guidelines, you just needed to read the linked article. Khalfani Khaldun 05:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the links, but I don't see the problem. Tine 2.0 is noteable after reading the links. Just marking ProjectPier and Simple Groupware for deletion is still inconsistent. You will also need to mark all other projects listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:FreeCollabManageSoftware for deletion. Either we have a page listing the important opensource collab projects here at Wikipedia or not. If we have this list it should be complete. If this page does not belong to Wikipedia, you need to mark all opensource collab projects for deletion as they all share the same level of notability. By the way, whenever you see words in blue, it is frequently linking to another opensource project which shares the same notability like Tine 2.0. (Lkneschke (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vehemently. Strike one, non-consumer software of interest only to business users. So it gets runner up in some trade association awards you've never heard of. How is this different from local newspaper coverage, which doesn't make something notable under current guidelines? Strike two: vacuous buzzwords and TLAs. It doesn't link or explain what exactly is meant by "ERP" or "CRM", but I suspect it's enterprise resource planning and customer relations management - in other words, the same old spam. Strike three: blatant advertising: combines groupware, CRM and ERP into one system and is therefore useful for the the whole company, from field staff to back office members. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tine 2.0 is not only of interest for business users. Any organisation requires tools like Tine 2.0 and groupware in general. Sourceforge is the biggest opensource community. Trophees du libre is most important opensource price here in europe. The FSF who supports Trophees du libre is the most important opensource supporter. Just because you don't know about these organisations does not mean that they are unimportant. Try to inform you, before posting here.

What is spam about implementing CRM and ERP? The CRM functionality is implemented and parts of ERP too. What is the problem about mentioning it?

Tine 2.0 is unique in that it combines groupware, CRM and ERP. You don't need to install 3 different applications, but can use one opensource software. And Tine 2.0 is designed to support the whole organisation. That's a fact and no spam.(Lkneschke (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete I am surprised to see all this discussion about unreferenced spam. Drawn Some (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is no spam. Tine 2.0 is as important as any other opensource groupware project mentioned here on wikipedia. Why is a page about Tine 2.0 spam, but about other opensource groupware projects not?(Lkneschke (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, so let's pretend it's not spam even though it looks, smells, and tastes like spam and comes in a can. An article needs to be verifiable. I also see you seem to be on Wikpedia only to....promote...this software. Drawn Some (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is my first article. But it is not my intention to spam. I'll improve the article to make the facts more verifiable. (Lkneschke (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The introduction got rewritten. Hopefully it does not smell like spam anymore. (Lkneschke (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I reworked the history section. I'm aware that it needs some polish, but maybe it goes in the right direction.(Lkneschke (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Tine 2.0 is an important groupware project and this page is no spam, like any other page about groupware projects here on wikipedia is no spam. If you think this article can be improved, gives us a hint what is missing. Just vote for Delete because you know nothing about opensource and groupware in general does not help making this article better. (Lkneschke (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Notable enough. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because? Verbal chat 08:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discussion has two vectors: notability and quality. Tine 2.0 is Notable enough for sure, while on the quality of the article should be worked on. - corneliusweiss (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of cours, this "vote" is your first and only contribution to Wikipedia. This is not a vote. Drawn Some (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My intend was to point out, that this discussion is about two points. While IMHO notability for this page is given, the quality (especially of the first paragraph) was bad and could lead to the conclusion that this article is spam. Nevertheless I made my first contribution and reworked this paragraph to give a precise classification of the software Corneliusweiss (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Seems quite notable to me. see Golem.de, linux-magazin, and silicon.de. These references are in German, but are still valid in my view. These references are also quite specialized press, but, after all (and as an example), computer games have perfectly satisfactory references from specialized press (gaming magazines, sites etc). Article needs a clean up, not deletion. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Gaming magazines are mainstream press, and can address notability. If we were to look at gaming industry trade press to establish notability, then we would need a vast amount of it (there is such a thing). They should be treated as "local" (the trade) newspapers for establishing notability, and we would need a great deal of them with significant coverage. Notability could be established by a few mainstream references with significant coverage, I don't see these yet. Verbal chat 08:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Golem.de and Heise.de are the most important/bigest German news sites. They should easily qualify as mainstream references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkneschke (talk • contribs) 08:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comments: Not sure that size, readership, or specialization matters. As my last comment suggested, specialized press is often used and can be a good reference. My thinking is that the sources seem to meet the "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" guideline found at WP:SOURCES. Software review magazines, and their internet equivalent, often meet these guidelines. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources provided by User:Czar Brodie are a start, but I'm not sure they're really mainstream enough to address the notability requirement. The closing admin should keep in mind that of the "Keep" votes, one is an SPA, one registered just to comment here, and another failed to provide any rationale whatsoever, and weigh those arguments accordingly. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, The closing admin should note that some of the "Delete" votes seem to fail to read "keep" sources, arguments and sigs. Some like Lankiveil above resorts to ad hominem and poisoning the well.

trophees-du-libre is a well funded FOSS award that gives out 4,500 euro per category, the award is sponsored by the EU and the French government amongst others. This award is generally understood as being notable. The editor who brought the article here for deletion has acknowledged that the notability requirement for this article has been met, any remaining problems can be resolved thru editing. <3 Unomi (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable software--Unionhawk ^Talk 18:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, WP:SNOW consensus. Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 20:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hawking in popular culture

AfDs for this article:

STRONG DELETE Wikipedia is not a collection of useless prime time cartoon TV trivia. This article is unencyclopedic. Ever wonder why people mock Wikipedia? It's because of articles like this that are just references to Family Guy and Simpsons episodes.George Pelltier (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed nomination. Place {{afd1}} on the article, {{afd2}} on the nomination page, and {{afd3}} on the AfD log page. Thanks, cab (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination reasoning basically amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Popular culture is a perfectly valid subject, and describing the multiple cultural depictions of a particular individual seems perfectly reasonable to me. JulesH (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And in answer to the nominator's suggestion of mocking, I've _never_ heard anyone mock Wikipedia for having articles like this. I have heard people mocking Wikipedia for being too ready to delete articles because a small minority (that's us, here) didn't like them. JulesH (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful page which is inside our policies. Also per Jules Kingpin13 (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he were an actor, his appearances or credits would've been notable without question. The reason this is being questioned is because of the article title and the fact it lists a lot of cartoons. Neither is a particularly good reason to delete. It could use some more references, but the topic is notable enough to cover and obviously can't be covered reliably in the article about Hawking himself since it would cause bloat and doesn't fit with the academic context in there. Viable split. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom does not give a good reason for deletion other than "I don't like it". Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Stephen Hawking is one of the best-known physicists alive today, and he's bound to be noted by the entertainment industry. Wikipedia is there to take notice of this. It's true that many "in popular culture" articles or sections get crufty, but that doesn't mean popular culture is inherently evil. Also, the Stephen Hawking article is already over 44 kilobytes long, so merging this into there is not really an option. JIP | Talk 17:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - people mock Wikipedia because anyone can vandalize it and some of the "information" incorporated in articles here is less than definitive, not because it contains pop culture. I consider this AfD very poorly thought out, especially at a time when the man is in the news. - Denimadept (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment If it's just his "credits" as you say then why not merge with Stephen Hawking. This article sets a bad precedent for other celebrities to have their own 'in popular culture' pages. There's already Three's Company in Popular Culture which I also nominated. There now could easily be Mick Jagger in popular culture, Bart Simpson in popular culture and other articles which are just TV trivia. This is completely unencyclopedic.George Pelltier (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't. - Denimadept (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can we have Bart Simpson in popular culture? Bart Simpson is part of popular culture. JIP | Talk 06:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep this appropriate article. Could a passing admin please close this debate?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and you have some suggestions there for some good articles. I find it amazing that we don't have the two you mentioned. (the other nomination you mention is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three's Company in popular culture--I think it too is justified, though it obviously does not have anywhere near the same importance. DGG (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly WP:trivia, anything useful could go into the Stephen Hawking article, if anything it should be speedily deleted Aurush kazemini^talk 05:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ordinarily I'd say merge, but the sheer volume of material here warrants its own article as proof of his being somewhat of an icon. (I sure had no idea there were this many!) Link to it from the main article. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this topic is quite notable. It's not up to the deletion process to define "useless". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Isaac Newton in popular culture; Albert Einstein in popular culture, but not Richard Feynman in popular culture. i take it, some have a problem with "popular culture" articles, but the sociologists don't. pohick (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose Richard Feynman isn't much in popular culture. :-d - Denimadept (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Irrelevant WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination aside, an article on pop culture references does not mean we should immediately delete. I would prefer a merge, but there appears to be so many pop culture references here that merging looks unlikely, so keep and reference the thing. — Moe ε 13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial notability. This biography, for example, contains substantial discussion of his television appearances. DHowell (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article seems fine given his notability and there's rather too much information to merge into the already long article Hideki (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To show how such a brilliant scientific mind has become so well known, through references in popular culture, has great encyclopedia value. Dream Focus 03:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SNOWBALL Jwray (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zishan Engineers

