Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 11

< 10 September	12 September >

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 no consensus. MuZemike 23:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Frances Andrews

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

This genealogical entry on a non-notable person violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT: "Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. " This is community consensus expressed in policy and quoted here by me, not my personal opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has been established by references. Everyone, this is Drawn Some, my personal wikistalker. If you have a comment about his behavior and the nomination today of what will be about a dozen of my articles please comment here. A month or so ago he nominated another dozen articles that I had created, all were kept, most were speedy kept. The situation has arisen from me voting to keep articles that he had voted on, or nominated to delete several months ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the references verify her existence, but to call this notability is stretching the definition too far. She was engaged and then married, so what? Fram (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See my comment below. Omegastar (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have zero interest in the subject but it passes the notability test. (This nomination seems to be part of some obscure feud. See User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), scroll to the bottom and work up. Not that that is relevant to this discussion.) A notable socialite and prize winning show dog breeder in the early 20th century, whose life was followed with interest by readers of the New York Times in those days. Notability does not expire. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not making judgements on any sort of possible vendetta by the nominator, but this doesn't meet WP:GNG because the sources are not significant mentions. Being a socialite who got married does not further important notability through any of the more specific rulesets (WP:ANYBIO for example.) Martin Raybourne (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had swallow hard to accept that however trivial the subject is, it does meet the notability criteria. See this source cited in the article. Breathless gossip about the rich and famous, famous for being rich. The reason the subject was covered in the gossip columns, some of which still survive on the internet almost a century later, and the reason it deserves an article are the same: people are interested in it. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:13, 17 September 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Cunningham, 6th Earl of Glencairn

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

This genealogical entry on a non-notable person violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT: "Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. " This is community consensus expressed in policy and quoted here by me, not my personal opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ridiculous as it may be, there is long standing agreement that earls and so on are notable, and that the different "peerage" books are sufficient as sources. Merging some of those families into one article may be preferable though. Fram (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See my comment below. Omegastar (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A bad faith nomination used to harass another editor. Joe Chill (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He would have been a member of the Second Estate of the pre-Union Parliament of Scotland and would therefore meet WP:POLITICIAN. youngamerican (wtf?) 01:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and break out the snow shovel for the above reasons. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In reading the article itself, I cannot see that this person did anything of any significance. I know that the royalty fans have fashioned a policy that all cousins of a King get a free pass, but that doesn't look to be the reason. Maybe there's an article that tells us all we want to know about the Earls of Glencairn where he can be venerated. Seriously, what am I missing? What's he in here for? Mandsford (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep/Speedy close AfD was not done in good faith TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk of bad faith aside, keep as a member of the Parliament of Scotland, and would therefore meet WP:POLITICIAN, per Youngamerican. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 18 September 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 16:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Digimon cast members

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

Disputed prod, but remover not opposed to relisting at AFD. Generally, cast member/voice actor lists are viewed as redundant to character lists and series articles, cannot provide anywhere near the same level of context, and tend to be indiscriminate lists. There is plenty of precedent for their deletion as well; several archived PRODs and AFDs of such lists can be found at WP:ANIME/DA. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cast lists should be incorporated in the character list. This is standard practice across several types of media articles. I do why this particular list should remain while other such lists have long since been deleted. --Farix (Talk) 20:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the information currently anywhere else. List of Digimon and the other articles I looked over, don't have it. Dream Focus 22:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you saying "hold off until it is incorporated" or "do not delete"? Not clear. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spot checking shows that the VAs are already incorporated into the individual character's articles. --Farix (Talk) 11:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It belongs in a list, not just individual articles. Dream Focus 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It belongs wherever the characters are describe. And that is exactly where you will find them. --Farix (Talk) 01:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate character list, just so long as the information is ACTUALLY MERGED, not just summarily deleted. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no character lists for it though. Dream Focus 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you mean other than List of characters in Digimon Frontier, List of characters in Digimon Adventure, List of characters in Digimon Tamers, List of characters in Digimon Adventure V-Tamer 01, List of Digimon Data Squad characters, and List of characters in the Digimon World series, then I suppose you're right. I'm usually in agreement with you, Dream Focus, but lolwut? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I mean, there is no one list, for all of the characters in the entire series. I think its easier to see it all on one page, so if you wanted to know who worked a voice actor on any of their series, you could come here. This list makes it easier to sort through. Dream Focus 20:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Other then being part of the same franchise, the individual series are not related to one other. Each series has its own universe, with its own characters, and its own back story. So a comprehensive list is entirely silly and will have issues with WP:SIZE and WP:NOTDIR for being overly broad. We don't have a comprehensive List of Goosebumps characters for exactly the same reasons. --Farix (Talk) 01:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Such care really isn't necessary with this page - VA info is beyond trivial to find (simply pay attention to the credits at the end of an episode). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the various character lists, then redirect. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirect to where? There isn't a single target. --Farix (Talk) 02:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess redirect to whichever article the most content is merged to. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cast lists for a series can be acceptable I would think if the series, or the cast members were notable enough. (Hence List of The Simpsons cast members). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 1:15, 8 September 2009 (AT)
- The Simpsons cast list is a featured list, with lots of content besides a simple recitation of who voiced whom. This type of information, however, is generally not available for anime series, meaning that a cast list for an anime series can probably never be much more than a list of parts and actors. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After ensuring that the voice actors are all mentioned in the relevant series article/list, delete. Material is better handled where the characters are discussed. I'd say redirect, but with a multimerge there's too many possible targets, so delete it has to be. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My decision is going to be based on if the information included IN THIS ARTICLE is located in their right articles or not under cast. - Keeping this list if all the info is included elsewhere is redundent.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2009 (AT)

Keep I dont see this information anywhere else.--Judo112 (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument for keeping. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DIRECTORY, looking it over the list, if someone really wants to include the minor characters they can in their right articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2009 (AT)

Delete Thought this one would be open and shut. Add cast information to character lists, delete this one, like always. Doceirias (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Farix and Doceirias. Seems to be the logical thing to do. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 05:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly per Farix; uit's an artificial clumping. I have not seen many articles onwiki that use this kind of info, and I believe a merge runs afoul of "not a directory". Martin Raybourne (talk) 18:26, 17 September 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. While there are two "keeps" for this AfD, this article does not meet our minimum requirements for inclusion. We are not a geneological service. The fact that he was a colonel in the Swedish military is not sufficient grounds for keeping an article. Note: making a claim that the AfD is in bad faith doesn't hold water unless that claim is supported/backed up. Similarly, "non-notable to you maybe" is not a reason to include. It falls along the lines of "ILIKEIT", neither of these keeps held any sway when compared to the rationale of the delete nomination. If you remove the geneological material, this article boiled down to the fact that the guy was a colonel of the swedish army during a war. There is no claim that he did anything significant during that war except die.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I was asked about this on my page, so I'll add an additional note. First, we are not a geneological service, which is what this article amounts to. Second, as far as I am concerned, this is an A7 candidate. Being a colonel who died in a war is not a claim to significance/importance. If you can give me a reason how this guy is in any way notable, I will be more than happy to reconsider, but when you boil off the begat the only thing left was that he is a colonel who died in a war. This isn't even a claim at importance/significance, let alone one that meets wp:N. It doesn't matter if the AfD was of questionable faith, the fact is that the article fails to meet the basic expectations of a WP article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Cronman

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

This genealogical entry on a non-notable person violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT: "Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. " This is community consensus expressed in policy and quoted here by me, not my personal opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep non notable to you maybe Omegastar (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep/Speedy close AfD was not done in good faith TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:55, 13 September 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 14:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optellios Inc.

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

Fails WP:CORP notability standards, all sources are primary/press releases except for a tiny blurb in a local paper. Gigs (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info on notability here - http://www.laserfocusworld.com/display_article/156136/51/none/none/EDITO/No-mixed-signals - advancing new optical technologies besides commercial purpose only. Article could use more detail but should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.0.249 (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - that article isn't really about Optellios. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I can find press releases and press release rehashes. Only this reference in the article is what would be considered some actual coverage and it is very thin indeed. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 17 September 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, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak Keep, Their equipment/technology is used in hundreds of various facilities. While there is a lack of "original" press coverage, they are indeed a leader in their field. There is some info on them at business week...perhaps we could email them asking for original press coverage?Smallman12q (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a manufacturer of fiber optic perimeter security systems serving a limited clientele, unlikely to become a household name anytime soon. Their apparent government work might confer importance, but given their security work, it's unlikely to generate a lot of press coverage. Simply being a "leader in their field" is puffery; and the Business Week reference is a brief investment directory listing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have a very "elite" set of clientele. Their technology will be used in Qingzang railway, and is in use at NORAD. Clearly, they are a leader in their field, and while they do not have significant press coverage due to the nature of their work, they should be considered ineherently notable given their leading status in their field.Smallman12q (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is "How do we know they are leaders in their field?" Absent sourcing to establish this, then it is all conjecture. They sold something to NORAD. Do we have information about competitors? Do we know if a competitor has sold similar systems in much larger volumes? If we don't have this information, then we cannot establish that they are leaders in their field. And without independent sourcing, we don't know the significance of these sales. All we have a very short blurb from the online site for a group of Philadelphia area newspapers. -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And looking around to see who else is claiming to be a leader we have:

Fiber Sensys who are "the market leading provider of fiber-optic based intrusion detection solutions for both government and industry"
Network Integrity system who also have a bunch of sales to the U.S. military and government, and if they are to be believed were also funded by the US Army
Future Fibre Technologies who list the US Air Force, US Army, US Border Patrol, US Dept. of Homeland Security, US, Navy, and NATO as customers

So without independent reliable sources, I'm not convinced they are leaders in their field. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case...and the fact that I did a more extended google/academic search which also turned up nothing...perhaps when some contract fraud or something newsworthy comes out, then they will be considered worthy of having an article.Smallman12q (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, thus fails notability guidelines Chzz ► 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been unable to find reliable sources about this topic that would establish notability. The BusinessWeek link provided by Smallmanq does not establish notability since it is a listing in a directory. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 25 September 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) 03:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Estrella Attwood

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people); she was a write-in candidate that got two votes in a primary election. – Zntrip 19:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not currently meet the guidelines for notability. Local government official who was appointed to her position, but aspired to elected office. Article hasn't been updated since the September 1, 2009 election. (BTW, here are the aforementioned two votes.) Location (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet any criteria. Guy0307 (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete well written (but advert like) article that fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:40, 12 September 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. Sandstein 07:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon at the mushroom village

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

Local fringe theater production. A couple of mentions from local sources (reviews, etc.) but nothing substantial that would show that the topic meets WP:RS. Also possible WP:COI issues. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Tribe of Fools, the theater company whose production this is. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both for lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both I don’t understand the conflict of interest part. Anybody who is interested in adding to Wikipedia by definition has a conflict of interest. Anybody who adds to Wikipedia is for the addition not against it. I don’t see how a person who is going to add to Wikipedia would add something that they had no interest in. It makes no sense. BATMAN19892001 03:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia’s rules on a reliable sources state: “Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” And Kinu’s states “A couple of mentions from local sources (reviews, etc.)” one of those “local sources” was “The Philadelphia Inquirer” a news paper that has “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” The Philadelphia Inquirer has a Wikipedia page. So, don’t delete this article. BATMAN19892001 03:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the short answer is that getting a theatre review in a daily doesn't create notability (as defined here). Wikipedia isn't the news, so we don't report on something just because it was covered by a paper. Now, if the production had won a national award and wide coverage, then yes. Otherwise, likely not. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand that this play doesn't have the notability of "Cat's" but, it wasn't preformed in a living room either. It is a play that was shown in this year’s Philly fringe and was put on by an up and coming theater troupe in the Philadelphia Theater scene. I don’t understand why this article can’t be Kept. BATMAN19892001 04:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry about the extra "Keep" I'm new to this so...yea. Thanks for ~~striking~~ it but, you could have deleted it. Thanks. BATMAN19892001 04:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both; both fail the general notability guideline because they lack significant coverage Chzz ► 04:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just was searching different theater companies in Philadelphia and came across “Spiral Q Puppet Theater”. Armageddon at the Mushroom and Tribe of fools has more appropriate citations from reliable sources and appear in more reliable third-party publications then this troupe and their article wasn’t deleted. Doesn’t that set a precedent? If that Article was found to have enough citations to keep from being deleted then shouldn’t mine? BATMAN19892001 05:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here are some more:
Kapoot Clown Theater
The Cabiri (performance troupe)
Circus Amok
Blacklips
Known World Players
I could go on but, I’m sure you understand by now. Just keep it up. BATMAN19892001 05:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is usually not a compelling argument for retention; an article should be able to stand on its own. If other articles don't appear to meet guidelines and policies, then those should be examined more closely and possibly nominated for deletion as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see Wikipedia has a lot of rules to prevent people from arguing why their articles should not be deleted. Why is that? All I wanted was to write an article that I thought would add to wikipedia. My bad for trying. BATMAN19892001 18:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any good reason for an article about a play that is currently being staged in Philadelphia, other than for advertising. Mandsford (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not just a play but, also the theater troupe in Philadelphia Tribe of Fools who you all want to delete from Wikipedia.69.253.253.34 (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can this item be posted solely for the purposes of advertising when the play Armageddon at the Mushroom Village is closed? Why would anyone waste time advertising a play that is closed? If plays that are closed should be removed from Wikipedia, then please remove all of the Greek tragedies, Shakespeare's works, anything to do with Vaudeville, and Cats. Clearly Armageddon is a legitimate entry categorizing a new work of art, and substatiated by traditional press press^[1]^[2], blogs^[3]^[4], and events listings^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]. The call to delete the entry for Tribe of Fools itself is unfounded and illogical as the company is a legitimate incorporated non-profit ^[9] currently operating in the state of Pennsylvania. If the Internal Revenue Service and The Department of the Treasury are not good enough sources for Wikipedia, then Wikipedia is severely flawed. For more evidence of Tribe of Fools existence and role as a creator of new works of art, please see here^[10] or here ^[11] or here ^[12] or here ^[13] or here ^[14] or here ^[15] or here ^[16] or here ^[17] or here ^[18] or anywhere you care to do you own due diligence and research. These sources proove the company produces theatre which is a topic of of some interest to most learned people ^[19] and although they have not won any major awards they do deserve mention in an encyclopedia ^[20], especially an encyclopedia as egalitarian and collaborative as Wikipedia^[21] as this differs from a meritocracy ^[22], or at least pretends to differ from a meritocracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.243.124 (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- It's not about "deserving" anything... it's about whether there is established notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems like advertising to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.236.67 (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It I heard about this production and actually looked up Tribe Of Fools on Wikipedia because I had never heard of them. I was glad to find them listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.23.118 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deserve has everything to do with it as the definition of deserve means "to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to."^[23]. To be qualified for, you know, though meeting necessary requirements. How do the ample sources I've provided, and more that you'd find on your own if you attempted any amount of due dilligence, fail listing requirements? Please be specific for each reference if you can.
All right, then show that the article "deserves" to exist by establishing the notability of the subject. As has been mentioned, existence and notability are two different things. Not everything that exists is encyclopedic. "Interesting to some" is not a criterion for notability. Being a non-profit is not a criterion for notability. Press/news releases are not third-party sources and do not constitute a reliable source. Event listings do not indicate notability, just that the show/group exists. A few reviews in which the show is mentioned and is not the primary subject does not indicate that the subject is notable, just that it exists. Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, etc., are not reliable sources and do not establish notability. Please read WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:N, as has been suggested before. P.S.: your overlinking of definitions, etc., in the references section hints at sarcasm and bad faith insulting, and does nothing to legitimize your position. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I Believe the comment with the “overlinking of definitions, etc., in the references section” was from the Artistic Director of Tribe of Fools He is also new to Wikipedia and I’m sure he didn’t mean to come off sarcastic and insulting. I added the reference section at the end because he added all those references and I thought they should be displayed. He was just giving you what he thought you meant by references and notability. Sorry about the misunderstanding BATMAN19892001 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A play needs a bit more than a review or two to be notable. PS: I don't know what all this junk below is, but I can't see how it is worth my time--it looks like an editor couldn't add anything useful to the article, so they decided to use this AfD as a soapbox. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I guess you only reserve your time to recommend articles for deletion not for bettering articles that already exist… I’ll get down of my soapbox now BATMAN19892001 17:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some questions. If the article does get deleted, can it be reposted at a later time? What if Tribe of Fools or Armageddon at the Mushroom Village gets nominated for an award/awards and meets the necessary notability requirements? Will it be allowed to be reposted? What if we merge both articles Tribe of Fools and Armageddon at the Mushroom Village together and post:

at the top of the page? Could it remain up then? Also, Why would there be a need for a {{Unreferenced}} tag if all the articles were cited and referenced on Wikipedia as per Wikipedia’s notability requirements? BATMAN19892001 16:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Yes, it could be reposted, if notability was met at some point in the future. (Although if it was reposted without substantial changes, it would probably fall under speedy deletion). As for combining: no, I don't think combining the two would make a difference. (If in the future the group won some notable awards though, then maybe it would make sense to have a single article talking about both them and briefing summarizing their works). --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:55, 16 September 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. Jujutacular^talk_contribs 21:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Graham, 3rd Earl of Menteith

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

This genealogical entry on a non-notable earl violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT:

Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. Drawn Some (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep writing about my mom would be genealogy. A well referenced article is not genealogy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a discussion closed as keep a WEEK ago. Per my comment elsewhere. The nominator has twice now been brought to ANI for targetting the creator of this article (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198#User:Drawn_Some_seems_to_be_wikistalking_User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Wikistalking_and_edit_warring_by_User:Drawn_Some and today has either nominated, prodded, or commented in a host of discussions concerning articles created or worked on by that same editor and has done so in near copy and paste fashion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Örbom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia A. Berwind, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Roche are all for articles Richard created, while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Patterson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Werner Ünderbheit are ones in which Richard argued to keep first. Just look at the block from User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)#Articles_for_deletion_nomination_of_Anders_.C3.96rbom on down. You would think after two ANI threads started by two separate editors, one would not devote a flurry of edits to such articles and what seems all the more disconcerting here is saying to delete something that was merged, i.e. cannot be deleted per the GFDL, renominating someing a mere week after a "KEEP" closure, not a no consensus, but an outright keep, and as some editors have said elsewhere declaring people whose deaths received mainstream press coverage as "non-notable" all suggest something problematic going on here. I hate to comment on nominator's motives rather than individual merits of articles under discussion, but this seems too blatant. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Take your irrelevant feelings an emotions to the proper forum, please. Whether or not prior AFDs existed and whether or not there was proper closure or discussion at them may not be something you want to bring up to try to support keeping this article on a non-notable topic. Drawn Some (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will start an ANI thread then. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I would do this myself if I had not participated in earlier discussion. Ben Mac Dui 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Re-nominating 1 week after a keep with no additional reason is sufficient for a speedy keep. As for the issue involved, the nom says we should cover only "fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. " but these are different from notability, as defined in WP:, which specifically excludes those as equivalent terms. Certainly famous people are notable, but if we restricted ourselves to that we would have a very small encyclopedia. People with major achievements that are documented in sources are certainly notable, but so are people whose achievements, however minor we individually think them, are documented sufficiently. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, my comments you are dismissing are a DIRECT QUOTE OF WIKIPEDIA POLICY WP:NOT. Are you not familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines on notability? I suggest you study up on them, they are very important. Or if you are aware of WP:NOT, then why do you want to ignore policy to keep articles on non-notable topics? If you disagree with consensus, please work to change it, but to ignore consensus is not appropriate. Drawn Some (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the actual quote from WP:N is Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice." It is important to note that a notability determination does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. The quote from NOT:GENEALOGY you are using is "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). " If you look at the first part, the two appear inconsistent. The resolution of this is to notice the some, which clearly to me, and to the established consensus here, means that a very little will do. It would certainly help to clarify this. But the second part shows it--"some" of this is defined as coverage by RSs, as one possibility, as well as the other possibilities in WP:N. While I would like to change N policy a good deal, I am arguing here in straight conformity to it--on those occasions where i want to propose a reinterpretation, I say so. You are arguing against the GNG. I might join you in that, if we had some agreement about how to replace it, and if I thought there were any chance of success. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add here that Drawn Some does not seem to be acting in good fate. He nominates numerous historical biographies that have only just been created. Now i ask, is Drawn Some a historian? What basis does he have in determining that a person is not notable just because he does not know anything about the subject? Wikipedia is not complete. There is still alot that needs to be added. Now, wikipedia has thousands, if not thens of thousands of articles about minor historical figures such as these. There are countless of pages about minor nobility etc. And there are countless more missing. These pages add to wikipedia and should not be deleted. Again: Wikipedia is far from complete. Furthermore Drawn Some nominates these articles almost as soon as they are created. Thereby he prevents anyone else from finding the article and adding to it. Alot of articles start off small, and become bigger. By constantly immediatly nominating anything created about minor historical figures, Drawn some is preventing this. I would also like to note that Drawnsome's entire contribution list is filled with these deletion efforts. There are no edits on articles that add anything to the articles. Drawn Some does not add anything to Wikipedia. He only removes. And drawnsome does seem focussed on RAN alot. (Keep btw) Omegastar (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – facetious nom. Occuli (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Everyone, this is Drawn Some, my personal wikistalker. If you have a comment about his behavior and the nomination today of what will be about a dozen of my articles please comment here. A month or so ago he nominated another dozen articles that I had created, most were speedy kept. The situation has arisen from me voting to keep articles that he had voted on to delete, or nominated to delete several months ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added some details of his life. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:48, 11 September 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Roche

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

This genealogical entry on a non-notable person violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT:

Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. Drawn Some (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the quote in full reads: "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources." (my emphasis added) This clearly meets that criterion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep writing about my mom would be genealogy. A well referenced article is not genealogy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I explained above, the noms criteria are much narrower than Wikipedia policy for WP:N. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That IS Wikipedia policy, DGG, see WP:NOT. Those are not "my" criteria, that is consensus expressed in policy. I am trying to assume good faith here. Drawn Some (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Everyone, this is Drawn Some, my personal wikistalker. If you have a comment about his behavior and the nomination today of what will be about a dozen of my articles please comment here. A month or so ago he nominated another dozen articles that I had created, most were speedy kept. The situation has arisen from me voting to keep articles that he had voted on to delete, or nominated to delete several months ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. What has she done? She was a member of high society, allright. So? What is she known for? The article indicates nothing. The sources don't shed much light on it either. She was vivacious and popular, that's about it. I've read all three sources, and she married twice, and nothing else. That the NYTimes at that time felt the need to have local jetset coverage should not concern us, just like we don't care about current local coverage. Fram (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, she collected art, and her collection is now at the Redwood Library & Athenæum in Newport. Yes, indeed, it's called the Cynthia Cary Collection. That's one of the several names that you'll find you'll have to use when searching for this person. She's even "Mrs. Guy Fairfax Cary" and "Mrs. Arthur Scott Burden" in some places. One such source (ISBN 9780879723033 page 154) credits her with introducing Diabolo to fashionable society in Newport in 1907. John Russell Pope built a country house for her, in Long Island New York in 1915, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent work, G. Joe Chill (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no interest in this subject. I have no interest in many of the articles in Wikipedia on baseball players, video games, insects, villages and so on. But "I think this is boring and unimportant" is not an argument. If there are reliable independent sources, as is the case here, presumably other people are interested. The article passes the notability test. (I may add the information found by Uncle G to the article.) Aymatth2 (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole load of bits and pieces on my talk page, at User talk:Uncle G#Cynthia Roche, that editors might find useful. Uncle G (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep/Speedy close AfD was not done in good faith TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from delete above). The article was deleteworthy, but the work by Uncle G shows that she has also received attention under her married name, and the naming of a collection after her helps a lot as well. I don't believe that having received a few press mentions as a socialite is sufficient, but there is more here. Fram (talk) 07:47, 14 September 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, nominator agree to close AFD. Ikip (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See agreement. Jujutacular^talk_contribs 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argalaa

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

No evidence of notability could be found for this online magazine Salih (talk) 19:01, 11 September 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 G protein-coupled receptor. Cirt (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serpentine receptor

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

This page consists of an unsourced (the one link is dead) definition of a colloquial term for a scientific concept. The page fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The material in the page simply duplicates (with multiple factual errors) information that is provided in much greater detail at Receptor (biochemistry). I have done Google and PubMed searches on the term, and they reveal that it is used in passing by multiple sources, but it does not seem notable enough to merit a definition page here; rather, a definition could be included at Receptor (biochemistry). Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It's in the standard biochemistry textbook, Lehninger, referred to there multiple times. [1] . 740 articles in Google Scholar [2] -- there are certainly plenty of references to add. It's true the present article says nothing more than is in the general article, and uses only a source that seems unavailable, but that does not mean the topic is non-notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don't disagree with what you say about its use. But–what would you expand in this page, that wouldn't better go in Receptor (biochemistry) or G protein-coupled receptor? Please note that the sources you cited are using "serpentine" as a synonym for other terms for which we also have pages, pages that are much better developed. There is simply nothing that could be said about this usage, that could not be better said about the same receptors, under their more generally-accepted names. (To illustrate what I mean in non-scientific terms, we have editor, but we don't have person who edits in addition to it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Synonym for 7TM receptor. All the details in the article are wrong, so don't don't merge or keep anything. Narayanese (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: G protein-coupled receptor as target. Narayanese (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GPCR per Narayanese. In theory, there could be serpentine receptors (SRs) which are not G protein-coupled in which case the article in question would be notable. However by searching Google, Pfam, and InterPro, I cannot find any evidence of non-G protein-coupled SRs. Hence the term "serpentine receptor" is simply a synonym for GPCR. Furthermore serpentine receptor is already listed as a GPCR synonym in the lead of the GPCR article. Boghog (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I'm no expert here but the very first line of GPCR lists "serpentine receptor" as a synonym. Any further development of the serpentine article would constitute a content fork (see WP:CFORK). Even if the meanings were slightly different, it would be better to have serpentine receptor as a section within the other article until there is enough material to split it off.--RDBury (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect supported by other editors makes good sense to me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 16 September 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 Result was redirect, nominator agreed. Ikip (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musse Noolays

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

This may very well be a real sub-clan in Somalia, but no refs are given and and can find nothing in English on the Internet. Perhaps someone can find something in Arabic or Somali, otherwise this fails verifiability and notability. Joshdboz (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it seems more appropriate to withdraw this AfD and redirect to Majeerteen for the time being. If an admin could close this that'd be great. Joshdboz (talk) 20:17, 11 September 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) 03:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcan Ventures

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

Contested prod - article fails to show notability of subject and has been created by users related to the book (author and illustrator). Alhough it is related to a charity and not personal gain it is promotional in nature. Also no secondary sources to establish notability of a book that had only been published in the last few weeks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found to verify notability TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of sources indicate this is not a notable series. It's also an advert and a copyvio of [3] so speedy may apply. pablo_hablo. 07:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable series. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Google Books, there appears to be a notable company of this name, i.e. it should NOT be redlinked, but refocused and referenced to be about the business. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an British company the Google links refer to a different American company the contested article was originally a redirect to Vulcan Inc. which relates to the American company that uses the name Vulcan Ventures! MilborneOne (talk) 11:11, 16 September 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly

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

This genealogical entry on a non-notable earl violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT:

Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. Drawn Some (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable is not a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Non notable to you perhaps. Omegastar (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He would have been a member of the Second Estate of the pre-Union Parliament of Scotland and would therefore meet WP:POLITICIAN. youngamerican (wtf?) 02:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a member of the Privy Council of Scotland and part of the national government during the reign of King James IV of Scotland, he gets inherent notability treatment. We do the same for someone serving in the legislature of Uruguay. Mandsford (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of the Parliament of Scotland, and would therefore meet WP:POLITICIAN, per Youngamerican; see alsoWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Cunningham,_6th_Earl_of_Glencairn. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 14 September 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. No prejudice against later recreation. The pianist is still at the beginning of the career so things may change considerably. Tone 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Kerstens

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

Contested speedy deletion with some claim of importance as there is also an article in the Dutch wiki, both unsourced, brought here for further assessment after 2 days in the speedy queue. Delete unless reliable independent in-depth sources can be found. Tikiwont (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understood, I am working on gathering/adding the required sources --H9000 (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy if the creator wishes to keep searching for sources, but I could find only one news source[4], and that appears to be just a mention on a list. pablo_hablo. 07:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources that support the accuracy and facts. The 6th reference supports the notability of the artist. --H9000 (talk) 12:11, 13 September 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 00:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources "support the accuracy and facts", but all of it are only trivial mentions. Vera Kerstens doesn't meet the WP:MUSICBIO. Nothing significant in reliable sources. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She has received coverage in a reliable source of an international tour (one of many tours she has been on) and won thé major dutch award for classical music performance. I figured that'd meet the WP:MUSICBIO (but am often mistaken). --H9000 (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources mostly are passing mentions, one is a Wikipedia self-reference and doesn't say all it's supposed to say. Huon (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might I be as bold to suggest instead of deleting the page because of said lack of in-depth sources, using refimprove and allow the article to be improved in time? --H9000 (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, the Princess Christina Competition is not a "major music competition" as required for notability per WP:MUSICBIO, and she has no other claim to notability except a passing mention in a concert announcement. That's unlikely to change if we tag the article. Furthermore, the majority of the article's current content, including such basic details as her birthdate, is not supported by sources and probably unverifiable. If the article gets deleted now, it may be recreated once Kerstens has become more notable and better sources are available. Huon (talk) 07:31, 22 September 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. MuZemike 18:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julia A. Berwind

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

This genealogical entry on a non-notable perosn violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT:

Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Drawn Some (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable is not a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. In general, when the New York Times runs an obit article on someone, except as a local news feature, it's safe to infer notability. The inference is just about irrefutable when, as here, the obituary article describes the subject's activities as "widely reported in the press." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the deal is but given the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198#User:Drawn_Some_seems_to_be_wikistalking_User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Wikistalking_and_edit_warring_by_User:Drawn_Some (two threads started by two separate editors suggesting as much...), these and the other recent ones from this user with copy paste rationales (yes, I know I replied in kind) seem somewhat malicious and possibly even uninformed as a result. We have two ANI threads in which two separate editors noticed possible wikistalking of Richard Arthur Norton by Drawn Some. Now look at the following stretch of edits from Drawn Some today in succession with no in between edits left out:

18:08, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ‎ (AfD nomination of Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

18:07, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 11 ‎ (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly. (TW))

18:07, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

18:07, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly. (TW))

18:06, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Werner Ünderbheit ‎ (→Baron Werner Ünderbheit) (top) [rollback]

17:57, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ajs502 ‎ (PROD nomination of Alice Claypoole Gwynne. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

17:57, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Alice Claypoole Gwynne ‎ (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

17:54, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Patterson ‎ (→Jimmy Patterson)

17:52, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 11 ‎ (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia A. Berwind. (TW))

17:52, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ‎ (AfD nomination of Julia A. Berwind. (TW))

17:52, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Julia A. Berwind ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia A. Berwind. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

17:52, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia A. Berwind ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Julia A. Berwind. (TW))

17:39, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl ‎ (→John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl)

17:39, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ‎ (AfD nomination of John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl. (TW))

17:39, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 11 ‎ (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl. (TW))

17:39, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl. (TW))

17:39, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

17:37, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ‎ (PROD nomination of Olof Adolf Sjöström. (TW))

17:37, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Olof Adolf Sjöström ‎ (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

17:35, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Örbom ‎ (→Anders Örbom)

17:34, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 11 ‎ (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Örbom. (TW))

17:34, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ‎ (AfD nomination of Anders Örbom. (TW))

17:34, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Anders Örbom ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Örbom. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

17:34, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Örbom ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Anders Örbom. (TW))

17:30, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Anders Örbom ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Örbom. (TW))

In ALL of the above Drawn Some has either nominated, prodded, or comment in AfDs for articles created by Richard Arthur Norton or that Richard Arthur Norton argued to keep. You would think after two ANI threads one would not fixate on another editor to such a degree. I checked these, after I noticed a delete comment in an Afd I had commented in and remembering the earlier ANI thread as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - A Anobody, that is all smokescreen. The topics of articles are notable and suitable for inclusion or they aren't. If you disagree with that consensus, work to change the consensus. If you have a problem or complaint about me take it to the proper forum. This is articles for deletion, not a venue for your irrelevant comments. Drawn Some (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why after two ANI threads in which editors identified your following Richard around are you still doing so, to the point of saying to delete what cannot be deleted and to even renominating that which was kept a mere week before? If the nomination itself is either frivolous or part of a personal fixation, then it is indeed relevant as we do not humor disruptive nominations. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your comments and behavior here are unacceptable. I can complain about you at ANI and it means nothing. Anyone can complain about anyone. Your complaints are ill-founded and were said to be so. You just want to throw up smokescreen to keep these articles. No doubt there will be more editors "swarming" the AFD board to try to "save' these non-notable articles created by a serial creator of articles on non-notable topics. Yes, people are born, get engaged, married, and die and that is noted in the newspaper. There is no consensus for that establishing notability. There is no consensus a title makes someone notable. If you have a complaint about me cleaning up after norton then take it to ANI, not AFD. Drawn Some (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Per your suggestion, I have asked for hopefully neutral thoughts at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Drawn_Some_and_Richard_Arthur_Norton_III. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and redirect~~ with The Elms. I suspect that some NYT obits are about local high society figures, and may be considered nonnotable for purposes of WP. however, the elms article seems notable, and her role there appears well documented in that article. the other problem with the NYT obit is we cant read it, and thus cant tell how notable she is made out to be in it. However, if WP has a policy on high society "notables" getting articles, even stubs, then fine, ill go with it. no comment on the above discussion of alleged improper behavior, not looked into it yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newport, Rhode Island isn't local to Manhattan. It is almost 200 miles away. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I can read the Times obit; I even quoted from it. Although relatively short, it was not in the form the Times has used for local figures. More important, as I quoted, it described the subject as someone whose activities were "widely reported in the press," which is another strong signal of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hullaballoo. I withdraw my Merge nomination. legit NYT obit is notability. thanks for your access.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep writing about my mom would be genealogy. A well referenced article is not genealogy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – bad faith, frivolous nom. Occuli (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is a stub, but notability is not about content of the article, but rather a property of the subject itself, independent of the quality of the Wikipedia article in question. The Google news search: [5] turns up lots of articles, given that many of these are very old, someone with rougly 300 news cites from the 1940's is likely to have LOTS of more sources availible in print only sources. Otherwise, based on evidence of the ANI thread, this AFD seems entirely vexatious and may even be speedy keep worthy for that reason. --Jayron32 21:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A bad faith nomination used to harass another editor. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Despite the obvious bad blood between the nominator and other parties, I still think that _this particular article_ fails WP:N. Mrs Berwind has only - as far as the references we have at the moment go, which is all we should be working with - been covered in the press for giving parties which were mentioned in the society columns, and that's only because her husband was a wealthy man. She is _not_ notable in her own right. Tevildo (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The NYTimes obituary reports in its lead sentence that she was known for being active in "social welfare work," not simply for socialite activities. She certainly wasn't covered "because her husband was a wealthy man," since she never married. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A stub is acceptable in the case of inherent notability, but absent that, nobody has done anything to show that Julia A. Berwind was historically notable. We do not have an "obituary in the Times" exception (my uncle got an obit in the NYT even though he didn't live near New York, but I don't think I could prove him to be notable). The only reason that I don't say "delete" is because I know that Mr. Norton doesn't just create stubs and move on, and I expect that time constraints have kept this article from becoming more than it is so far. Still, this isn't a prima facie keep. Mandsford (talk) 17:01, 12 September 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 16:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl

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

This unreferenced genealogical entry on a non-notable earl violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT:

Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Drawn Some (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable is not a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Non notable to you perhaps, but maybe not to others. Omegastar (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He would have been a member of the Second Estate of the pre-Union Parliament of Scotland and would therefore meet WP:POLITICIAN. youngamerican (wtf?) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Duke of Atholl. I'm not going to assume that he participated in Parliament, and the "sources-shmources" approach to this article doesn't connect to anything verifiable. Not everyone who was eligible to serve actually did so, and I interpret WP:POLITICIAN as requiring that someone served in their nation's legislature. Nothing to indicate that he meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Mandsford (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of the Parliament of Scotland, and would therefore meet WP:POLITICIAN, per Youngamerican. It matters not whether he took part in debates or was a back bencher. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject claerly meets WP:POLITICIAN. Edward321 (talk) 13:43, 18 September 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. This debate is now turning in circles while the consensus is pretty obvious. Time to stop this. Tone 21:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Örbom

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

This genealogical entry on a non-notable military officer violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT:

Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Drawn Some (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable is not a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If, by that, you mean "an essay suggests that saying only 'non-notable' might not be sufficient for deletion'", then I agree with you. Otherwise, your comment is misinformed at best and deliberately useless at worst. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep writing about my mom would be genealogy. A well referenced article is not genealogy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Non notable to you perhaps. Omegastar (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he is so non-notable, how come several swedish writers wrote about him? Further more he wasnt just a captain, he was a squadron chief. Wikipedia doesnt offer an article about squadron chiefs, but a search on google shows its commanding/officer rank. Omegastar (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Consensus is pretty clear, so in order not to drag on the process any longer ill support the concsensus. I do urge people to keep a NPOV on such matters. There are, for example, a significant amount of biographies about the american civil war that would fit the criteria for deletion easily. RAN: I would like to thank you for putting so much work into the article. I suggest you store it somewhere, because who knows? Maybe itll find a place here in the future. Omegastar (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable is the number-one valid reason for deletion. I applaud well-referenced articles, but I don't see the historical significance of Captain Orbom. He fought in the Battle of Poltava, but 60,000 other men did so as well. I'm willing to listen to an argument as to why someone considers him to be notable ("non notable to you perhaps" indicates that there's someone who will argue his case), but I don't even see that he was a footnote in world history. Mandsford (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 17 September 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, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment WP:BIO States that a article is notable if is it "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention" I would argue that someone born 1675 that have current reprinted references written about him, even if they are short, are both notable and did actually leave a footnote in history since we are actually discussing him here and now, more than 300 years later. If this person was a Lieutenant that survived the Battle of Poltava, was held prisoner for 13 years, returned home , it for sure is interesting or unusual in my mind. I linked this to deletesort WP:MILHIST, I hope they have people with experience about similar articles and can add some old consensus to the debate, I might be wrong :-). --Stefan ^talk 09:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This will be a delete, and it should be according to WP:BIO, but just think if this person was alive today, I think he would have passed WP:BIO easily with todays thousands of papers, magazines, the internet and all. It is very hard to pass WP:BIO for 300 year old people, there is a builtin BIAS against historical persons for meeting Notability, but maybe that is good, not sure. Nevermind lets delete and add some more pokemon characters :-) --Stefan ^talk 15:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —--Stefan ^talk 09:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is simply not enough significant coverage of this specific individual in sources to pass the general notability guidelines. Chzz ► 21:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in English language media means not notable enough for en.wiki. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out that rule in Wikipedia, I have never heard of it, or seen it invoked before ... it is also a Swedish Wikipedia article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed--not only is there is no such rule, it would be a direct contradiction of one of the basic principles of WP:RS and WP:N. Sources in any language will do , both to show notability and for information in an article. The English Wikipedia covers the entire world, and someone or something notable anywhere is notable here. The only significance of the word "English" is that the encyclopedia is written in English. Fortunately, we have people here who can work with sources in any language--probably to a greater extent than any of the other language WPs have. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that using non-English sources is 100% in line with WP:RS. (Though in situations where a fact could be sourced to both English and non-English sources, we should use the English one for the convenience of the reader, assuming the sources are otherwise equivalent.) But wether non-English sources can establish notability is a different matter, and it's a gray area at best. People like to cite WP:BIAS as though it were a policy or guideline, but in reality its not even an essay. It's a wikiproject.... At any rate it seems to me that as en.wiki serves an English speaking audience, we should be putting our effort into writing articles that are relevant to English speakers. If no one else is writing about at topic in English, we shouldn't be either. In other words: It's on Swedish wikipedia; that's great, people can find it there; there's nothing to be gained by having an English version here. I know there's no actual policy backing this assertion up, but there's no actual policy contradicting it either, so it's a gray area, and something we can disagree about in forums like these. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue for this article is a general lack of notability and historical relevance, not that the sources are written in a language you don't speak. There is no "gray area" here, only the suggestion that linguistic chauvinism would in any way be compatible with NPOV. Peter ^Isotalo 07:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's hard to assess the depth of the sources given that their titles haven't been translated from Swedish, but I see no reason to think that they're in-depth on the basis of the article's content, so WP:BIO isn't met Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They all seem like rather insignificant inclusions in non-general literature and sources. Most of them amount to little else but expanded army rosters. The preview of Ahnlund and Wichman hints at accounts of evangelical Christianity in Siberia, but this is still something that is generally applicable to the greater community of Swedish POVs in Russia. Most of the sources seem to merely repeat lot of the same basic facts, and I suspect that Lewenhaupt might be the source for most, if not all of them. There is basically zero secondary treatment of primary source material and no discussion of any historical significance. Peter ^Isotalo 07:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for that Peter. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are examples of individual participants of the Swedish campaigns in the Great Northern War that are notable. For example Jon Stålhammar is well-known by Swedish historians for his detailed accounts of his life and the letters to his wife, which have become important historical sources. I don't see anything remotely interesting in the life of this particular individual, though. He fought in battles, was captured after Poltava, came home, spawned children and died. There is nothing remarkable about this that sets him apart from countless other Swedish soldiers. Peter ^Isotalo 07:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article, references, or elsewhere suggests that this guy meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a major (or captain) who did nothing particularly out of the ordinary, thus fails WP:BIO. Buckshot06(prof) 10:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep per "non-notable" not being a convincing reason for deletion and as the subject seems to meet WP:BIO, i.e. a historical figure who is verifiable. Good job to Richard for his excellent efforts to reference! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of notability is a valid reason for deletion, and will remain a valid reason for deletion regardless of how many times you say it isn't. If wishes were fishes, you'd be a person who very strongly smelled of herring. ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NPA. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody, you should note that this is really not a routine NN vote-to-delete. I and others have valid reasons for saying that this person is inherently non-notable. And while it's nice to see that you care about saving articles, the personal essay you've linked to above seems to be asking for negative proof. The burden of proof always lies on those actually claiming notability, not those questioning it. I'm also rather impressed at the effort that Richard has spent on building up this article, but as a Swedish history student, I'm puzzled about the reasons. I can't see how the fate of a person like Örbom would amount to more than a statistic. His fate seems to be too similar to that of his fellow soldiers to be interesting as an individual. Peter ^Isotalo 07:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is well referenced, this person didn't do anything remarkable. It is very possible that the references are listing off all the officers of a given army (the title of the first reference . Karl XII's officerare: Biografiska anteckningar. certainly gives that appearance). Not every army officer is notable. My name found in a phone book, in the IBM directory, or even in my college yearbook, does not confer notability on me. Lacking some direct evidence that this officer is notable for something (more than just existing), delete as we are not a genealogy site. ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If he is verifiable and we can write an article on him, that is good enough. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not according to WP:N and WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then we can always WP:IAR, because an established editor in good faith is writing an article about a subject that is important to at least him. That counts more than ever changing and disputed bureaucracy. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nobody, why not argue the merits of the topic itself instead of engaging in all this sweeping criticism of general policy? Since Richard isn't keen on arguing why this subject is notable beyond its mere existence in Swedish official records, I would expect that anyone wanting to keep the article would at least attempt to get their bearings on the topic and actually produce something substantial that would save the article. Or at least some informed argument relating to the historical period itself. So far I get the impression that your activities here haven't extended beyond pure inclusionist-vs-deletionist politics. Peter ^Isotalo 19:34, 20 September 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) 03:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Corps (Medical Organization)