Previously speedy deleted page and nominated again for speedy deletion. Although I don't think it would be speedy deletion candidate, I see clear problems with notability and I think it should be deleted through AfD procedure. Beagel (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Is there any indication of notable projects they worked on? If not Id agree that they are probably not notable enough for an article. Ill do a quick check myself Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt seem to be any notable projects i can recognise http://www.zishanengineers.com/projects.htm, They do have a few international jobs as well as numerous projects on the go, looking furtherOttawa4ever (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete after reading Wikipedia:Notability and doing a quick check on the web, I can find primary sources establishing interantional nobility in their projects, but aside from job postings and business directories I cant find anything (yet) to suggest notability in secondary sources Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quick check did not provide enough notability to be listed in en.wiki. weak delete Neozoon 20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just a further comment I was able to track down another source that mentions it as a partner to another firm. I dont know if this is eaxactly a secondary source but it may allow some indication that this article could be saved. Ill post in the articles discussion page Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After examining each comment, I've determined that the arguments in favor of deletion bear more weight than those in favor of retaining the article. As a result, there is consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three's Company in popular culture

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Three's Company in popular culture

fancruft and trivia Aurush kazemini^talk 05:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic and mostly just a collection of useless information. What this amounts to is meta-trivia where one TV show makes reference to another TV show. Totally useless and the reason Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously as a project.George Pelltier (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly appropriate. The references from one show to another are what constitute popular culture. If both the references and what's being referred to are notable, that's sufficient justification. DGG (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. if they're so notable, they can go in the Three's Company article, what exists now is a list of miscellaneous facts ("trivia"). Per the Wikipedia guidelines on trivia, "Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined. Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as they represent an easy way for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation; they can just add a new fact to the list. As articles grow, however, these lists may become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, whether in text, list, or table." Aurush kazemini^talk 05:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should be merged into the main Three's Company article. There is absolutely no need for a stand alone article. Alternatively, I jokingly propose we start several new articles: Three's Company in unpopular culture, Three's Company, a homoerotic analysis, and Three's Company, a defense of the polyamorous lifestyle disguised as a sitcom. --Nik (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Other stuff shouldn't exist" really isn't much of a better argument than "other stuff exists", now is it? DHowell (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There's enough usage of this term in cultural references, psychology and sociology topics that it warrants a separate page.—RJH (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – large heading split from main article per WP:SPLIT. Merge is possible as the main article would still be around 30 kilobytes. feydey (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate subtopic of an extremely notable television show. This is not a "trivia section", it is in fact a list of cultural references and allusions in "a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation", as the guidelines suggest we do. DHowell (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an assemblage of the most worthless trivia, such as:

"At the beginning of the U2 song "Vertigo", Bono exclaims "unos, dos, tres, catorce" which translates to "some, two, three, fourteen", This Spanish language counting, or miscounting, is possibly derived from the Three's Company episode "Doctor in the House"^[1]"

There may be three or four items worth moving to the article on Three's Company. Drawn Some (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not there anymore; thanks for pointing it out. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but trivial WP:OR with little to no bearing on the Three's Company article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Three's Company - Glorified trivia section. Useful info should be merged. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notable and verifiable bits like coverage in humor magazines. A merge would be fine too, but should be discussed on appropriate article talk pages. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The verifiable information can be sent to Three's Company, while the rest can be junked. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR and trivia. I doubt that a list of every time a mid-range American sitcom has been mentioned in any other media is useful to anyone apart from the most rabid of fans. No objection to userification if someone for some reason wants to move this content offsite. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete A list of trivia does not an encyclopedic article make. Some of the relevant material can be moved to Three's Company but passing trivial mentions of the show don't belong here in any article. None of this iinformation has been shown to be encyclopedic through discussion in reliable sources so the original research claim also appears to be valid. Them From Space 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a combination of original research, unreliably sourced, or simply not sourced at all. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is encyclopedic to see how a popular series influences many other notable series over time. There is enough information to warrant its own article, no sense erasing the majority of it to have just a token amount put in the main article, knowing someone would call that trivia and erase it entirely within the next month anyway. ♫♫♫♫♫ Dream Focus 01:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merely a listing of trivia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there was a mathematical way to tally the impact of TV on future TV, this would have one of the highest ratings. It is surprisingly well referenced but could be improved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia listing.—Kww(talk) 16:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The article does have some sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yourenew.com

Fails WP:Notability/Near advertising Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No RS; basically just an advertisement/directory entry. Sources added do not provide significant coverage. Springnuts (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete A7, no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --neon white talk 07:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have now been added. --neon white talk 08:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia may not be a web directory, but look at sources - relevant to consumers, relevant to recycling. 07:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC) (128.36.43.81 / 128.36.43.122)
Keep Fox News, New Haven Register, New Haven Independent and Yale Daily News are notable sources. This isn't promotion, it just explains the platform. 07:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC) (128.36.43.81 / 128.36.43.122)
Comment. Please note the two IP contributions above are by the same IP address and within a few minutes of each other ... and the IP address location is in New Haven which is also the location of the YouRenew company. Springnuts (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are both slightly different ips making valid points, well the second one is at least. --neon white talk 15:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Springnuts - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email | Editor Review 08:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been provided disproving this point. New Haven Independent , New Haven Register and FOX 61 News have all covered the site. --neon white talk 08:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with this - nothing substantial has been added. FWIW much of what has been added amounts to further advertising. I still say - delete. Springnuts (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still believe it's a delete for the same reasons as Springnuts.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is significant to exclusive coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources in the article (Norwell Mariner, New Haven Independent, New Haven Register, Yale Daily News, and Xconomy) that establish notability per WP:WEB, if not WP:GNG. Note that the Fox 61 News link seems to be broken. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The video is available but cannot be directly linked to. if you follow the link and go to page 2 of the video player, it's the top one titled 'Recycling Electronics, TV on the Web' dated 3/20. it contains significant coverage including interviews with the founders. --neon white talk 18:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. One month old site that is making a nice marketing campaign, gets news published on a few places, but... far from notable. - Nabla (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Hits (Korn album)

Non-charting "greatest hits" album. While a compilation may be notable for either containing unique material, or selling well enough to achieve notability, this release fits neither requirement. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons stated above:

Delete all, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as they pass WP:NALBUMS, Dalejenkins | 12:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: no significant coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete all, this is another case of users that think Wikipedia is an online database. Canniba loki 03:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all although merging the tracklistings in with some sort of discography article (Is there one?) is probably worth it. Other than that, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about these. ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Campagnola

Non notable musician - 327 ghits (includes many blogs and wiki mirrors), names dropped but proving unverifiable, eg. [25], no solo releases or awards TheClashFan (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not recieved sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to warrant an article:

Google web search finds his website, facebook profile, and nothing else related.
Google news search brings up nothing at all.

It actually reads like an advertisement to me.--Patton^t/c 13:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – The nominator has been indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable as above. I browsed through the artist's website but could not find resources there either. Hazir (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Paraguay relations

another random almost laughable pairing from the obsessive article creator. non resident ambassadors. no bilateral agreements whatsoever [26]. LibStar (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a shred of notability to be found in this random pairing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bizarre article. Not suprisingly, a Google search of 'Croatia Paraguay' doesn't return any usuable sources: [27] so WP:N isn't met Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with many of these, the foreign embassy sites of each nation involved supports the lack of notability. Is it worth establishing guidelines so we can PROD some of the more obviously pointless ones? ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotrus. The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[28]. Martintg (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random and pointless article, going nowhere and helping no one. Dahn (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails my standards, appears to fail WP:N. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Foreign relations of Estonia. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Peru relations

another random pairing from the obsessive article creator. even this says no agreements between 2 countries and modest trade. http://www.mfa.ee/eng/kat_176/7100.html LibStar (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no embassies, located on opposite sides of the world, no cultural/historic ties, etc. Non-notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - marginally more notable than some of the others in that at least there is an Honorary Consul, but that just means one businessman conducts trade between the two countries from what I can tell. ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong re-direct and merge into Foreign relations of Estonia. While relations between these two countries may not be notable by Wikipedia standards, they exist never the less. There are 192 countries within the UN, the Estonian foreign ministry lists relations with 72 and this is one of them. So it is not a random pairing. Martintg (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Estonia and Foreign relations of Peru. The content currently available does not appear to merit a separate article, and is better understood in the context of the overview articles. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus is achieved at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Martintg (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched in English and Spanish for information and am unable to find anything of note which could be used to build an article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. You have ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[29]. This behavior is rather disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is some evidence of relative notability, but I missed this one, and it may be too late to rescue. :-( Bearian (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece-Guyana relations

AfDs for this article:

another random pairing from the obsessive article creator. this link demonstrates no notable relationship.