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

Completing nom for an IP; no opinion from me ThaddeusB (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the claim in the article "Medical Corps evolved into the leading world manufacturer of thyroid blocker KIO3" is true, then the company is probably notable. However, sourcing is difficult due >99% of search results for "Medical Corps" being unrelated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I am certainly no master researcher, but I find only retail links, press releases, and web chatter. I don't see references to the company as a manufacturer, but as a distributor/retailer, and none of it convinces me of wp:notability. On the flip side, the only editor pursuing the deletion is an anon, and the anon did not even fill in the (I know it is complex and annoying the 1st time) AfD. I applied the editorial hatchet and cut out some very advertiserish stuff, and haven't been able to make the article better... finding sources is just not my strong suit, and no interested editor is supplying any.- sinneed (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was unable to confirm the claims in the article. It may be that since they manufacture potassium iodate instead of iodine that the claim is true but I couldn't find reliable sources to support it. Perhaps someone else will have better luck. Drawn Some (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The name (of the company, not the article) is certainly unfortunate in this context. Every military and quasi-military organization has their own medical corps and sorting through the Google News hits to find something on this particular medical corp is daunting. I did try however and didn't turn up much. The listed sources seem to be either ads or from very specialized sources which are not suitable for notability under WP:ORG. Even the company's official website doesn't have much, just an order form for what appears to be their sole product. It's pointless to even try to verify the claims in the article, the subject simply doesn't meet notability standards.--RDBury (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: I am the (inept) anon mentioned above who initiated the "delete" process. I support deletion for all the good reasons advanced by other editors above. 140.139.35.250 (talk) 18:27, 16 September 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. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Flores

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

This appears to be a relatively run-of-the-mill journalist; there don't seem to be many outside references to his work - the Editor and Publisher link in the article notwithstanding - and his work as a writer or as a musician doesn't appear to be of a level that would be considered notable in our notability guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:22, 12 September 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, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. text such as "contact me at my email address" indicate blatant self promotion and violation of WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG Chzz ► 21:52, 18 September 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. MuZemike 18:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True Family

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

Violates WP:Original research. "True Family" is a title given to Sun Myung Moon's family by members of his church (he has 12 kids.) However ~~none~~ most of the sources do not use the term. (one does, my mistake} They are mostly news stories about individual family members. Borock (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (to Sun Myung Moon) or delete: there is very little coverage (far less than "significant") on the Unificationist idea of 'True Family'. Most of the article is a mere listing of family members. This is often unsourced or in excessive detail (I find it odd that Young Jin Moon, in common with his brother Heung Jin Moon, died in far greater detail than he lived). Shorn of this unsourced/excessive information, this could easily be merged into the article on the head of the family, Sun Myung Moon. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a topic that many people are interested in. Sources include Time magazine, and others.Steve Dufour (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and help us expand the information on Sun Myung Moon's family, which is available in published sources. Also, help distnguish between True Children (Rev. & Mrs. Moon's children) and in-laws & grandchildren.
Currently, the most important of the "True Children" are Hyung Jin Moon, "2nd in command" to Father Moon internationally, and In Jin Moon, head of the church in America. Each should have their own article - or if there is too little material, a redirect to their own section in True Children / True Family. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: last I checked, we had no source for the term "True Children", Hyung Jin Moon was a stub on a powerless figurehead ("However few expect this to mean any real transfer of power.") padded by a largely irrelevant quote praising Obama, and In Jin Moon was redirected because you couldn't find a single source on her. If this is the "most important" of them, then they really have no notability as a grouping, and should be merged into the article on their father. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn is making two separate points.

About sources, he and I basically agree: writers must provide sources. I just wish he would (A) help find the sources, instead of (B) so frequently using the lack of sources as an excuse to delete useful information. Many articles have fact tags which are over one year old.
The "powerless figurehead" is an error, misinterpretation or possibly a personal opinion. Rev. Sun Myung Moon has delegated the responsibility for the entire worldwide Unification movement to his youngest son, Hyung Jin Moon. If there is a dispute - out there, among non-Wikipedians - about how much power HJM really has, then we can write about that dispute. But it should not be up to individual contributors like Hrafn (or me) to make that judgement call. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal:

ROFLMAO! You are being ludicrously WP:POT. I have seen little or no evidence that you believe that "writers must provide sources" -- as you almost never provide such sources yourself, but simply ask others to find them for you. Lack of significant coverage of the core topic of the article ("True Family") and lack of any coverage whatsoever of significant subtopics (e.g. the concept of 'True Children') is "an ~~excuse~~ [valid reason] to delete ~~useful information~~ [original research]".
No Ed, it is neither "error, misinterpretation [nor] possibly a personal opinion". The article that is one of the only two sources for Hyung Jin Moon states: "Despite last week's apparent transfer of power few expect Moon Sr, who was convicted in the US of tax evasion in 1982, to loosen his grip on power. 'He may have appointed his son, but Moon is constantly giving orders, and people do as they tell him,' a former member told the Guardian. 'He is unlikely to transfer any actual power to his sons.'"[6] It is rather your claim that "Rev. Sun Myung Moon has delegated the responsibility for the entire worldwide Unification movement to his youngest son, Hyung Jin Moon" that is wishful thinking and/or spin.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 23:32, 17 September 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. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Festival du nord de la culture urbaine

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

Probably not notable yet, since the first event hasn't even occurred yet and I can't find WP:GHITS for {"festival du nord" maroc} or { "festival du nord" "culture urbaine" } or { festival2nord }. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I just realized that the article is a promotion by the creator of the event, so I just requested speedy deletion. I'll report back here if that's denied. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, a promotion of a nonnotable event which even did not happen yet. Laudak (talk) 22:32, 11 September 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) 00:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A speedy deletion request (CSD G11) for this article was declined. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources, non-notable. The conflict of interest doesn't help, either. Huon (talk) 14:33, 18 September 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) 03:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PERSIST FP7 Project

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

Disputed proposed deletion. This article is yet another of a series of minor academic projects that apparently involve computing, sponsored under the aegis of the European Government. For a prior deletion involving a host of similar articles, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transitioning Applications to Ontologies and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insemtives.

This article certainly seems to describe a project with grand and vague aims:

The objective of PERSIST is to develop Personal Smart Spaces that provide a minimum set of functionalities which can be extended and enhanced as users encounter other smart spaces during their everyday activities. They will be capable of learning and reasoning about users, their intentions, preferences and context. They will be endowed with pro-active behaviours, which enable them to share context information with neighbouring Personal Smart Spaces, resolve conflicts between the preferences of multiple users....

But no references are given and no notability is shown. Searching for "PERSIST FP7 Project" yields too many false positives to be useful, but the full version, "Personalised Self-improving Smart Spaces", draws a blank on both Google News and Google Scholar. The project is not notable; the page itself is unintelligibly vague while being promotional in tone. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROD deleter and restorer. The article is unreferenced, lacks a good assertion of notability, and has shown no improvement since its deletion/undeletion via Prod. If an administrator had an option to NOT restore a Prod to mainspace, I would have insisted it be userified for improvement. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Creator of article has made no improvements to the page despite requests from other editors. One editor, not myself, labelled the page: "Part of a walled garden of articles on apparent EU computer science research projects, none of which show organizational notability or even minimal importance. This one is vague to the point of meaninglessness." I agree. I really do not understand what the Project is myself. The whole thing reeks of WP:PROMOTION and WP:COI. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been .... wait for it! ... me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right - I didn't take the credit but I must give props where due. Smerdis of Tlön is THE ONE. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While some research projects will leave a certain trail of paper etc. before they take off and getting it financed is already an accomplishment, any discussion about notability and terminology (see elsewhere as linked above) has to consider truly secondary sources that are disconnected from the formal funding and evaluation process, both to show that it has actually been 'noted' by somebody who isn't part of the process, and also to provide a more measured and terminologically accessible assessment of their possible (or preferably actual) outcome respectively impact, than necessarily done for a research proposal. And i don't see that here. This site is not intended as a directory of ongoing research projects. Maybe there exists an alternate outlet or it is yet to be created.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:04, 14 September 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ogdens

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

Article fails to establish notability of the band per WP:BAND ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 11 September 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}}.

Not-Delete, This article should not have been recommended for deletion as Wikipedias own deletion process recommends that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Issues with the page were not notified to the author but the page was recommended to be deleted anyway.Gusdeadman (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify how the band meets the threshold of notability outlined at WP:BAND? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ogdens meet the notability criteria No.1 and 5.

1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1]* This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles. - I have numerous live and record reviews from British newspapers and foreign magazines. How should I cite these?

5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). - Their album is also on an indie label that has been going for ten years and is currently on it's 87th release including . Should I just say that in the article? Does somebody keep a list of labels that fulfil the criteria that I can refer to? Gusdeadman (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to criteria 1: To cite sources, you can very simply add:

Newspaper/Magazine article: <ref>Title of article,author of article, (Title of newspaper/magazine, date of article)</ref>

Book: <ref>Title of book, author of book, (publisher, date of publication)</ref>

Website: <ref>[http://web-page-address Title of webpage], author of page, date of page's creation, website name</ref>

You put these at the end of the statement which the reference supports (e.g. The band performed sell-out gigs Wembley Stadium for 10 days in a row in the Summer of 1967<ref>''Famous Band sets Wembley Record'', John E. BeeGud (The Times, 22 December 1967)</ref>.

With regard to criteria 5: their forthcoming album is their first, so they fail to meet this criteria. It may be the label's 87th release, but a band does not inherit its label's notability - even if the label was to be considered notable from Wikipedia's point of view, which as they do not have an article is debateable. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite a search, I was unable to find reliable, independent sources of information either about the band in general, or specifically to back up the claims made in the article. If Gusdeadman can provide adequate references as mentioned in their comment above, from reliable sources, I would be quite happy to change my recommendation, but until then I see nothing that shows notability as per WP:MUSIC. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Going entirely on WP:MUSIC - note a lack of released albums and a lack of sources on a search. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not-Delete~~, Citations now added with multiple references to reliable sources establishing notability within the criteria laid down Gusdeadman (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Struck second keep !vote from Gus. Gus, please, only one !vote per person. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was simply an update alerting people to the fact that I'd amended and improved the article. I did not realise it was a voting situation. I thought it was about strength of the argument. If using the tag Not delete a second time was a mistake then I apologise, I was not trying to get two votes.Gusdeadman (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very important note, Gus, is that this is not a "vote", this is a concensus. We aren't a democracy here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dennis, with all due respect, it was you who wrote "Gus, please, only one !vote per person." I never thought it might be a vote until you mentioned it. In this context what did you mean by that phrase?Gusdeadman (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, should explain. Note that I said "!vote" here - in this case, we're using the boolean operator, so this translates to "not vote". Suffice it to say, padding with multiple "keep" !votes doesn't help, and unless the other users can come up with a good reason to keep the article (that is, demonstrating notability per relevant criteria that is verifiable and from reliable sources), canvassing doesn't help - and neither does creating multiple accounts. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - One more note - PhantomSteve's commentary bears a lot of weight in this discussion given the circumstances. It is on his pointers that, if followed, will change my mind. So far, the number of resources you have are not something I can rely on. Narrow world view? Maybe - but it is on this double-edged sword that we keep everything on Wikipedia of the values we adhere to. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete - The Ogdens released three notable EP discs, one of which John Peel played regularly on his BBC Radio One program and achieved critical acclaim in the New Musical Express, circa 1987. -- previous unsigned comment left by 71.88.36.151 (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- — 71.88.36.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Thanks for adding the references, they certainly don't harm your case! However, I am still concerned that there is still not sufficient evidence of their notability:

The late John Peel played many songs from many artists - yet not every one of those would be counted as notable from Wikipedia's point of view.
Having a single produce by Peter Watts is obviously good for the band, but he has produced hundreds of records, including for obviously notables such as Lenny Kravitz, XTC, John Martyn, Kirsty MacColl, The Cult and Lloyd Cole. The fact that he produced one of their songs would not in itself make the band notable, any more than the fact that he produced for the named people/groups does not make them notable.
Being on the same bill as The Stone Roses is not notable. Notability is not inherited - The Stone Roses (and most other major acts) have often had a minor act on the same bill as them, most of whom would not be counted as notable.
The singles reviews, though useful as information, do not indicate notability. The sources involved (Record Mirror, NME, MM) all review hundreds of singles every year - most of which are not notable in the long term. What we really need to see is an indication that any of these actually charted - that tends to be the basic criteria for the notability of a single, an EP or an album.