Delete - granted, this just went through AfD, but the sources found then showed no evidence of a notable relationship (presidential visits and the like generally being the stuff of news), and no possibility of expanding the article has been shown in the interim, either. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Keep trying as many times as necessary. Goesquack (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some hint that this might just possibly be notable, perhaps, on a good day - but there are so many of these that I think it has to be up to the article to establish notability or we'll be here all day. ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. In addition, a renomination after only 2 weeks seems a bit excessive. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above should be disregarded as a vote for keep as it does not assess the notability of the article. it was heading for WP:SNOW in any case. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. And what do you mean it was heading for WP:SNOW? Another nomination of this article at AfD not even 2 weeks ago was closed as no consensus. Not a case for SNOW by any standard. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNothing substantial, indeed nothing logical in this pairing. Why it wasn't deleted the first time is beyond me. Dahn (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians of South Africa

No evidence that migration of Romanians to South Africa or the community today as a whole has been written about non-trivially by reliable sources. There are trivial mentions that confirm this community exists, but that's all I can find. I searched mostly in English with just some limited searches in Romanian because I don't speak it. If you do some searches in Romanian whether with positive or negative results, please mention the queries you used. Old proposed deletion in December 2007 removed by creator without improvement. Thanks, cab (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Google searches

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- one article about a dance festival [30]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- a bunch of hits of the form "..., Romanian, South African, ..."; nothing about Romanians in South Africa that I can see
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- two bulletin board threads discussing an individual Romanian winemaker who trained in South Africa
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- just discussion of the Romanian Embassy in Pretoria
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- trivial mention of the embassy

List of Google searches 2 because {{hidden}} breaks if it's all in one box

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- one article about a Romanian athlete who visited Cape Town for a competition [31]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- passing mention from a Romanian government website that there's a "large" Romanian community in South Africa, with no discussion or even a population figure [32]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- 97,000 hits, but most seem to be duplicates
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- a mention that Romanians and a bunch of other nationalities travel to South Africa for illegal organ transplant surgery [33] and that South Africa will open an embassy in Romania [34]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- 15 trivial mentions of Romanian investors, Romanian tourists, Romanian lions, and the Romanian ambassador
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- a trivial mention that representatives from the Romanian community of South Africa and several other countries were invited to a Romanian diaspora conference [35]
site:za "Romanian community", site:za "Romanian immigrants"; just gets hits about Romanians in other countries, not South Africa

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after several searches in Romanian, all I found was this, saying there are 3,000 Romanians in South Africa. But: a) that's not a reliable source (the site isn't professionally edited, and has an agenda of promoting the Romanian diaspora, often inflating its numbers/significance) b) if all even they could say was a number, we clearly can't write an article on this subject. The present one appears to be original research. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The size of the community alone makes it trivial. The sources that would establish notability haven't been shown to exist – and (almost certainly) don't exist in the first place. 9Nak (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Edison (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain–Cyprus relations

another random combination from the obsessive article creator. only a rather insignificant agreement between the 2 countries Cyprus Ministry of Foreign Affairs: list of bilateral treaties with Bahrain LibStar (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - deliciously random, but otherwise non-notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with all the others ~Excesses~ (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotrus. The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[36]. Martintg (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another one in a long series of spam. I don't see how any ongoing debate could "salvage" this article, if that it what's expected, and in case it matters naught that it's ongoing. Dahn (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch my A**

Non-notable film. Doesn't even have an IMDB entry, and a number of Google searches turned up nothing except this article (well, and a whole bunch of unrelated vulgarity). Prod removed without explanation by an IP. Would appear to meet neither WP:MOVIE or WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi Lankiveil... thanks for your input. Not every film will have an IMDB entry. It's slated for production in the middle of this year. There are references to notable production houses in Singapore, though we do consider ourselves a small industry.

I'm trying to see if we can collect more information on the film industry in Singapore, so as to add to the internationalization of content in wikipedia.

Please consider reverting your deletion.

cheers.

michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadbard (talk • contribs) 04:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Unreferenced article about a film that's not yet in production. None of the links mentioned in the article provide any information to verify the film. It's nearly speedy deletable is being blatant advertising, the way it's written. —C.Fred (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how a film that's not even in production yet has any place on an encyclopedia. It would take a seriously controversial production plan that had attracted comment (or something) for a movie to make its way onto WP at the pre-production stage. Hazir (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely due to lack of IMDB entry - there's plenty that's been deleted that is notable enough to have an IMDB entry but still fails WP:NN ~Excesses~ (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable and so far nonexistent. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: still too far from gaining fame. Alexius08 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Warning the article's creator has been spamming my talk page with nonsense, presumably because I voted to delete his article. You may wish to check on your own Userpages. Thanks Hazir (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas financial group

A procedural nomination to determine editorial viability. This article was already the subject of a declined speedy delete nomination (a justified admin action, IMHO) and a removed Prod tag. A Google news search only turns up a single BusinessWeek article on the subject: [37]. WP:ORG requires coverage in more than one media source, which is lacking here. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

DO NOT Delete - It is one of the largest groups at the most renowned academic institution in the world. It is indeed referenced in the Harvard College page - and it has the most widespread and noted sponsorship of any pre-professional club at Harvard, and likely the United States. It is also perhaps the most well represented group in the financial services industry for the past three years- with many graduates going on to work on Wall Street. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvard1995 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - how can an organisation that's not even 2 years old have a "global reputation for producing leaders and innovators in the financial services industry" already? It's not notable enough to be even referenced on the Harvard Business School or Harvard College pages - sounds to me like a student society with a posh name. The news story linked to from the article itself says "it's the 13th undergraduate business organization available on the Cambridge campus alone." ~Excesses~ (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clubs at individual colleges aren't generally notable, and this doesn't seem like an exception to that rule. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Notability clearly not established by sources. ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Harvard is notable and this prominent campus organization should be by extension. Other less notable groups Leadership Institute at Harvard College, [Radcliffe Pitches]], for example have pages.

Neutral/Comment, If anything, the article is misleading. The article reads "...has a global reputation for producing leaders and innovators..." and uses reference #2 to back this claim. However, the reference listed makes no such backing to this claim, and states that Veritas is one of many such organizations on the Harvard campus. At this point, I really can't say for one way or the other. If expanded upon and given additional sources, it could be notable for it's pramirly minority membership and if it actually has any notable alumni (which may be unlikely given the relatively short span of time since it's inception). Again, this is only provided it is backed by reputable 3rd party sources, and properly referenced in the article. JogCon (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, so far the arguments only validate an edit. The page should exist because the article attracts interest from many Harvard students who wish to learn more about the organization. Although it can be argued that the "misleading" parts of the article should be changed, deleting the page all together would not be fair to the club and those who simply want to find out more. It would undermine the services that wiki provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rendude (talk • contribs) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC) — Rendude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Non-Notable "club". ttonyb1 (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Beginning

Appears to have no independent notability per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Beatles as musicians: the Quarry Men through Rubber soul by Walter Everett (ISBN 0195141059, 9780195141054) states the song was first recorded for inclusion to the White Album, which is backed by The rough guide to the Beatles by Chris Ingham (ISBN 1843531402, 9781843531401) but strange enough is doubted by Everett's second part of The Beatles as Musicians (Revolver Through the Anthology, ISBN 0195129415, 9780195129410). The Complete Guide to the Music of the Beatles by Patrick Humphries (ISBN 0711966222, 9780711966222), The unreleased Beatles by Richie Unterberger (ISBN 0879308923, 9780879308926) and The Lennon companion by Elizabeth Thomson and David Gutman (ISBN 0306812703, 9780306812705) also mention the song, but I don't know to what extend. Maybe someone has additional secondary literature. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as minor as a Beatles song can be, but it's still a Beatles song, if only just barely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, my problem is that if this were by *insert random band name that isn't the Beatles* it'd be redirected in a flash - it in no way passes WP:MUSIC - ("Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."). Obviously it gets mentioned quite a bit (see above) because it's related to the Beatles, but still ... Black Kite 12:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We mustn't forget that WP:MUSIC (and similar) aren't a blood oath: they offer guidance toward what, in general, indicates that a subject is likely to pass general notability, specifically coverage in reliable sources. In cases where a band is so epically notable that every song is scrutinised in not just one but several complete discographies published as books, the general notability guideline extends notability to potentially every song by that band. Of course, the number of artists to achieve this sort of notability in the post-classical era is so small that they can be counted on one hand, so it's not like such coverage is going to flood the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You can insert a *random band name* and you'd have a footnote song by a random band, but The Beatles aren't a random band. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Or merge to Anthology 3) I agree with the above comments that Beatles songs have greater inherent notability than those of many other artists, however this particular song has no external references (except the liner notes) which establish the notability of the work. It didn't chart, it wasn't written by the Beatles, and it wasn't released in any format until 1996 when it was only included as filler for another track what was unavailable. Given that, I can't see how this meets our notability criteria, even given its pedigree. JRP (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent notability, no charts, not a single. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A-Kartoffel is a sockpuppet of JamesBurns. Comment struck out. Uncle G (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent notability; only our cultural and generational biases give it even an illusion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anthology 3. I'm happy for Beatles articles to have a slightly lower bar for notability than other artists, but even then this extremely minor throwaway track wouldn't meet that bar. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I am in agreement with Mr. Lenahan and Mr. Cardinal regarding the notability of the subject. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Or merge to Anthology 3) - Yeah, it's the Beatles but this is really scraping the notability barrel. Hazir (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my above comment. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 00:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dielog