Overall, although it is good to see sources like this, the overall impact is not enough to persuade me of the notability as per WP:MUSIC. I can't speak for anyone else but myself, but what I would like to see is something beyond reviews that were written at the time of release - that might imply that they were thought to have potential to be notable - I would really want to see something written a few years after showing that with hindsight the band were recognised as being something different to the hundreds of other bands that turn up every year. I can't think of any notable band who have only released 3 singles and no album (their debut album is yet to be released). Air play, while good, isn't a criteria we can use - For example, Black Lace's "The Birdie Song" received a lot of air play during the summer of 1981, yet no one in their right mind would suggest that it should have an article! Very few bands have articles if they have not charted. So, for me personally, I would need to see some indication of their long-term notability - and the fact that they only ever released 3 singles, none of which seem to have charted, and have not released an album (I would have expected them to have released an album in the late 1980s when their singles were released - why the 20 year wait? If I was a cynic, I would say that they are trying to re-launch a washed-up career) would seem to indicate me that they are not notable enough for inclusion.
Incidently, I know I said that I needed adequate references - and the ones provided are certainly useful - but they do not show the significance of the band. NME, MM, RM, etc would have had lots of similar singles reviews, and most of them would be for bands who also do not justify having an article. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course The Birdie Song deserves a page and indeed does have one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Dance . We are not snobs, are we? We are not here to judge the subject matter of the article, only the quality of the article. The Birdie Song was possibly the nadir of British music and IMHO anybody who bought it should be ashamed but it was a cultural phenomenon and is a valid part of Wikipedia, as is everything that is real including The Ogdens.Gusdeadman (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The Birdie Song (in this case The Tweets version) is only mentioned in three sentences in the Chicken Dance - the article is not actually about that one version, but the Swiss song from the 50s. As that song has been recorded in so many variations and languages, it deserves an article of its own - but the Tweet's version or Black Lace's version would not. Unless you are saying that the Ogden's work has been re-recorded in multiple languages (and achieved success)? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No Steve, that was not my reasoning and I don't know why you would think that. I was saying that whether we feel a song, band, or other art work is "important" or not in a cultural sense is irrelevant to whether it should appear on WP. What matters is that someone thinks is. You sought to use The Birdie song as an example of something that was unworthy of a page. I disagreed with you and pointed out that it did have it's own page. The Chicken Dance and The Birdie Song are the same tune, it is an instrumental, the words were added later but not used by The Tweets. I wasn't trying to catch you out merely to point out that our points of view are different but equally valid.Gusdeadman (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having a record played by John Peel is certainly noteable. Having all the singles released by a band played by John Peel and having one chosen for the monthly five song selection he played on the World Service is even more notable. John Peel did indeed play hundreds of songs by hundreds of bands but rejected thousands more. He was an arbiter of taste for at least four generations of British and European listeners. Having his stamp of approval is significant. If The Ogdens were good enough for John Peel then they are good enough for Wikipedia.
- Reply As much as I admired and respected the late John Peel, the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia does not include "If John Peel played their songs, and especially if he chose one of their songs for his World Service selection, they are automatically notable". Again, apart from press attention at the time of the release, these singles and the band had not achieved coverage in the 2 decades since. They split up, and now they are releasing an album, and I am beginning to suspect that you have some involvement with the band, and want to help publicise their new album (and the band themselves). If this is not the case, I apologise publicly here, but that is the impression I am getting. Again, find some significant coverage (apart from at the time of their 3 single releases in the late 80s) which demonstrate that they are notable long-term. I have specifically mentioned finding books, etc, apart from in the late 80s when they released their singles - I couldn't find any, but my resources offline are limited. I can't think of any other band who released three singles in the 80s (which didn't chart), and who were never heard of again, who would be counted as notable as Wikipedia defines notability. As I said on your talk page, there are other wikis out there who have less stringent criteria for inclusion, I am sure there are websites out there that would be quite happy to add your material, or you could develop your own wiki/website - then you can decide on the criteria for inclusion. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you list those sources? I'm only guessing here but you probably only checked online. It's foregivable but as the band split up in 1990 you must bear in mind it's unlikely that much of the documentation was transferred to online sources. I have cited all the documentation I was able to gather from printed records at this short notice. It's always best to check offline as well as online. Though I understand it is more difficult we need to be thorough.Gusdeadman (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and WP:BAND - no significant coverage and no evidence that their album or singles have charted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sales and chart position are not the only criteria for noteability. The article cites multiple press reports as is required by the first notability criteria and only one of the criteria needs to be fulfilled for the subject to be deemed noteable. So by Wikipdia's own rules this article should stand.Gusdeadman (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I would be interested in knowing how long each of the mentions referred to in the article are. If they are just a paragraph each, then that may not be counted as significant. Also, if they are based on the band's press releases (I don't know, that's why I'm asking), then they also would not be counted as significant. My personal opinion is that getting coverage in the music press at the time of release, but not getting any beyond that, does not make the band notable. As I pointed out above, although the three publications are notable themselves, they review hundreds of singles and albums every month, most of which would not count as notable. My main concern about this band is that they released 3 singles, which did not chart, 20 years ago - and apart from mentions in the music press at the time of release, there has been no mention of them since. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Steve, here is the paragraph count you asked for. BTW the average is 5.5 paragraphs per article rather than the 1 you suspected. However this is interpreted, I hope you appreciate that I have tried to provide as much information as possible. There are undoubtedly more references to be added, these are the ones I can find in my collection for now.

1. Single review, Danny Kelly (New Musical Express, 13/08/1988) - 1 paragraph

2. John Peel Show, John Peel (BBC, 22/06/1989) - Radio Programme, Record play plus 1 minute discussing the record, most records only merited a brief mention to give the name.

3. Single review, (Sounds, 25/11/1989) - 2 paragraphs

4. Dangerous Bands In Safe Hands, (Musician - The Journal of the Musicians Union, September 1989) - 3 paragraphs

5. Doing it our way - The Ogdens, Lizzie Hird (Pimlico Matters, February 1990) - 11 paragraphs

6. The Ogdens, Jimi (House of Dolls Magazine, August/September 1988) - 10 paragraphs

7. Puffin Power! The Rich Issue No. 69, TS (I-D Magazine, May 1989) - 4 paragraphs

8. Debut single for former triangle DJ, (Coleraine Chronicle, August 1988) - 3 paragraphs

9. Ogdens face Maggie's seduction, Robin Yates (South London Press, 1/12/1989) - 9 paragraphs

10. Stan by your Man, Mr Wang (Jømp Avak Magazine, 1988) - 48 paragraphs

11. Live Review - Kennington, Simon Doobery (New Musical Express, 20/2/1988) - 6 paragraphs

12. Live Review - Goldsmiths Tavern, Stephen Dalton (New Musical Express, 25/2/1989) - 2 paragraphs

13. Live Review from The Cricketers, Vic Park (TNT Magazine, Issue 308) - 5 paragraphs

14. Live!, Andrew Mueller (Melody Maker 29/9/1990) - 5 paragraphs

15. Single review, Simon Williams (New Musical Express, 27/08/1988) - 7 paragraphs

16. Single review, AS (Record Mirror, 27/08/1988) - 7 paragraphs

17. Single review, BC (Record Mirror, 24/06/1989) - 2 paragraphs

18. Single review (New Musical Express, 24/06/1989) - 2 paragraphs

19. Single review, Jonh Wilde (Melody Maker, 24/06/1989) - 1 paragraph

20. Single review, Jerry Smith (Music Week, 17/06/1989) - 1 paragraph

21. Single review (Spex Magazine (Germany), November 1989) - 1 paragraph

22. Single review, Simon Williams (New Musical Express, 11/11/1989) - 1 paragraph

23. Single review (LAW, 6/11/1989) - 2 paragraphs

Gusdeadman (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete - Notable as stated above and a significant cult band of the indie scene of it's time. This page would be a huge boon to researchers, as it was to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonager (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Moonager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Not delete - concur with contentions of notability as stated above. I saw the band live many times in the late 1980's, own all three singles, and was delighted to find that a Wikipedia page existed when they came to mind recently and I searched the net for further information on what had become of them. I am surprised and disappointed to discover that Wikipedia bases its decisions regarding what does and does not qualify for inclusion on such arbitrary criteria, so much so that I have created this account for the express purpose of saying so.Patrowles (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Patrowles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - Gus, if that's you, please don't do this. Please see WP:SOCK as to why. It doesn't help your case. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Dennis, surprisingly enough it is actually Pat Rowles, a quick Google would have established that, judging by the top link at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/rowles, he is a musician with a well earned identity of his own. I am getting a bit sick of the juvenile intimations and insults being heaped on me, my article and the article's supporters. Your point of view is not helped by this. Please stick to the point.Gusdeadman (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply No, to be more accurate, it is a Pat Rowles (if indeed it wasn't deliberately created by someone to look like it was him). There are probably hundreds of Pat Rowles in the world, so even if this is an actual account created by an editor called Pat Rowles, there is no indication that this one is the same one as you mention. Even if it was, CDBaby is not an independent source of information about him, as its sole aim is to sell music. I'm not sure what you mean by "the top link". Also, while I can understand that you might feel accusations are being made against you, I'm not sure what insults are being heaped on the article's supporters. It has been noted that the other supporters have little or no (in this case, none) edits outside of this discussion. This does not imply that they have been created solely to leave keep comments - it just shows the admin who will make the final decision about the article's fate that those accounts appear to have been created solely to leave a comment on this page. Experience has shown that these type of accounts are seldom from legitimate editors. But the admin will take this into account. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - How do we know who anybody is on here? This could just be an one person's multiple personalities in conflict. There has to be a certain amount of reality accepted. I accept that there are people out there who have never heard of The Ogdens and you have to accept that there are people who remember them, even if they have only been mobilised to contribute when recognition of part of their past is threatened. Gusdeadman (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gus, please go to this essay and read up. Note also that multiple personality disorders, in this context, mean nothing - sufferers of this should see a psychiatrist. The reality we accept is that you are indeed a fan, but you have not yet proven notability - this is the "certain amount of reality" we work with. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - The point I was trying to make was that I am not Patrowles and he is not me. I am also not any of the other supporters of the article here and I accept that the opposition are also individuals and everyone is a legitimate editor. In your insinuation you apparently claim some sort of seniority/superiority. You do not have that. Although this is not a democracy all opinions are equally valid. However, I believe your arguments are poor and none of the opposition appears to have done any offline research.Gusdeadman (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response I can't speak for anyone else, but as I have already mentioned, I looked offline for information and could not find any. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Gus, all I can tell you is that I know damn well I have no superiority - only experience. And with PhantomSteve's statement that he found no offline articles, it doesn't look good. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response Twenty three offline references listed above. The future's bright I feel.Gusdeadman (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ignoring the ongoing sock/meat puppetry issues at this AFD, the article is lean at best. Seem to fail WP:BAND - bluntly; get notable, then get an article. Pedro : Chat 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As a relative newby I am learning what makes a good article. This article is being improved as we speak and should be given a chance to improve rather than deleted. I believe it has already satisfied the first notability criteria and I will be adding more detail as time goes on to further re-inforce the credentials. Gusdeadman (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The argument against the article appears to revolve around notability judged purely on what can be found online. This is a very narrow view of the world, all sources contemporary to the subject need to be taken into account. The Internet barely existed when The Ogdens were playing live and most of the material is in printed or photographic form, this needs to be borne in mind otherwise Wikipedia will become a precis of the Web, documenting only things that have already been well documented and not become the serious repository of knowledge it aims to be. Gusdeadman (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Gusdeadman, I am going to reiterate what I have said a few times one final time. I have freely acknowledged that resources may need to be found offline. However, to show that the Ogdens were indeed as notable as you claim, you need to find references to them beyond the publicity for their singles when released. If they are notable, then there should be references to them in books about music history, books about the Indie music scene, books about 80s music - and in magazine articles written in the mid-90s onwards. I again freely admit that in the limited resources I have to hand (local libraries) I have been unable to find a single mention of them in any of the books I could find about these areas. You mention Wikipedia being a serious repository of knowledge - that is indeed the aim - and to be taken seriously, the articles need to be demonstrated to be notable. Notability does not mean that there were mentions about the band in the year or so that they released the only 3 (non-charting) singles they produced. Almost all bands who released singles could have those references provided. To be truly notable, there must be some mention beyond that time scale. This band released 3 singles in 1988 and 1989. All the references provided were published between February 1988 and September 1990. Coverage of a band which extends for 2 and a half years could hardly be considered significant coverage - especially when you consider that 11 of the 20 provided references are reviews of the singles and 4 are reviews of their live performance. Unless evidence can be provided (and as I say, I've looked offline but found nothing) that they received significant coverage somewhere (probably a book or a newspaper/magazine article) showing that they were considered notable outside of that period when they were releasing their singles, then I cannot see how you can justify them being notable. The very fact that Wikipedia is trying to be a serious repository of knowledge means that this article should be deleted. Otherwise, people who come across the article will say "OK, so they are a minor band who released 3 singles that didn't chart - why the hell are they in this serious encyclopedia, when they don't seem to be notable in any way". Your very argument points to the reason why (in my opinion) this article cannot be in Wikipedia.
- You are obviously a big fan of the band, and want an article about them on Wikipedia - but being a fan is not enough to make them notable. Find other artists (preferably ones who have articles on Wikipedia) who have cited The Ogdens as a big influence. I couldn't find any other article on Wikipedia that mentions The Ogdens - and there are lots of articles about notable Indie bands... was no one influenced by them? That would be another indication of notability. The article Indie_music_scenes#Independent_music_scenes_in_Britain_and_Ireland shows quite a few British bands in the Independent Music scene - none of these appear to have been influenced by The Ogdens, or if they do, no sources have been found to indicate that.
- This will be my final word on this matter, unless evidence of notability is established as per the criteria I have given here (and elsewhere). -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Indie_music_scenes#Independent_music_scenes_in_Britain_and_Ireland is a very light page and fails to mention Merseybeat or The Beatles so I wouldn't be tempted to cite this as a definitive guide to British musical culture.Gusdeadman (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response The Beatles were not an indie group -they may have started off that way, but quickly became a mainstream group. The Merseybeat genre covers both indie and mainstream music. I specifically gave the link to the Independent music scene in Britain and Ireland as your argument is based on the fact that you perceive The Ogdens to be an important part of the Indie scene. That link was provided as an example of the kind of groups that should refer to The Ogdens being an influence. See also Category:Indie pop groups - none of the groups listed their (not just in the British sub-category but also in the other sub-categories) mention the Ogdens as being an influence. My thinking is that if a group were truly notable, and are still notable 20 years later, they should have influenced later groups - and yet I can find no references (online or offline) that show that they were influential on other groups - in the Indie scene or in mainstream. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response What happened to your "final word"? Anyway, my point was that, it was a very poor page to cite. Other descrepancies include mentioning Lily Allen, who is on Warners and omitting Trip Hop.Gusdeadman (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Twenty three different citations seems pretty notable to me. Having a record company deem that they are worthy of a retrospective album release after twenty years seems very notable to me. Record Mirror wrote at the time of the second single "the summer of love will be remembered by the nation for their debut 'Beautiful Day'" just because some researchers have failed to pick up on this does not mean they did not have a certain importance within indie music. I'm not saying they changed the world, just that this is worthy of a page on Wikipedia. Gusdeadman (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response Being 'worthy' of a retrospective album isn't indication of notability. I would be a bit more convinced if it was being released by a major label rather than a minor independent label like Firestation Records, but my impression is that this is just a washed-up band trying to revive a jaded career that has not gone anywhere major. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response Please stop insulting the group, it undermines your point of view. Anyway, how is a band "washed-up" when they have an album out in a few weeks? They seem far from being "washed up", it's clear the story is not over yet.Gusdeadman (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - We've given you the guidelines many times over now! How many times do we have to tell you to follow the guidelines if you expect to see this article get something other than deleted? You're running out of time. Forgive me for sounding like a dick, but it's time for you to put up or shut up. You want to make me say keep? Then quit arguing and fix the article! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:16, 18 September 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. NW (Talk) 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Parole