The article is about a supposed "international movement," although attempts to confirm this via Google produce nothing. The article does not meet WP:N or WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No outside refs, no news hits, no reliable sources found. The Lien Foundation might be notable -- it's got a few news mentions -- but Dielog isn't. Graymornings_(talk) 03:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you can try to check dielogue... it's linked to the actual life before death campaign. The site dielogue.org, dielog.org is basically the same movement... its a defination of what it is... a conversation about death, or the dying. A movement is also defined by the people... and its a concept. I don't understand why a certain concept cannot be accepted in wikipedia. It will only add value... you can define what dielog is on your own terms...

please revert your deletion statement. there is really no reason why you should not consider such a noble cause as futile.

thanks... pastor.

hi pastor and wikipedia team ... i added 2 reference and some definitions of what will possibly work for the article. Just to state that dielog and dielogue are the same thing, just different in spelling only... its something totally meaningful and you should also be part of this as well... please add what is your definition of DIELOG in the page and start contributing your story to the movement. I'm sure you have much to say about death and the dying...

thanks and regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadbard (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I can't find much in terms of notability for the different spelling. It may be a noble cause, but it first has to gain widespread attention before it merits a Wikipedia article. Check out our notability guidelines for more details. You might also find this page on how to create your first article helpful. Graymornings_(talk) 22:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info... I added the ref for Die-logue... and some new definition on the page. One notable one was by a Minister in Singapore... will that qualify? I've read the page on how to create your first article. Thanks... DIELOG, Dielogue, Die-logue is not something out of thin air... its a serious subject with real people behind this. Thanks again for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.247.102 (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The links provided don't make it clear that there's a movement, per se. Plus, they're all related-party links. In the absence of independent coverage, delete. —C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's [no third party coverage] for this 'movement'. Hazir (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Abacab. I've left a note for the people at the article so anything useful can be merged later. Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like It or Not

Fails notability per WP:NSONGS. Album track only, never released as a single. No chart performance Paul75 (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abacab as plausable search term. PC78 (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Abacab - Non-single album tracks can be notable, but this article as it stands right now doesn't establish notability. But the content is appropriate for the Abacab article. Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redir oto Abacab. ThuranX (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-charting song that fails to demonstrate notability WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable song. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A-Kartoffel is a sockpuppet of JamesBurns. Comment struck out. Uncle G (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abacab as likely search term. Graymornings_(talk) 03:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Senegal–Turkey relations

Random X-Y country relations pairing. Fails WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 03:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any evidence of notable relations between these two (outside of football). - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some of the agreements listed on the Turkish foreign affairs site are in some way significant, but they all look like collective agreements at first glance. ~Excesses~ (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and no context. The article contains no actual info. TheAE talk/sign 19:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notable relationship. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Vietnam relations

Looks like another random X-Y county relations pairing, fails WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 03:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a couple of propaganda releases saying the two "should strengthen ties", but that a) is symbolic fluff and b) would indicate ties are not that strong at the moment. Which is unsurprising, given the two have fairly little in common. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they have little in common, regardless of what WP:N might say about the relationship. JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a lot of room for expansion. 5,000+ news results indicates there is something that could be built from this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Filter out the mirrors of press releases from the 2 countries, and the results having nothing to do with diplomatic relations, and there are not so many results. Edison (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What Edison said; besides, none of these articles study the relationship as such, merely interactions between the two countries that you have decided constitute evidence of a notable relationship, in violation of WP:SYNTH. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, many of the news reports are about non-diplomatic relations. Canvasback (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as JustOneMoreQuestion. Uncle G (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bilateral relations do not just relate to political/diplomatic relations, but relations between those countries which come about by those political/diplomatic relations. Such things include trade/economics, military, cultural, etc, and there is plenty just within the google news results in which to build an article. More sources would also be found in Russian and Vietnamese languages. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Russavia, see also Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --Miacek (t) 17:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stub remains unsourced, and i can find no reliable, independent sources that discuss this relationship in any non-trivial depth on my own. Clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline hoax, and per precedents. Dahn (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the official Vietnamese government view can be found in English here. there's a complete lack of formal agreements, just more friendship statements and we will look to cooperate in future. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand–Uruguay relations

Looks like another random X-Y country relations article pairing, no evidence of notability. tempodivalse [☎] 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they're on opposite sides of the world and don't have that much diplomatic clout, so it's no wonder sources are not forthcoming. Non-notable pairing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of significant trade, cultural or diplomatic ties. another laughable random combinationLibStar (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Nightingale

No citations, personal opinion, non-neutral point of view (lines like "Today, Earl Nightingale is remembered as the greatest philosopher of his time, and his best selling programs and books continue to sell daily, and inspire new generations around the world, to reach their highest potential." have no place on Wikipedia. Scalethink (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Badly written article, but certainly notable as a quick Google search can prove. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 04:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It is easy to nominate to delete. However, I was always under the opinion that we should require all editors to do a little work such as background investigation before nominating. A quick Google News search gives the following results [38]. Does the article need a rewrite, Yes. But that is not a valid reason for an AFD nomination. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Easily satisfies WP:BIO. A Google Book search shows 641 results. Many are books by Nightingale, but a number are significant coverage in books by others. He starred on the 1940's radio show Sky King. He started the audio self-improvement industry. His recording "The Strangest Secret" was a gold record as the largest selling non-entertainment record. He was a syndicated radio speaker with a program heard daily in 38 countries, and is in the Radio Hall of Fame. See "Secrets of superstar speakers"(2000) by Lillet Walters, pages 52-57. He is discussed in a great many self-help books and described as a pioneer in that field or an inspiration to the writer. Edison (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trimmed the POV with a chainsaw, but the article is still quite lacking in sources. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Cleanup; I have a passing familiarity with Nightingale, and would say that his notability has been established. This article DOES need to be cleaned. Badly. --mhking (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Uruguay relations

Another X-Y country relations article that might not meet WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 03:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsurprisingly, evidence of notability is not forthcoming on this one. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Kenya relations

Another X-Y country relations article that probably fails WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability in the form of strategic interests, shared history and the like to this relationship. True, Ireland does give tens of millions of euros to Kenyan NGOs and relief programmes, but rich countries giving to poor ones is hardly unusual, and isn't really something a viable article can be constructed out of. It's much more useful to mention this in a Foreign aid to Kenya article, especially as that's the only place they seem to intersect. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a relationship which is only notable in terms of aid. People searching for this title are looking in the wrong place. JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, visits from foreign ministers are routine and highly staged events. JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and discussion of the Irish in Kenya probably belongs somewhere else too. JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X–Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like User:Plumoyr is going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I'm not opposed to this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. Disc space is cheap. Human time and effort are not. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:NOHARM for why this is invalid. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Mbhiii sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...not if shared or not used to circumvent policy. Do you see both (or either) here? -MBHiii (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable independent sources discuss this alleged relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources are available to verify this relationship, which has a significant enough impact especially in Kenya to surely merit an article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angola–Bulgaria relations

Another X-Y country relations article that may not meet WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 03:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources to indicate a notable relationship. There may have been one under Communism, and it's true Bulgaria sold arms to both sides in the Angolan Civil War, but there's probably not enough there to write a viable article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notable relationship. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Biruitorul points out precise reasons why the relationship is notable. [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], and on and on they go. It seems to me that many of these nominations smack of WP:RECENTISM. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Edison (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above.Biophys (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Russavia. -- llywrch (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, me too for the reasons brought by Russavia. I also agree regarding the problems with recentism in quite a number of these sort of rfd.--Aldux (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Select Baseball

Unsourced article about unpopular game. Alexius08 (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a dictionary definition for youth baseball, which is covered in articles on Little League, AAU, etc. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the above. Only claim to notability is a vague mention of being "very popular". No sources cited. JIP | Talk 17:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite The term is notable, and with a better article, would be worthy of a keep. However, as written, this article is not it. Select Baseball is not simply a term for youth baseball, it is a subsection of youth baseball where a team is formed under a special coach or coaches (e.g., a professional) to play a higher caliber of baseball than what would ordinarily be offered, to travel, and/or to get additional instruction. Select teams are generally financed by parents and cost a great deal more for the child to play on than a standard youth team. Eauhomme (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article now in an attempt to rescue it. It is not sourced, since I don't have time to research it. I was a youth baseball umpire for 15 years, and it is written from that perspective. Please feel free to do whatever is needed to improve it, source it, rescue it, whatever. Eauhomme (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pure spam. No claim of importance or significance for this for-profit youth sports scheme. The creator also inserted a reference in another article and these are his only edits. I have removed the spam links from both articles until it is deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not referenced and not noteable Tresiden (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hamazkayin. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megerdich Megerdichian

I had originally redirected this, but the redirect was undone. Fails WP:Biography, as he is not really notable outside of the company he is on the board of. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. CEOs with no demonstration of outside notability generally redirect to the article on their company. Protect if necessary. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. — Jake Wartenberg 00:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Page Protect to avoid trouble later. Non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguay–Romania relations

another random almost laughable combination. non resident ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find no sources in English, Spanish or Romanian on this one. There's unlikely to be much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found which give this any degree of notability. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly non-notable, and a discussion elsewhere is no substitute for this one. For those who assume foreign language sources exist, here are the results for a "Paraguay" search on Romania's foreign ministry site. Dahn (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–Paraguay relations

another random almost laughable combination. non resident ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two fairly small countries on opposite sides of the world are unlikely to have notable relations, and no sources indicate they do. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous directory-type information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to establish notability on, and not likely to, either. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, weak keep I managed to find one source after roughly 30 seconds of searching, [50], and there may be more out there... Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- a) You can't really have a viable article saying "Bulgaria and Paraguay have relations, any by the way, they also have a treaty regarding visa suppression for holders of all types of passports"; b) We would need a secondary source telling us why that treaty matters; see WP:PSTS for details. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotrus. The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[51]. Martintg (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random and trivial. Dahn (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2009 NBA Playoffs. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NBA Eastern Conference Playoffs

An unnecessary content fork of 2009 NBA Playoffs. All useful content can be merged with the main article. The original merger discussion is here where the creator suggested afd. —Chris! _ct 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.—Chris! _ct 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. NBA Conference Playoffs are as notable as the main Playoffs and Finals. Several content not found at the main playoffs article, and probably won't make it to the <year> NBA Playoffs such as game highs, referees, tip-off time, attendance and the like are there, thus making it not "unnecessary". Plus, if the NJIT Highlanders with a Google result of 17,800 has an article, so should this article with 66,100. Yeah, this is basically WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but this is rather a good comparison. –Howard the Duck 06:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: 2008 NBA Playoffs currently stands at 54 kilobytes, and all of the "unnecessary" information isn't even there. If this doesn't warrant a WP:SPLIT, I dunno what will. –Howard the Duck 06:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with 2009 NBA Western Conference Playoffs. Mandermagic (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the above, wouldn't merging with the Western Conference article be the same as merging with the main Playoff article? Digirami (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.—Chris! _ct 05:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this to any 2009 NBA Playoffs-related article will violate WP:SIZE regulations in the long run. –Howard the Duck 14:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even after merging I don't think the article will be extremely long. Also WP:SIZE is just a guideline. Even the banner on top said "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions."—Chris! _ct 23:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, byt 54kb? Isn't that a tad too much? And my "merge" that means adding the players that had game highs, attendance, quarter scoring and the referees. –Howard the Duck 12:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2009 NBA Playoffs. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NBA Western Conference Playoffs

An unnecessary content fork of 2009 NBA Playoffs. All useful content can be merged with the main article. The original merger discussion is here where the creator suggested afd. —Chris! _ct 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since apparently all the other NBA playoffs articles are in one page per year, e.g. 1998 NBA Playoffs. No reason why 2009 should be different except recentism. But, do we really need 2 AFDs here? It's not like we'd keep the Western Conf. playoffs article but merge the eastern Conf. one. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I guess I should've afd both in one nom.—Chris! _ct 04:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge with 2009 NBA Eastern Conference Playoffs. Mandermagic (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The 2009 NBA Playoffs is the main article. So do you mean merge with 2009 NBA Playoffs?—Chris! _ct 05:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW (no prejudice against relisting in a couple of months if no improvements occur). Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France–Serbia_relations

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/France–Serbia relations

Another one of those ridiculous articles on foreign relations between two countries that states nothing beyond the fact that diplomatic relations exist. Delete Pstanton (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - France had a lot to say during the Yugoslav wars, participating in bombings and hosting the Rambouillet Agreement; there are a healthy number of Serbs in France; the two were allies (albeit in different theatres, and with a WWII "France" operating from London) in WWI and WWII; France was deeply involved in the Little Entente (France saw itself as Yugoslavia's protector); and relations were strained in the 1960s because de Gaulle would not forgive Tito for having executed General Mihailovich. The question is: is this enough for a coherent standalone article, or is the material better covered across several articles? I lean toward the latter, so I guess this qualifies as a "weak delete". - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable and has great room for expansion. Relations established in the late 19th century, and then there's that whole World War I thing that happened. In light of history, relations between European nations would generally meet basic notability, and should be expanded. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be expected that these countries would have substantial involvement, from WWI, WWII, and later. At the very least, lone should conduct a minimal search before nominating. it does not help get rid of the many inappropriate articles here to nominate the expandable ones without discrimination. The material Biruitorul found is enough for an unambiguous keep. DGG (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the relations articles that is worth keeping. It could use some referenced expansion, but the history of these two countries justifies an article. Shadowjams (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the history between both countries, I think this is a bilaterial relations article that ought to be kept. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Unlike most of the X-Y foreign relations articles, this one has a significant history behind it (especially with two World Wars). Pastor Theo (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep Easily meets WP:N Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep This is what happens if we start throwing the baby out with the bathwater with these bilateral relations articles. It makes one wonder about how much thought has gone into the deletion rationales of some of the other articles listed recently. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. In the case of an unreferenced BLP, this no-consensus result should default to delete, with a clear understanding that it can be created once properly referenced. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khristine Hvam

proposed by an IP address Hekerui (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason is given for deletion... In light of that fact, lets err on the side of caution and keep the article. It is admittedly a stub, but I can't see any reason to simply delete it at this point. Lets keep it and try and expand it. --Pstanton (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No indications of notability (the character she played on the TV series was 1 episode) and no third party sources are reasons to me. TJ Spyke 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pokémon:_The_Rise_of_Darkrai#Cast; concur that this is a disappointing nomination. JJL (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Calathan (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on her work on notable audio books as well. http://www.khristinehvam.com/clients.html Dream Focus 11:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources that discuss the subject of a BLP? Then no BLP.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Nom didn't state an opinion as to why this should be deleted. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks any secondary sources and any assertion of notability. It's been around for 10 months with no improvement. It's had time to be improved. I support keep/recreation if secondary sources are added. Otherwise delete. The fact that the deletion didn't have a good rationale is irrelevant. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced BLP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nominator withdrew but there are still outstanding delete comments. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if the article isn't improved. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid (role-playing game)

Non-notable, possible COI ViperSnake151 Talk 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G2 and possibly A1. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This also qualifies possible as G11 per the author's username (HYBRID.RPG). --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a question as to whther HYBRID should even be considered an RPG, but it has been reviewed. [52]. It's also been rated by rpg.net as the second worst roleplaying game of all time [53] and the second worst roleplaying book of any kind. [54] Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So hold on, I'm going to rewrite this article. Consider this a withdrawl. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Nominator has withdrawn but there are outstanding delete !votes. Relisting for further comments on the nominator's rewrite. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep, I have seen HYBRID discussed previously, and always wondered what the hell the author was on about. Should be kept for now if the nominator is going to work on it, without prejudice for renomming further down the line if nothing is turned up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as per Lankiveil. Edward321 (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Promotions

Non-notable company per WP:Notability (companies), no reliable sources per WP:RS supporting notability, prod contested by author MuffledThud (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does have some coverage here: "LaPorte pointed out a number of VW Drag Buses, each with a very involved paint job. He said these were the work of a Liberty Promotions of Dallas, Texas, which has exotic graphic work applied to existing Hot Wheels models and sells them in limited editions for about $35.

“We take existing pieces and paint them different colors,” said Liberty president Lee Pearlman, adding, “We often send them back to the factory in China where they were originally made.”

He said the 1996 VW Drag Bus, which was designed by Phil Riehlman (Larry Wood is another big designer) and is jacked up with a large spoiler angling off the rear of the roof, had been one of Mattel’s most successful Hot Wheels. “It was the Michael Jordan of Hot Wheels,” he said, adding that his company bought about 250,000 of them to customize and release in limited editions. The company also customizes vehicles for companies, trade shows and conventions, such as the current Rhode Island expo. Steve Zalimas of Leominster, Mass., said he has been collecting seriously since 1995. He said he focuses on “Mainliners,” or the basic cars that were priced at a dollar when they first came out and he now has about 10,000 cars in his collection, which is stored throughout his house. “I’m big into variations (of any one model),” he said." [55] I'm leaning towards a weak keep and some severe pruning. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The above link to the Providence Journal found above by CoM is the only reliable source so far, and it has about 150 words on Liberty Promotions. (Much of that article is about the Hot Wheels cars generally, and not specifically about Liberty Promotions). It's not that the idea itself lacks significance, it's the fact that hardly anyone writes about this company. There are a few words about Liberty Promotions in our Hot Wheels article, and I think that's about all that the sources can justify. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not independently notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.