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

Tagged for notability since July 2009. Gsearches turn up nothing aside from cursory mentions in PR statements. I conclude this executive fails WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 15:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 16:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Randy Parole and Randy J. Parole. No significant coverage in reliable sources asserting notability. Location (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC) [edited 23:04, 21 September 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) 00:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that the individual meets the threshold of notability listed at WP:BIO. No independent reliable sources found. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete it, McDonalds and netflix talk about themselves on this too doesn't that mean they are advertising themselves? don't be hypocritical—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheiseus (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Reply - Other stuff exists isn't a viable keep argument. If you want your article kept, read WP:BIO then update the Randy Parole article to meet that notability guideline by using reliable sources to provide verifiability. Also, regarding the comparisons you mentioned ... this is an article about a person, not a company - so the notability guidelines are slightly different - but there are still guidelines. The Netflix and McDonalds articles meet the notability guideline of WP:CORP. Meanwhile, the Randy Parole article does not currently seem to meet the notability guideline of WP:BIO. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply you guys are total snobs get over yourselves this is public domain and he has a right to be on here if he wishes. its not like its graffiti or porn, he is a member of a business community and wants to be mentioned. If Bill gates gets to be on here then why not randy Parole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheiseus (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 September 2009
    - Comment - You were already directed to WP:BIO. Please read it. Randy Parole does not seem to currently meet that notability guideline - while the Bill Gates article that you mentioned does show he is notable per the threshold outlined in that guideline. Also, you seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not public domain. All contributions to it are under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. Likewise, Wikipedia is not a webhost for personal web pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:26, 22 September 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 Nomination withdrawn or so it seems. Feel free to renominate, revert, or ask me to reopen the debate if I'm wrong. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Place Jakarta

The result of the debate was keep.--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Advert content, incoherent text, clean up is still kept to a minimum. BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Plenty of hits on Google news, many of which are in Indonesian. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adhereing to your debate, the page is cleaned up, but is not up Wikipedian standards. However, I should agree with you, and when the majority vote is "keep", the AfD will be closed, and the page would be cleaned up.--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 14 September 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Desforges

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

Mainly WP:BLP1E — which turned out to be false anyhow. Yes its sad the young girl died, but except for a very short WP#NOTNEWS cycle, she simply wasn't notable. Also no links to speak of. KelleyCook (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if Wikipedia allowed for WP:SOAPy articles, the creator's goal would be better achieved by adding a line to Peanut allergy. (Incidentally, the section Allergen research could be transferred there as is, but without the section title.) The rest is a WP:BLP1E for an event that never got a lot of attention after the initial shock. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ONEEVENT. This happened to her, she didn't do it. Otherwise not notable. Basically a news event. In five years the only people who will care are people who knew her. Drawn Some (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 21:02, 11 September 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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Hardy

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

See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 11:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tend to think serial killers, particularly those in the UK, are notable. His crimes pre-dated the internet, but he has received news coverage over 30 years later: [7][8][9]. Location (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Location (talk) 04:00, 12 September 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) 00:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think in this case a separate page is suitable. Not only is he notable for multiple crime acts, the sources also have other reasons he could be considered notable, such as receiving such a long sentence. And (as Location says) he doesn't appear to have kept a low profile, even 30 years later he is still in news articles, and mentioned (presumably) in a national tv show. I also agree with Location's reasoning - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:28, 18 September 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) 03:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arjinderpal Sekhon

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

No evidence of notability. Nothing stated in the article really even claims notability, in that running for political office is not deemed to confer notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability requirements.—Ash (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no consensus that running for Congress and failing to get elected makes a person notable, particularly for a Democrat in a relative Republican stronghold: California's 2nd congressional district#2006. Location (talk) 01:41, 12 September 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. The issue of renaming can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vrillon hoax incident

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

The article appears to exist to promote the site http://www.vrillon.com/. The claimed broadcast interruption did not occur and fake mp3 files and video files are, in fact, obvious fakes if anyone takes the time to examine them. There are no newspaper archives that have any record of the incident occurring in 1977. The International UFO Reporter article in 1997 debunked the idea of Ashtar Command but did not confirm that the broadcast incident ever happened. All sources previously added to the article have been self published (failing WP:SPS) or circular re-iterations of the same web-only cut&paste fake transcript. Wikipedia does not exist to promote fake websites or falsify the existence of incidents that never happened, including hoaxes that never actually occurred. This article fails WP:MADEUP and should be deleted (unless anyone seriously thinks Wikipedia would benefit from a Vrillon hoax incident hoax article).—Ash (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Question~~ Times and Guardian are listed as references to the hoax. ~~Are the article references made up? If so then Delete and pursue editor for bad-faith editing. If not then~~ Keep as RSes exist.Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not made up; they are merely those which have digital archives and therefore could be found in a few minutes. There are definitely more in printed, non-electronic archives because I have come across them while looking for something else. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per a cleanup done in the minutes that followed this nomination. All references to www.vrillion.com have been removed. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No problem with sources and this is a topic some people might be interested in finding out about.Borock (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Event in question definitely occurred
Keep Reliable sources make this a notable hoax. And I seriously do think that Wikipedia should have pages on notable hoaxes. Silurian King (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It cites reliable sources, so unless those sources are fake cites, the article should stay as a notable hoax event. Ashtar Galactic Command is also up for AfD, and I recommended merging it into this article.--Milowent (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The event in question definitely occurred and it received substantial media coverage at the time, which meets WP:N. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps this AFD can have an early close based on the new sources added and a potential rename to something like 1977 Southern Television alien hoax as discussed on the talk page, as the sources do not mention "Vrillon".—Ash (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur with the above, works for me.Simonm223 (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Deconstructhis (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable sources, factual article. Bonusballs (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is the nominator saying the hoax is itself a hoax? i.e., the hoax never occurred? Bwrs (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more now sources have been found, added to the article and discussed at length on the talk page (see Talk:Vrillon_hoax_incident#Did_this_event_ever_happen_or_was_it_just_made_up_one_day?) and as commented on this page 5 paragraphs up from this sentence. As mentioned on the talk page, the name "Vrillon" is likely to based on a recent fake transcript of the broadcast and is not supported by any reliable sources though the 1977 hoax broadcast is.—Ash (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very interesting story. The name "Vrillon" probably is derived from "Ivor Mills", the broadcaster who was interrupted. Keraunos (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with rename the proposal. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:28, 16 September 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 was Speedy delete as this was a cut down version of the article deleted through AfD earlier. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Temple of The Presence

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

This organization fails WP:ORG as there are no Google News items available to substantiate notability, no matches on LexisNexis for published newspaper or magazine articles and no independent third party reliable sources. The article effectively does nothing but promote a spam website http://www.templeofthepresence.org . The site has no official affiliations and makes no such claims. It appears to exist in order to make money from subscribers, donations and the sale of books and CDs. The site consequently appears to be a straightforward scam and should not be used as an External link as it fails WP:SPAM or used as a reference as it fails WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a free advertising resource for everyone who fancies setting up a scam operation. I note this same article was deleted on 18 May 2009 for the same reasons and recreating it is tantamount to spamming as the original issues were not addressed. Ash (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"delete" - no sources, no article - this was deleted in may - can an admin check if this is the same content and then we can speedy it ? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:41, 11 September 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yorubeat

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

Non-notable single-musician genre, prod removed. The article about the musician who invented this, Tunday Akintan, was deleted in August, though it's since been recreated. Prezbo (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wherever a musical genre has only one notable musician playing it, and the musician in question is claimed to be the creator, the article on the genre should be redirected to that on the musician. Here, the creator turned out to be not notable enough for a Wikipedia article (though it seemed to be a borderline case), so I have to say delete, with no prejudice against creation of a redirect once Mr. Akintan meets our notability guidelines. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable genre from a musician that had an article deleted. Joe Chill (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See Unschool's comment on Tunday Akintan, too. -- Ankimai (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Someone really wants to keep this: multiple sock accounts and an IP have removed the AfD tag over and over again. Hairhorn (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well-written article, but sadly, it isn't notable as the genre is only used by a performer that isn't notable either (and I also suspect sockpuppetry). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:45, 14 September 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 leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Waldriff

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. simply playing Jackie Kennedy or acting with famous actors does not equate to notable. hardly anything in gnews [10]. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 00:08, 15 September 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) 00:09, 18 September 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) 01:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellery Sprayberry

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. hardly any third party coverage [11]. LibStar (talk) 07:57, 11 September 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) 00:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as currently failing WP:BIO amd WP:GNG. Neither of the currently used sources is acceptable to Wikipedia... an IMBD profile and one on Episodeworld. Coverage in reliable sources is only her name in connection with a role [12]... nothing more. While yes, she is a cute child actress and may be destined for bigger things, it will be best to wait until she either gets some significant roles or gets greater coverage in sources, or both. Right now, its just not enough. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:55, 18 September 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. --Angelo (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lasne

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

Article was PRODded saying that the player had never played a professional game, a claim that was contradicted by the infobox. Another editor therefore removed the PROD. However, this reliable source suggests that the player has indeed never played a professional game for Bordeaux, and thus fails WP:ATHLETE. Black Kite 08:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if you look at this ref you will see that Paul Lasne has three official games for Bordeaux. Mario1987 08:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludovic Sané also has professional matches for Bordeaux. Mario1987 08:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps you're misunderstanding the goal.com pages. The box headed Standings, which shows 3 games played, applies to Bordeaux's current season, not to the individual players. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both players fail WP:ATHLETE; the Ligue de Football Professionnel confirms that neither Lasne nor Sané have ever played in a fully-pro league; methinks the "official games" that Goal.com eants to attribute to these players are nothing more than pre-season friendlies. Giant Snowman 09:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per evidence from GS Spiderone 12:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lasne & Sané per GiantSnowman's findings. Jogurney (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both - Per Giantsnowman. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD was never properly listed on the day's AFD log, possibly because User:DumbBOT isn't working. It is listed now. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Giantsnowman. Lara 15:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, tedder (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both clear fail of WP:ATHLETE - why was this relisted? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)#[reply]

I can only imagine it was because it wasn't properly listed until recently Spiderone 10:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 03:32, 17 September 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) 03:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Moody

AfDs for this article:

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

Article prodded and restored after request. No reliable 3rd party sources, no evidence of notability, fails WP:BIO. (Previous deletion discussion is for a different person.) Tassedethe (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No citations to independent sources are given, and Google searches fail to find anything for this Peter Moody other than clones of this Wikipedia article, directory listing, etc. No evidence of notability at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 11 September 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. NW (Talk) 22:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Chess Club