I have proposed this page for deletion, because its only purpose is to promote the company. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Copyright violation of [56], also A7... well sourced factually but no assertion of notability. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the speedy. I could only see one sentence in the whole article which matches that on Zoominfo and it is not clear which came first. Nancy ^talk 17:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he might have refactored some of the text after the fact (that problem is solved), because when I originally looked several paragraphs were infringing. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not the greatest article in the world but it it is reasonably comprehensive, is well sourced, shows notability as influencing the design of notable buildings as well as receiving various awards and does not strike me as particularly promotional - certainly not to the extent that it should be deleted. Nancy ^talk 17:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after some trimming and rewriting. A major company in its field, as proven by the awards. DGG (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability asserted by awards and demonstrated by coverage in reliable sources. The article is still contains some excessive information and some slightly unencyclopedic phrasing, but certainly appears salvageable. ~ mazca ^t|c 09:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Slovenia relations

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that may not meet WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 00:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as typical random bilateral pairing with no notability established; the salient fact of their both being EU members is covered at Member State of the European Union. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply existing does not establish notability. --Pstanton (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous directory-type information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, nothing of merit to this topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

India–Paraguay relations

Another X-Y country relations article that might fail WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 00:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - aside from the fact that the two "agreed to explore prospects of stepping up trade" in 2002 (which is to be expected, given India's size), there's no particular evidence of notability in this relationship, and the embassy is already documented at Diplomatic missions of Paraguay. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No particular reason for having this article. Diplomatic relations existing isn't reason for an encyclopedia article. --Pstanton (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having searched in English and Spanish for notable relations I have been unable to find anything of substance. There are relations with MERCOSUR, so that may have to be investigated, but as a standalone, I'm edging towards delete on this one. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous directory-type information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, there's nothing to this topic.--BlueSquadronRaven 15:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

India–Malta relations

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that seems to fail WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - India is large enough that its bilateral relations may more often than not be notable, but this particular relationship lacks that notability. Even the Indian government notes that relations have been "friendly and cordial", but says little else. No sources indicate any deeper relations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lets just say this is a WP:SNOWBALL and delete it, its just another one of those uninformative fluff articles that serves no purpose. --Pstanton (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please please please do not use WP:SNOW or WP:SNOWBALL without understanding how it works. You were the second !vote yet you take it upon yourself to misuse policies which often messes up AfDs. Anti venin 10:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, deployment of Indian troops in Malta is no indication of a notable relationship, neither are bilateral trade treaties or visits by foreign ministers and heads of state. Could there be a blizzard on the way? IfYouDontMind (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above user has been blocked for abusing multiple accountsDGG (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having searched for notable relations I have been unable to find anything of substance. Trade statistics is basically the only thing I can find, and this is perhaps more suited to an article on trade of both countries, i.e. Trade statistics of India or something similar. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous directory-type information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of embassies gives an idea. Punkmorten (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources and aspects of relationship uncovered by User:Marcusmax at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta-Asia relations, who I quote: [ Keep India–Malta relations ] "per per this circa 1800's New York Times article detailing the invasion of Malta by the government of India, BBC article on Indians who were arrested my Malta, article detailing buisness relations between two, One of many articles detailing some kind of boat incident and on top of that both countries are former British colonies." Abecedare (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as once again, there's nothing of note here. Of the above given sources, one has to do with relations before either became a modern sovereign nation, one has to do with relations to Indian businessmen, not the government, Indians being arrested in Malta is a criminal matter, not a diplomatic one and a boat accident, again, not really involving government on both sides except as victims might be concerned. The fact that they were both former British colonies makes their relations to the U.K. notable, not to each other. Non-notable on the world stage. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hold up real quick, since when do sources mean nothing? Let me do a once over and start attempting a rescue. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated - I have updated the article to the point where it is not like a directory article, work is still needed but it should be good enough for a keep. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have struck my delete above, and am changing to keep based upon work done by Marcusmax in establishing some notability which can be further expanded. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what we have here is a juxtaposition of random bits of news that Marcusmax (with all due respect) has decided are notable. We don't have any source that covers the relationship as such. As pointed out by BlueSquadron, what happened in the 1870s and WWII is a subject of Imperial British history, not of "India–Malta relations". And then the rest of the article is basically "they meet, they trade, they seek 'stronger cultural ties'" (sourced in part, I might add, from primary sources, in violation of WP:PSTS) - not really a viable article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many thanks to Marcusmax for tracking down some sources. While it seems that bilateral relations articles have become the great inclusionist-deletionist battle of our times, the fact of the matter is that we do have a neutral, verifiable article on this subject now. Yes, the article is short and imperfect, but that is not the criteria for inclusion. Cool3 (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, what we have is a hash that violates WP:PSTS (assigning importance to treaties without secondary sources having done so), WP:SYNTH (randomly selecting a pastiche of trivia and deciding that together, it forms a notable whole, without having that validated by secondary sources), and WP:NOR (consigning activities in two parts of the British Empire to the realm of "India–Malta relations"), stringing together bits of information about a subject covered nowhere as such in order to generate the appearance of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I don't see the WP:SYNTH in this article nowhere am I adding a+b to give me c. Perhaps I need some more secondary sources, but in a short period of time it is easier said then done (but I am working on it). Plus ignoring the cultural treaty and looking toward the economics section I have provided a 3rd party source stating a rise of 300% in trade in the past few years. And finally as for the NOR you will have to give an exact example for me to know where the issue lies so it can be corrected. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like many such articles, this breaks with WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT. Dahn (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, the british government moved forces from British India to Malta in the 19th century. This has nothing to do with these two nation's relationship. There is no relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marcumax has built this into a perfectly acceptable article. -- llywrch (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:SYNTH, WP:PSTS and WP:NOR problems remain glaring. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I have stated above, you have yet to show where the WP:SYNTH is taking place, and an exact instance of the WP:NOR. As for the primary sources, I am working on the issue but keep in mind there are plenty of other refs besides the treaties. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've laid out the problems before, but I'll do so again.
  - The overriding concern is that no single work (let alone multiple works) - no newspaper or magazine article, no section in a book, not to mention an entire book - deals with "India–Malta relations". Thus, the only remaining option, the one you have chosen, is to take disparate bits of information from very different contexts, decide on your own that they form evidence of notability in the India–Malta relations, and put them together. In other words, you're putting together A and B and C to advance the conclusion that an India–Malta relationship deemed worthy of attention by reliable sources exists - but it doesn't.
  - As to specifics: what happened in 1878 was a) very minor and not something we'd ever cover were we not looking for trivia to dump in here b) an internal matter of the British Empire, not a function of India–Malta relations. What happened in WWII is marginally more important, but again an affair of the British Government, and can be far more logically covered in one of myriad other articles: Indian Army (1895–1947), India in World War II, 10th Indian Infantry Division, etc.
  - Footnotes 1, 2, 4 and 8, along with the text that they support, are primary sources and thus, since their importance has not been assessed by secondary sources, cannot be used by us to validate anything.
  - The remaining information on economic ties is essentially trivial and again selected more to fill the article than because we'd ever mention it anywhere else, but if genuinely notable, Economy of Malta can use some expansion.
  - I think I've explained the SYNTH and PSTS problems. To the extent a notable relationship is being derived from this string of trivia, that's also original research, as is the inclusion of pre-independence events that have nothing whatever to do with the purported topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pre-Independence or not two entites can still have relationships that date back before being independent, a perfect example of this is Montenegro and Serbia, or the US colonies and Britain, or France. Perhaps I am a coming an out of the closet inclusionist as my recent trends appear to show, but on Wikipedia we do have room for "some" relations articles if we can find sources for them. Perhaps an article never came out with a title "India–Malta relations" but not trying to cry other stuff exists, but in all honesty it does we have at our disposal many articles that offer facts on economics and political relationships on these countries that can justify a keep. But thanks Biruitorul, for your opinion and I will look into what you have said with urgent need. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That claim is at best iffy, and in the present situation, as I've pointed out, the WWII stuff is far better covered in more relevant articles on the Indian Army during the war. As for the 1878 deployment - yes, it's mentioned here, but as part of a wider article on operations of the Indian Army (1895–1947) - an article that also mentions deployments to Cyprus, Burma, China, Afghanistan, South Africa, Malaysia and Yemen. That article needs further development and the Indian Army's various operations put into their proper context - not one operation of a dozen plucked out of context and mentioned, implausibly, in an article on "India–Malta relations" entirely divorced from a wider discussion of what the Indian Army was, what it was doing and why. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Biruitorul, I am honestly scratching my head over your claim that Marcusmax advocates a new or original conclusion. What claim is that? That India & Malta had contacts & a relationship? He simply set forth the facts which he found, & added no interpretations which lead the reader to novel conclusions. No interpretation about the treaties the 2 countries signed. This is what those acronyms you allude to mean. -- llywrch (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        However, he's setting them forth out of context ("here's what was going on in the British Empire in 1878! And here's some agreements these two former British colonies signed!") and without the benefit of a secondary source that deals with the relationship itself, not isolated bits of what we may consider to be notable. Regarding the treaties in particular, we need secondary sources telling us they matter, and matter in the context of this relationship. Otherwise, they're really not worth mentioning, because no secondary sources have deemed them worthy of mention. Compare, say, Jay's Treaty or the Treaty of Portsmouth with the India-Malta Agreement on economic, industrial, scientific and technological cooperation - the first two are meaningful because multiple authorities have bothered to study them; the latter is irrelevant, as no one outside the respective foreign ministries has likely written a word about it.
        