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

DELETE NN chess club. JBsupreme (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Gulp! I may be a bridgeplayer but even I know this is highly notable. The oldest,[13] biggest[14] etc online chess playing site. used by all/most of the top GMs. Plenty of sources here that address ICC directly -, even in mainstream publications [15][16][17][18] etc, mentioned in a pile of chess books [19] etc. Of course the page needs sourcing and a really good clean up but that is an editorial matter. What research did the nominator carry out before nomination? Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Bridgeplayer. Bubba73 (talk), 17:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment It definitely needed a lot of work but now it is getting attention. Bubba73 (talk), 12:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a poor article and requires lots of cleanup, but not AFD material. Evidence of attention by international media (The New York Times) is a strong indication of notability. Like Bridgeplayer I also wonder if WP:BEFORE was done. SunCreator (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable. --AStanhope (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has coverage required by WP:GNG. It is a poor looking article, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with many of the sources currently cited -- am I to understand that http://members.cox.net/cpetroff/FICS/ is acceptable as a source in an encyclopedia? Its a personal webpage of someone at cox.net. We might as well cite Geocities. JBsupreme (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of source suitability is appropriate to discuss on the articles talk page. SunCreator (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Its been seven months since the last post about anything on the talk page, and most of the other post are from years ago. Before nominating an article, use tags and discuss things on the talk page, thus saving us all some time. Dream Focus 10:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times articled sited says "For stronger players, the Internet Chess Club is worth checking out. Home to the Web's oldest for-profit chess server, the club now claims 26,000 paid subscribers, said the company's president, Daniel Sleator, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University. He said that about 300 grandmasters and 500 international masters play at the site at no cost." Dream Focus 09:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If a club with subscribing members like Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, Leinier Dominguez, Nigel Short, Teimour Radjabov, Magnus Carlsen, Alexander Grischuk, Hikaru Nakamura, Vugar Gashimov, Yue Wang, Ruslan Ponomariov, Levon Aronian, Loek Van Wely, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Jan Smeets etc.. is considered an "NN chess club" etc.., then I don't know what would constitute a notable chess club. Of course, this is not a policy-based argument for keeping it, but those have been presented by others. Disclosure: I have previously operated an account on ICC. decltype (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The most important online chess playing site there is. Hundreds of Grandmasters play on it. Easily notable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is some sort of 'stop wasting everybody's time' type of deletion proposal. Loosmark (talk) 21:45, 17 September 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. The consensus was to delete. While the promotional tone of the article was reduced, the concern about sources failing to meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources to prove notability was not rebutted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FunnelBrain

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

Non-notable internet website/product. None of the refs satisfy WP:RS, most are the company's own website, article is written like a marketing piece. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These guys were really struggling when they looked for sources. Strike the Bloomberg link, it just shows who the execs are - doesn't mean it's notable. The California Academic Decathlon and We Compare Books make no mention of FunnelBrain on their main page - so these links are worthless. This leaves the link on Mashable. One, the site is a news blog site - not necessarily notable. Two, they are a "good alternative" for the top pick - not even the top pick. Not a single reliable source of notability is linked to on this page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without even clicking through, I can tell by the urls that many of the references are reprinted press releases which can't be used to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable either as a business or website; "referenced" to directories and press releases. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References have been updated to link to reliable education industry sources. Partnership links are now directed to the correct pages and other marketing "copy" removed.

without even clicking through, I can tell by the urls that many of the references are reprinted press releases which can't be used to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.209.157 (talk) [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. NW (Talk) 22:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Haygood

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

Fails WP:NOTE. Also, possible hoax? Cirt (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been hunting around for sources on this guy for the last 20+ minutes, since I came across the discussion at ANI, and I have found absolutely nothing to verify the existence of any counterinsurgency expert by this name. Unless someone comes up with something, I'd think it has to go.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history in a last-ditch effort to see if anyone can verify (or definitively refute) this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a hoax, unable to find anything solid. — neuro^(talk) 06:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm going for hoax here. Too many names for Paul Haygood to do anything with it - narrowing down to resources about this man, I was unable to find anything that connected at all. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment The historical society appears to be real. I can imagine if someone gave them a call to verify a couple details, they might be happy to do it [20].--Crossmr (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO I came up with zip. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the "references" given in the article is just Theorists of Counterinsurgency, with no author's name, publishing detatils, or anything else. I have searched and can find no evidence for the existence of any publication by this title. Another reference given is Boddie, John Bennett. Southside Virginia Families. This does exist, but does not list any family by the name of Haygood. All considered, this looks suspiciously like an attempt to make it look as though there are good sources when ther in fact aren't. I shall remove these highly dubious references. The other reference is "Paul Haygood". Residents of Patrick County. The Patrick County Historical Society certainly exists, but the only Google hit for "Residents of Patrick County" "The Patrick County Historical Society" is this Wikipedia article. This too looks dubious to me, but for now I will give it the benefit of the doubt and leave it in. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, just maybe, it's a citation of History of Patrick County, which is one of the publications of Patrick County Historical Society and which comprises "a 470 page study of the county, with chapters on settlement, communities, churches, schools, businesses, industries, and county's participation in military service" as well as "Sketches of many early families".
  The work by John Bennett Boddie definitely exists, and was given the correct title in the citation. Volume 1 was published by the Genealogical Publishing Co. of Baltimore, in 1966 as the citation said. It was republished by Clearfield in 2009, and Amazon has it in stock as ISBN 9780806300405.
  There might be some crow to be eaten, here. Uncle G (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the reference to "Residents of Patrick County" was a mangled attempt to refer to "History of Patrick County" then clearly it is not a good reference. I looked up Eating crow, which is apparently an American colloquial expression meaning "humiliation by admitting wrongness or having been proven wrong". (The disadvantage of using colloquialisms in a medium such as Wikipedia is that they may not be universally understood.) I now understand the language, but I don't understand the point intended. I explicitly said in my comment above that the work by John Bennett Boddie "does exist" (including emphasis), but that it "does not list any family by the name of Haygood". Uncle G's comment does not contradict either part of that; I agree that there may be crow to be eaten, but I am not planning to eat it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You perhaps should make preparations. Paul Haygood, born 1889-07-14, is listed on page 303 of Volume 2 of Southside Virginia families‎. Note that it is a two-volume work. He is also listed on page 294 of volume 5 of Boddie's 23-volume Historical Southern families‎. Both come up in a simple Google Books search for "Paul Haygood virginia", for me. Uncle G (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The abovementioned list him as marrying Lulu Helm and Loretta Fitzgerald. Paul Haygood, born 1889-02-04 and marrying Lula Helms and Loretta Fitzgerald, is listed on page 81 of Billups and allied families‎ (Katie-Prince Ward Esker. Gateway Press. 1984). It has him marrying his second wife in Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, in 1922. But it also states that he lived there at one point, employed by Coca Cola.
      The date on Residents of Patrick County doesn't check out, by the way. I've just managed to unearth the publication date of History of Patrick County. It was published in 1999, not 1984. Uncle G (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, so there is evidence that someone of the name existed, born in the given year, and (depending on which source you follow) may or may not have been born on the same day or in the same month. However, is there any reliable source which confirms that this Paul Haygood had anything else in common with the one described in the article? (On a trivial note, if "You perhaps should make preparations" is intended to refer to the nonsense about eating crow, then why? My doubting the existence of the claimed sources is not contradicted by finding other sources.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Your stating that this person isn't mentioned anywhere in Boddie is, however, contradicted by a pointer to the very page number where he definitely is mentioned. I quite deliberately said "maybe", "might", and "perhaps", and as things stand it is still "maybe", "might", and "perhaps". I shouldn't get too upset about the possibility until "maybe", and "might", and "perhaps" become "definitely". ☺ Note, though, that from what people are writing, it seems that no-one has read these books to see what they actually say in full. (I haven't. Have you?) But at least we've identified precisely what to check, which is more than the article's authors gave us, and found both no support from what limited excerpts from the sources we can turn up in concert thus far, and strong indications that there is little more in those sources to be had. Uncle G (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Without wishing to be unfriendly, I may say that Uncle G's capacity for continually misreading what I have written is impressive. I said that J.B. Boddie's Southside Virginia Families "does not list any family by the name of Haygood". (This was based on seeing a list of the families covered.) I am now told that an individual by the name of Haygood is mentioned there, which does not contradict what I said. It may, of course, be that this individual was included in a coverage of his family which was omitted from the list in error, in which case my assertion was wrong, but that does not alter the fact that the evidence cited above does not contradict my assertion. However, perhaps we should both call a truce on this: it is really off-topic.

On a more important point, no I haven't seen the books themselves; hence my need to refer to the list of families covered. Of course it would be better if someone could actually see copies of the books, rather than rely on what we can pick up at a distance. However, since the sources seem to be little more than lists of births, marriages, etc, they could scarcely indicate notability of the subject anyway, whatever they say about Paul Haygood. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The deal with these sources, is none of them appears to amount to much more than genological databases; they seem to report mostly marriages and employment records, but do not seem to be anywhere near substantial. Having ones name mentioned in a reliable source does not mean one passes the inclusion criteria, the vital bit missing is the substantial portion. --Jayron32 15:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article says he was an influential theorist, and that current military figures use his ideas. In that case it's hard to believe that the internet would have no trace of him, except for a couple of works that seem to be mostly genealogy (a record of births, deaths and marriages). A History of Patrick County, even if it does include him, is unlikely to provide such elaborate details of his military career as this article contains. At present it would be reasonable to consider everything in the article to be completely unsourced, except possibly for his birthdate. The chance of a hoax seems to strengthen the case for delete. Even if there were a Marine officer named Paul Haygood who taught in Quantico, there is no way to tell whether what this article says about him is true. '"Paul Haygood" Quantico' gets no Google hits that have any chance of being him. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article makes some assertions of notability that, if true, shouldn't be too hard to prove (given the name-dropping and positions involved). That no such proofs apparently exist mean this article can never get over the notability bar, hoax or not. EyeSerene^talk 17:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't able to find out who the aide was to Frederick Huff Payne in 1930, whether this person or some other. Were you? A fair few of the things stated here are quite hard to refute, too. There's a lot of support for the hoax assertion, but that's as yet unproven. No-one has found an actual contradicting source here, which would prove the hoax assertion quite conclusively. (That's one of the reasons that I went looking for who the aide was. It seemed one of the easiest claims to find a refutation for.) I know that I've looked for such sources, and I don't doubt that others here have, too. The most we can say at the moment is that this content is wholly unverifiable beyond the name and birthdate. But at least we'll have had a whole lot of editors look, and look quite hard, independently of one another, for any sources, so we can assert unverifiability with quite a good degree of confidence. It's a good idea of Arxiloxos' to give the WikiProject a tap on the shoulder. Uncle G (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that's my point really. I can't say if it's a hoax or not, and no, I couldn't find out who Payne's aide was either :) Permutations of 'obituary', 'Marine Corps', 'Haygood' etc yield nothing meaningful, so setting aside the difficulty of proving a negative, on current information even if the article is all factual, without sources (let alone reliable ones) I can't see it meeting the GNG. Others at Milhist may well have more information, but I've certainly drawn a blank. EyeSerene^talk 19:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears that the article fails notability. I also drew a blank trying every way I could think of to locate electronically available resources on this person. Even though VMI's archives have references to the class of 1910, his name doesn't appear. And similar results from locale, geneology, military history, etc. searches. Part of the problem for someone deceased in 1941 is that much information is likely contained on the deep web, if it's been digitized at all, or in hard copy accessible only the old-fashioned way by travel, libraries, books, etc. If the content of the article were true, I would still expect to have found some more traces of the man's long lifetime of work. Perhaps Arxiloxos' posting at the Military History Project will turn up someone with leads to good references. Geoff ^T ^C 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're in a bit of a bind here - whilst we can't say for sure the article is a hoax, because all the details quoted are astonishingly hard to prove or disprove... they're still astonishingly hard to prove, and we haven't been able to verify a single scrap of information beyond "Paul Haygood (b. 1889) existed". Were we to remove everything that can't be supported by a source yet found, we're left with something which doesn't even manage to imply notability. Shimgray | talk | 22:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - removal of questioned sources leaves this with nothing meriting notability. Buckshot06(prof) 22:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax or non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best, unverifiable. There is circumstantial supporting evidence this is a hoax from the article's edit history, with an SPA author and several single-day editors (SDAs). Those who have done more than maintenance edits are:

Petie J (talk · contribs), the original author, edited only on this subject, and only on 21 July except for one return on 9 August to add a paragraph about Haygood to Counter-insurgency
The Super Cool Amazement (talk · contribs) edited only on 22 July
November 199 (talk · contribs) edited only on 22 July (vandalism only)
Napth (talk · contribs) edited only on 22 July (vandalism only)
New Nothing (talk · contribs) edited only on 11 September, mostly on this article; added a db-hoax tag with the summary "this is all made up" but took it off, added db-person and prod tags which were reverted

The three 22 July editors were probably friends of the original hoaxer, mucking about. JohnCD (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Nothing (talk · contribs)'s other edits varied among trivial (e.g. adding hi to a user talk page), vandalism, and personal attack until eventually the account was blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 15 September 2009