        The point I am driving at (and I agree throwing out acronyms can lead to confusion sometimes) is simply that the notability of a relationship is confirmed by scholars or at least newspapers telling us it (it - not random aspects thereof) is notable; not through us selecting bits of what we consider notable information and trying to ascribe notability to the resulting product. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Although your command of alphabet soup is very impressive, I have to question the validity of the acronyms which are being quoted. Often acronym arguments are not challenged in AfDs, which is a shame, because often the acronyms are improperly used.
        WP:PSTS states that we are to use secondary sources. This article only used secondary sources. So this acronym is misued here.
        WP:NOR WP:Synth can you give any examples of original research or synthisis? Other than WP:IINFO, WP:Synth is probably the most misunderstood and misused acronym in a deletion debate.
        RE: "We don't have any source that covers the relationship as such." this is now an invalid argument (see ministry quote below), and I would apprecaite that you strike it.
        Thank you. Ikip (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have further expanded the article adding a few more secondary sources, including a news report by Press Trust of India, a published study on the historical immigration of Indian traders to Malta, and a book chapter on immigration in Malta that discusses the local Indian community. Note that these are in addition to the secondary sources (New York Times, MaltaMedia and the Economic Times) already added by User:Marcusmax . Abecedare (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Abecedare, for your assistance. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two more sources added to explain the geo-political significance of the Indian troops in Malta in 1878. Abecedare (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the vast improvements by Marcusmax and Abecedare. Though Biruitorul may still think otherwise, the article now looks encyclopedic. Salih (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Salih FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per major improvements by Marcusmax and Abecedare. Ikip (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please note this source, which was just added to the article from the India Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
"India's relations with Malta have been strong. Foreign Minister Dr. Frendoin a speech in the Parliament mentioned he wanted to make India a focus area in Malta's foreign policy. PM Frendo visited India in March 2005. The six-day visit was the first high level visit after a gap of 13 years, when the then President Tabone visited India. At present, Malta has an Honorary Consul in Delhi and Mumbai. It is planning to open a Mission in Delhi. The year 2005 is marked by the visit of our Commerce Minister to Malta for CHOGM in November and that of a Parliamentary delegation from West Bengal Legislative Assembly, led by ShriHashim Abdul Halim, Speaker, in August 2005."
Other than WP:IINFO, WP:Synth is probably the most misunderstood and misused acronym in a deletion debate. Ikip (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - footnotes 1, 5, 7, 8 and 12 are primary sources. Not to sound pedantic, but the Ministry blurb about the relationship (aside from detailing a relationship that, when you peel away the inflated language, is pretty trivial) is a primary source, and thus cannot be used to validate the argument that this relationship has been studied by secondary sources. (Unlike, say, US-Cuba or Britain-France.) That is where the heart of the synthesis lies: in the gathering together of disparate bits that we, as opposed to scholars or journalists, consider evidence of a notable relationship. And it veers into original research when discussing pre-independence events that have nothing to do with India–Malta relations.

Regarding more recent additions: information on Indians in Malta could be included in an Indians in Malta article, since it doesn't directly deal with the title topic (though I agree that if kept, it doesn't make sense to split the article that way). As for what happened in 1878: again, it makes far more sense (even overlooking the fact that there was no Malta to have relations with any India at the time) to cover this as part of a wider article on operations of the Indian Army (1895–1947), rather than pulling one such operation out of context and proclaiming it as evidence of a notable relationship between the two modern-day republics. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sorry but you do sound incredibly pedantic (overly concerned with minute details or formalisms), and the interpretation of the rules are also incorrect.

This article excedes notability requirements, with several primary and secondary sources.

Original research is research not pulled from books and secondary sources, this is not "original research or original thought" when editors cite books from the period.

The first sentence of WP:SYNTH states: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." There is no sythesis here. Again and again these sources show by themselves, that their is relations with each country. How can you read the "India Ministry of Foreign Affairs" section and state their is no relationship? Your position seems more like WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR then those who have found sources confirming the relation. Again, WP:SYNTH is abused a lot in AfDs, with no one ever bothering to reread what WP:SYNTH actually says. The primary source I provided have been confirmed by secondary sources.

Ikip (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point we're just going around in circles (I've already explained the SYNTH problem): but again, the Indian Government is not a valid source for activities of the Indian Government. We need a scholarly or at least journalistic filter to tell us what is and what is not notable about this subject, and so far, nothing has emerged on that front. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/me smacks own face with palm. So now we're at the point where a subject is assumed to lie about itself unless proven otherwise? Whenever someone starts insisting on interpretations of the rules which challenge common sense, it's a sign that either (a) bad-faith wikilawyering (which I haven't seen any other important instances); or (b) an unhealthy obsession over getting one's way in a situation, which is likely to lead to WikiBurnout or being banned. (Neither I would wish on anyone.) Look, Biruitorul, this is simply one article out of a couple dozen of this type which have been nominated for deletion, & most of which will probably be deleted. Even if you are right in this case, keeping this article won't hurt the encyclopedia. Let it go, & move on. -- llywrch (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my points and will be glad to move on. But: I'm not saying the Indian Government isn't trustworthy, only that secondary sources are needed to validate its claims (specifically regarding the relationship) and their notability. Consensus disagrees with me here (or else others haven't investigated my claims closely enough), and that happens - it's something one needs to learn to accept. Also, WP:NOHARM. And could I please prevail upon you to drop dark talk of bans? Let's not use that cudgel unless we have to. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the WP:AFTER continued improvements made by User:Marcusmax since the article first hit AfD. Good job. Covering the relations between these two countries, including the historical and societal, are emminently worthy of wiki. Keep up the good work! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There is absolutely nothing notable between the relationship of these two countries to warrant its own article. The relationship does exist and there would of course be references implying this, but if such will be our basis then every country that has a relationship with another country should have an x-y relationship article at Wikipedia. Just imagine how many useless articles would result from that. If we let this one through then a precedent will be established that would allow such a dim prospect to materialize. – Shannon Rose (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As useless as articles on fast-food products, notable only as a result of their mass marketing and rarely for their quality? Your argument would seem to indicate a need for more such relationship articles in a paperless encyclopedia, not less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A central discussion is underway concerning bilateral relations articles, they are also mentioned at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) -- in both places I've suggested why these articles might be useful. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. certainly has more references than the usual X-Y relations article but the relations are not particularly strong but weakly notable. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Looks like it has more information and is more notable than the typical X-Y article. In addition, I looked over this article two days ago and today it's vastly increased in size and references. Not particularly notable but notable enough to keep.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not sure that it's either necessary or useful, and I'm pretty sure it's going to languish undeveloped once this AFD is over; but OK, I think it now meets current guidelines for inclusion. Rd232 ^talk 13:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the third of your basic tenets fail, so do the other two. You operate under the false presumption that these articles are inherently notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In no sense, is that a problem here. -MBHiii (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources indicated by Abecedare alone demonstrate the notability of this topic and passing of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with both countries being members of the Commonwealth, there is a relationship. Moreover, the article meets WP:V due to its refrences. And finally, it is exactly what we find in almanacs and encyclopedias, i.e. bilateral relations is a topic with real-world WP:Notability and one of interest to scholars and think tanks who research this kind of subject, especially concerning a country with a billion inhabitants. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse Festival

Contested prod. Non-notable festival. No reliable sources. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Notability is marginal, but reliable sources exist. See [57] (a passing reference). As a note to others trying to dig up sources, there seems to have been an unrelated eclipse festival in Britain in 1999 ([58] [59]). Go through the google results, there seems to be a reasonable amount out there, but this is unfamiliar enough to me that I'm having trouble determining the reliability of sources. If no more sources are turned up, though, one single sentence mention in the Toronto Star isn't going to cut it. Cool3 (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added two other sources to the links section at the end of the entry. One is an article from a published zine called Trancer's Guide to the Galaxy, very known in the psychedelic trance subculture, which mentions the Eclipse Festival in their article about the Canadian scene. The other one is written by a DJ from British-Columbia on Chaishop, a notable website in the culture as well. Equinoxia (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Those look like enough to satisfy me. By the way (@Equinoxia), you are allowed to make your own "keep" !vote in this discussion if you'd like, laying out the reasons you think the article should be kept. Cool3 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do i make a keep vote? Juat writing keep like this will do? Equinoxia (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a ballot, actually, but a discussion. ~~You should state on which grounds you are saying keep~~ (you already did, sorry), otherwise your opinion might be ignored altogether. And, even as nominator, I actually encourage you to make your point. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I say this article should be kept because Eclipse Festival is the biggest psychedelic party in Quebec. There are other notable parties like this in Canada, like the Shambhala Festival in British-Columbia, but they are not focused exclusively on psychedelic trance music. Shambhala is a bigger festival altogether, but Eclipse happens to be the biggest 'psy-trance only' festival in Canada. Psy-trance is an international music subculture, and Eclipse Festival is an important part of the Canadian psy-trance world. I have also managed to find mention of Eclipse Festival in reliable international publications pertaining to this subculture.Equinoxia (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that it is notable, sourced entirely by it's own websites. We at least need some major news coverage and proof that this festival is a big deal. --Pstanton (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial coverage here [60] in a major Toronto newspaper. Has it been eclipsed or is it still jamming with the bright shine of electronica? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fariba Nejat

The article is one of self-aggrandizement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraniantruth (talk • contribs) 2009/04/14 20:25:07

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current article is certainly self-aggrandizing, but that's a matter for cleanup and not AfD. What we're concerned with here is notability, that is whether Nejat is the subject of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The closest I can find are this and this, which are hardly 'significant', and a list behind a paywall at the San Jose Mercury News. From the summaries of the latter I can't see any evidence that they give significant coverage to Nejat, but if anyone finds the full articles I'd happily reconsider. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that although the article is a copy of this page, the user who created the article has previously claimed to own that website. I'm not sure what the ultimate outcome of that exchange was. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure why my article has been nominated for deletion; could you perhaps clarify for me to better understand? I have however confirmed with Wikipedia Foundation that I am in fact the owner of the website the biography is copied from. The information in the biography was attained by an interview that myself and my team had with Mrs. Nejat herself. I plan on posting more biographic articles in the future, all having been attained by personal interviews. This is why it's a bit difficult for me to cite my sources, and I can only post the link to the same biography on my website. I just hope not to run in to so many problems with each biography article I post. Glaan (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Glaan. The point is that for a subject to have a Wikipedia article it must be 'notable' per the policy Wikipedia:Notability - specifically it needs to have significant coverage in third-party sources. Articles about Mrs. Nejat in newspapers or coverage of her in books would suffice to demonstrate notability, but a self-published website such as yours does not for the obvious reason that anyone can easily set up a website to say anything they want (see WP:SPS). The two articles I linked to above don't give much coverage of her, but if you know of some that do the feel free to link to them. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response Mr. Davis. Once Mrs. Nejat has returned from her business, I will make sure to ask her of any articles relevant to this specific article. Is there a particular deadline for me to send in my sources of nobility before my article has been deleted?

This particular deletion debate will probably be closed shortly. If the outcome is Delete, then you will have to make sure the issues raised here are corrected before re-creating the article. decltype (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A greater problem I face is that the people subject to articles I plan to post in the future are not very well known today and thus haven't any legitimate news stories or biographies up anywhere. The purpose of my Wikipedia articles is to hopefully get the names of these people a little more well known. For example, one article is to be written about an Iranian actress from decades ago, who is now eighty years old and hasn't any source of nobility because when she was in her prime, these things weren't available. Does this mean my article on her will in no way be allowed to remain on the website? Is there anything I can do? Thank you. Glaan (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, if notability can not be established by reliable third-party sources your articles will most likely end up getting deleted. In the case of an actress who had significant roles, even if it was a long time ago, I would think it would be possible to find sources. The best advise I can give at the moment is to familiarize yourself with the notability guideline, and try to ensure your subjects meets those. decltype (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have a few questions and concerns I want to address and thoroughly discuss before my second attempt at this article, though I don't believe this is the appropriate place for me to do that. Can I be recommended to a page or preferably an email address I can use to do this? Thank you. Glaan (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Markel Hutchins

Merely running for political office does not establish notability, and notability is not otherwise established. Perhaps redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia, 2008. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - his candidacy for public office is only one of his noteworthy activities. The controversies in which he has been involved, his civil rights and political activism also make him notable. The article includes references from reliable sources, although there is always room for more. Wikipedia would not be improved by this deletion. Ground Zero | t 20:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which controversies? Passing a bad check and calling on someone else to resign don't strike me as particularly notable. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, his one controversy, his role as Johnston family spokesperson, his leadership of the National Youth Connection and his candidacy for public office. A bunch of smallish things adding up to Wikipedia being a better place for having an article on him. I'm still not clear how Wikipedia would be a better place because of a deletion. This is not a vanity article on a high school student or a local used car dealer. Hutchins is a public figure. Ground Zero | t 21:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment This National Youth Connection doesn't seem particularly notable to me, either. In fact, this article is one of the first hits for the organization on Google. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing substantial coverage. The "notable" events seem borderline especially for a BLP. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in 3rd party sources or evidence that candidate meets WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: no significant coverage, other than, of course, the articles from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and USA Today.... Ground Zero | t 17:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both Atlanta journal links are broken, so since the creator didn't bother to add access dates we've no way of assessing them. Consequently I can only judge them on the basis of the USA Today article which is not about him at all, it's about a guy called Andrew Young and quotes Hutchins briefly. The other source is his website and a campaign site linked to him. So yes, no significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Valenciano (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, third party sources are not limited to those available though the internet. Printed sources are WP:Reliable sources. Just because you can't find them easily, doesn't mean that they are not valid. The USA Today article states that Hutchins criticized Andrew Young, who was a prominent member of Jimmy Carter's cabinet, in an opinion-page column in The Atlanta Journal Constitution. If Hutchins is writing opinion page columns in the AJC, he isn't a nobody, and a quotation in USA Today is of significance given that paper's broad reach. Ground Zero | t 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Many people criticize political leaders; that does not automatically make these people notable. And a wide variety of people write guest pieces in the AJC. Not all of these are notable. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I wouldn't suggest that writing an op-ed piece makes someone notable or that running for office makes someone notable or that representing a family in a high-profile case makes someone notable or that being a civil rights activist makes somoneone notable. If you replace those ors with ands, I think he is notable. Above I was only pointing out that Valenciano's argument that there were "no third party sources" because s/he couldn't find them on-line was not a valid argument. There are third party sources supporting Hutchins' various notable activities that collectively make an article worth having. Ground Zero | t 20:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added references from the Marietta Daily Journal and USAToday, links to WSBtv.com and profiles of Hutchins in Blackpressusa.com and Atlanta Magazine, and a link to the transcript of Hutchins' appearance on CNN Election Center. This addresses the concern about reliable third party sources, and it also demonstrates that Hutchins is a figure of significant local importance, and of not insignficant national importance. Would Wikipedia be a better source of information by removing this article? I, for one, had never heard of him before seeing this article, and now I know something aout the man. Ground Zero | t 20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Slovenia relations

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that does not indicate notaibility. tempodivalse [☎] 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no embassies, no hint of notability. Yes, Belarusian propaganda made note of Slovenia's intention to improve EU-Belarus relations, but that was in Slovenia's role as EU president, not acting on its own autonomous initiative. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having searched in English and Russian, I can't find anything giving notability or extended periods of contacts between the two countries. A search in Slovenian may find something, and if found I will change to keep, but in the meantime delete. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well. Is speedy deletion possible for robo-articles created by now-banned sockpuppets? See the user page of Groubani: [61]. Edison (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some of them turned out to be viable. DGG (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And many didn't, even though speedy deletion and PRODding was contested. This is why they come here en masse. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete information is already covered in other articles, there's nothing to these "relations" except two non-resident ambassadors. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article on the Slovene Ministry of foreign affairs web page about a recent meting between the two ministers. I agree that relations aren't particularly notable and the article consists mostly of generic diplomatic babble about how they agreed to improve the already good relations. The only useful fact inside is the amount of trade between the two countries (54 million euros in 2008), but that's probably not enough for an article. So yeah, there probably won't be much harm if this article is deleted. --Yerpo (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally relations between two European can reach notability, but in a case like this one, involving one of the less important countries of the EU and a pretty isolationist one, I highly doubt.--Aldux (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swimwire

Non-notable startup, fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. No reliable sources. (PROD notice was removed) ZimZalaBim ^talk 11:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No actual reliable sources for a brand-new company. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. KillerStartups is considered a reliable source by many - all original reviews and stuffs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.209.178 (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Casric

AfDs for this article:

No reliable sources, fails WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC. —Snigbrook 13:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any useful third-party sources Vartanza (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ant Commander

Notability not asserted, similar to other projects (1, 2, 3); no reliable sources seem to mention this application, only sites offering it for download. In addition, the author is promoting his work. Simeon (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-15t18:58z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if deleted, redirect to SimAnt 76.66.196.218 (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. A redirect would not be appropriate. So just completely delete it. Spiesr (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Martin (Irish Gaelic Games writer)

Non-notable Bothpath (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 20:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No suggestion of notability. Will have to wait until book is out or substantial coverage occurs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe following link clearly backs up the information http://www.limerickleader.ie/kilmallocksouth-east/Author-Henry-to-tell-Limerick39s.5044536.jp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.238.22 (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 84.203.238.22 (talk · contribs) removed the deletion template. I have restored it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He does have a link to real press coverage concerning his book. But I don't think one local news story about a book that hasn't yet appeared is enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete article doesn't mention the writings but title defines him as a writer. No claim to notability is made. Mrathel (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to NARCh. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Mudcats

AfDs for this article:

Contains unreliable/no sources. Players on team appear to be nothing more than locals who do not get paid. keystoneridin! (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all of the individual teams (which are not notable) to the marginally possibly notable NARCh article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Renaissancee (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone wishes to do so in good faith (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Collegiates

Non notable band - many of the claims are unreferenced and unverifiable. No allmusic entry. No albums or EPs. States their biggest hit was the song "I Can't Get You Out of My Mind", yet Billboard has no record of them or their song [62] Nothing on cashboxmagazine.com either. No evidence they charted. TheClashFan (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no major coverage, in fact very little specific coverage of this band at all on Google. Nothing on Google books either. Iam (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of the nominator. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of the nominator. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ WGN Radio producer Andy Hermann's Bono/Ritter Catorce Theory (scroll down to the second to last audio clip on page)

[1] WGN Radio producer Andy Hermann's Bono/Ritter Catorce Theory (scroll down to the second to last audio clip on page)

[1]