Delete -- Ejosse1 (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Although Paul Haygood was probably a real person, this lone contribution from a new account purports to be about a little-known pioneer in military counterinsurgency theory. I would expect a citation, real or fake, to a mention in a book about military science or history, or perhaps a book about General Petraeus, but the source is a locally published book called "Residents of Patrick County"? Gimme a break. Too stupid to be believed. Mandsford (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a pretty solid consensus for deletion. Nobody has argued to keep the article. Even if the article is not a hoax, nobody has found any support anywhere for anything in the article except the existence of a man of this name born in this year and perhaps on this day. Need any more be said? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I agree this is almost certainly a hoax. Even if it weren't a hoax, there are no references. But I strongly disagree with the assertion in the nomination that the article fails WP:NOTE. If we believed the article was accurate is would comply with WP:NOTE, while lapsing from WP:VER. The article states: "but notes taken on his lectures... as well as short essays and memorandums he had prepared for the Marine Corps were gathered and studied by a number of young scholars of counterinsurgency." If this were not a hoax we would find traces of these influential essays and memoranduums. I was going to cite the unverifiability of the Marine Corps Command and Staff College as another clue this was a hoax. It turns out this institution does exists. Geo Swan (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder whether the hoaxer is a student at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College? If this material were verifiable it would require an editorializectomy. Pink's War did exist, and our article on it asserts it showed the success of air power in cointerinsurgency -- the opposite conclusion that this article claims its hero reached. Geo Swan (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:NOTE tells us "Notability requires verifiable evidence". It is not possible to satisfy WP:NOTE without verifiable sources; the article certainly does fail WP:NOTE. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable even to the simplest detail. I queried VMI's Historical Roster Database, both for "Paul Haygood" and separately for "class of 1910." There were no results for Paul Haygood (for any year), and the 1910 roster did not include any name even vaguely similar. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:55, 17 September 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of micronations

take a look at the definition of "micronation" in the dictionary... see the problem? This topic has no credible definition, which is not a rarity for Wikipedia, but one could argue that if micronations had existed as a recognized entity for the amount of time the micronation articles assert, then we might have a dictionary definition. A lot of the micronation articles have been abused for the purpose of self-promotion, and we do an intellectual disservice to any casual readers who stumble upon micronation articles in Wikipedia as they end up walking away deeply misinformed about the topic. Taking four examples from the list, I think we get a representative idea of how a variety of very different subjects are innapropriately grouped together in order to innapropriately lend credence to modern internet clubs that bill themselves as micronations:

Empire of Atlantium - A club run by George Cruickshank, aka User:Gene Poole.
Islands of Refreshment - Between 1811 and 1816, a small group of sailors set themselves up as farmers on an uninhabbited island in the Atlantic Ocean known as Tristan da Cunha. The guy who declared the island his sovereign territory died in 1812. Unlike the Empire of Atlantium, the Islands of Refreshment did not sell their stamps and coins on the internet, and create a Wikipedia article for the purpose of self-promotion.
Principality of Marlborough - Back in 1993 an Australian farmer got behind on his bills, resulting in his bank attempting to reposses his farm. In a tantrum, the farmer declared his farm an independent country. This last eleven days, at which time the police stormed the farm and evicted him.
New Utopia - An internet fraud that ended when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission took legal action against it.

These things are simply unrelated, and presenting a list of them as a featured article only undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Support: The nominator's rationale and reasons given are definitely more thought-out than the previous, frivolous, wacko-nomination of last month. My support is based on the fact that we have a corresponding Category:Micronations and an article Micronation (which should both be kept), and thus people interested in the topic will be able to find the entries without a list. In addition, a list like that invites every wacko on the planet to add his/her own spontaneous invention. Regardless of whether or not the nominator believes "micronation" to be a legitimate term, any serious micronation or their supporters should have the stamina to write a complete article and survive a potential AfD. This list simply makes it too easy to get attention, and since it's on my watchlist, I know what a b*tch it can be to maintain and keep it from getting too long. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the expressed concerns about giving this article featured status are one thing - but it is a vastly different matter to out-and-out delete it. Like it or not, the article has made it to "featured" status, and has also survived a previous deletion attempt (as a speedy keep). If there is a problem with drive-by postings, the article can always be protected. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's why my support is tentative (see above). If it survives this, it should get permanent semi-protection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This article was viewed almost 12,000 times in August. [21] Some very large group of people is coming here for information. I can't guess why they came, or whether they found what they were looking for. I'm uncomfortable deleting or even reworking the material without a clearer understanding.
Following Ckatz, the article isn't especially worse than the typical rock star or TV show article.
On the other hand, much of the article content is weak, and based on poor or invalid references. (See my comment [22].) Following Hiberniantears, there's a sense of frustration that Wiki's editors can't keep this article in check, that it's a target for pranks and vandalism, that after six years, it still isn't addressing encyclopedic issues. Why aren't these micronations being given independent, reliable, negative assessments? What is the philosophy driving micronations? Is something important being attempted?
I would agree with Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 that if article stays, it needs permanent semi-protection. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This one's just a list. The questions you addressed are (or should be) dealt with in the article Micronation Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clean up, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there is no clear definition of micronation then the list will reflect that, appropriately. Drawn Some (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, we have had a regular problem keeping this list clear of little kids adding their newly founded bedroom micronations, but that is a simple revert fix... those that remain are because they are properly referenced, and mostly have their own article. Permanent semi-protection has been requested several times since I have been working on the project due to these regular non-notable additions, and has been denied each time. Deleting this list because the entries are not all exactly the same is a somewhat silly response IMHO. That would be along the same lines as deleting (hypothetically) List of movies released in 2009 because they are not all the same genre (yes, I know it's a redlink, it's a hypothetical article). - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that this is a slightly bad faith nomination, because (in my experience) the nominating editor has had a stong dislike for micronation articles on Wikipedia in general (as witnessed from discussion on the talk page of this article), and has never once even discussed any of his/her/it's changes at the WikiProject. Even with this specific nomination, "A lot of the micronation articles have been abused for the purpose of self-promotion, and we do an intellectual disservice to any casual readers who stumble upon micronation articles in Wikipedia as they end up walking away deeply misinformed about the topic." - the answer to that statement would be to cleanup or delete those specific articles, not this list. We've already lost two or three Micronation related lists due to the nominating editor "merging those lists into this one", now he/she/it suddenly wants to delete this article? I am now a little angry with myself for having been busy IRL for the last few months, and not had the time to keep up on this situation, because it has obviously been blown completely out of control. Deleting this list would to nothing but give the nominating editor a valid reason to nominate the rest of the micronation articles for deletion also. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Adolphus, that is completely inappropriate. It isn't bad faith, as I've been consistently against the scope of our micronation coverage here. If this was bad faith I would have simply deleted the article, and waged a war to defend the crapstorm that would have followed for blatantly abusing my admin tools. I've worked for years to incrementally reign in the more absurd bits of a topic that I hold little respect for. Merging lists was step one to create a more focused list. After looking at it for a few months I see the same ongoing sprawl of the article, as well as the same "group think" from the WikiProject regulars who just gang up on anyone with a different opinion. Why would I waste time on the WikiProject when I can just edit the articles? Do you think it is coincidence that Gene Poole returned to his account so soon after my comments (he never left, he's just been editing from various IP addresses since his last block)? Content first. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nominate for speedy keep Seriously, this list is notable, and while it may need a bit of cleaning up, it is certainly entitled to an article. Googlemeister (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What about Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations? And also, what about some of the actual nations themselves – aren't some of them worthy only of a list entry, and not a full article? 72.83.208.77 (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the article survives I support the idea of putting it on semi-protection.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Per comments by Adolphus79. Also, the claim by the nominator concerning dictionary definitions is false. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having this article will just encourage any schoolkid, fraudster, or crank who happens to make up their own country in their head to add their own idea to the list. It would be difficult to establish criteria for what should be included due to the fact that many of the currently listed entities are all sourced only to the same single book, which does not establish notability under the general notability guidelines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - if we delete this, we should also be deleting Micronation and Sealand. If the problem is the amount of cruft buildup in the list, I concur with Coldplay Expert; semi-protect the page.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure that applies here. Sealand is a "micronation" for lack of a better term; it has a fairly well-documented if legally-contested existence. The List of micronations points to this article and (admittedly, some) other equally well-sourced articles, which may or may not be easily located by an interested searcher under their own names. If those articles can't be easily found any other way, then there's not much point in having them. In any case: I still think this list should be kept, if for no other reason than that it provides links to a number of other articles of interest. If it can't be kept here, it should be Merged to Micronation.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable subject. Article should make clear what they are and aren't. Several have been involved in fraud and profit schemes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I think that this should definitely be semi-protected, but not deleted. I also agree if we are to delete this, we should consider deleting Sealand and Micronation as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.137.174 (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment and Clarification 87.127.137.174 makes a good point, and I should add that while I think the concept of Micronations is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, I think that the coverage is notable enough to warrant an article. Likewise, Sealand really is also notable enough to sustain an article. My real problem with the List of micronations is that it not only lacks a defined scope for inclusion, is poorly sourced, and suffers from serious COI issues with at least one of the primary editors, but that time after time we have had discussions about keeping the least clean. Deleting List of micronations actually makes the Category:Micronations stronger because the Category is only going to include articles that are notable enough to remain here. As noted in some of the votes, the List of Micronations is simply to easy to abuse. The micronation article is a fine example of something a newcomer, or a student, or an academic could find and see as a great example of some of the curious things available on Wikipedia that are not available elsewhere. The List of micronations, on the other hand, is an example of an inherently poor idea that undermines the credibility of Wikipedia by being obviously misleading and overly inclusive. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - 87.127.137.174 does not make a good point since s/he argues based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. However, you make a good point (again), and that's why I am on the fence here. Your rationale once again makes a lot of sense. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - On the contrary.
      - "Lacks a defined scope for inclusion" - nonsense. The "defined scope of inclusion" is absolutely explicit; it could not possibly be more so; it's a list of notable micronations. Notable because they can (and have) each been cited in reliable third party sources.
      - "suffers from serious COI issues with at least one of the primary editors" - complete furphy. Either show us the diffs, or stop repeating it.
      - "is poorly sourced" - nonsense. There are, in fact, few better sourced articles in WP. Lonely Planet Publications, is universally acknowledged as a reliable source. If you wish to suggest otherwise it is incumbent upon you produce evidence in support of that non-mainstream position. If there are 2 or 3 erroneous or misleading citations in the article, either correct them, or point them out, so others can do so.
      - "...an inherently poor idea" - that is an entirely subjective assertion, unrelated to any content policy.
      - "...undermines the credibility of Wikipedia by being obviously misleading and overly inclusive" - again, complete nonsense. How, exactly, is an article entitled "List of Micronations" that consists of a list of entities that are explicitly identified in multiple reliable third party sources as being micronations, "misleading or overly inclusive"? The term "micronation" has been in common use in this context by the media for well over a decade. There exist many, many dozens of press, TV and radio reports from everywhere from Somalia to Mexico that apply the term to most of the entities on this list, and to other like entities . The term has a commonly understood meaning in English, Dutch and several other languages that is simply not a matter of dispute. Except by you. However Wikipedia is not the place to promote original research fringe theories on this subject; we can only reflect information in reliable published third party sources, and that is precisely what this article does.
      - If the nominator had spent a fraction of the time they've devoted to arguing for the deletion of this article to actually rectifying its perceived errors and increasing the diversity and volume of its citations, we could all have been spending our time on far more useful, productive pursuits - such as improving the content of the numerous micronation articles that are in far worse shape than this one. --Gene_poole (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        How are these difs Gene? You appear to be hiding something, as usual. Is it your extreme conflict of interest as the leader of Atlantium? Yes, it is. "Nonsense", for future reference, is not a valid counter-argument. Define how the examples I cited above are related. Further, if the term "micronation" has only been in wide use for a decade, define what the examples I cited would have been considered at the time each and every one of them existed. Show me contemporary, reliable sources that indicate these were all considered micronations. Personal insults, over dramatic rhetoric, and obfuscation are no substitute for a rational argument based on facts. However, when you lack facts, your comments above are par for the course behavior by George Cruickshank; micronation memorabilia vendor, Wikipedia sockpuppet, and chronic abuser of the common bounds of civility that you have a block log longer than the majority of articles on micronations. Your lies, and ham fisted attempts to mislead others as to your previously stated identity reveal your fundamental lack of intellectual integrity, honesty, and desire to build an objectively informative encyclopedia. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with a faint interest in the subject knows who Gene_poole is, and the WP:COI is obvious. It was also obvious that people will be arguing according to WP:OTHERSTUFF and threaten to nuke Sealand and the like. We should focus on the merit of this list, because that's what this nomination is about. The articles themselves are fine, and should any of the major ones be up for deletion, I'll staunchly argue "keep"... however, as stated above, the list-case is different. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In characteristic form, when presented with reasoned, policy-based opposition to his fringe POV on this subject, Hiberniantears responds with a litany of bad faith, incivility, personal attacks, paranoia, hysteria and chicken little-esque squawking. It is hardly surprising that the WP community remains singularly unconvinced by his arguments. As to the perennial accusation of WP:COI I challenge any editor to produce a single diff of any edit I've made to any article subject to which I have an association (or indeed, to any article at all), at any time in the last 5 years, which shows anything less than objectivity, a strict adherence to neutrality, WP:V and WP:CITE, and which has not improved the quality of WP in some small way; the COI 'argument' is a very very large, very very smelly red herring. And it still can't conceal the stench emanating from an entirely different source. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a personal attack to cite either your long established history of sock-puppetry, or your substantial block log for making hysterical statements such as the one you just directed at me. As for the stench, it is Sunday, my wife is away, and I opted not to shower. What can I say. More to the point, I simply pointed out that as soon as I included your extraordinary conflict of interest in comments I made some days back, you returned, and removed that tidbit from your user page. This is akin to the time you were using the User:Centauri account for malicious sockpuppetry, and you accidentally edited as yourself from that account, then tried to cover it up, and then spent an incredible amount of energy trying to claim that you knew Centauri in real life, and accidentally edited from his computer while logged in under his account. Likewise, your "return" this week is in a similar vein, as everyone has known you were editing from a dynamic IP for months. There are some great editors on this page with views and opinions that are divergent from my own. I respect many of them (Micromaster, and Adolphus79, for example), and have actually learned quite a bit from them over the years because they don't simply care emotionally about this topic. Rather, they care intellectually, and manage to have intellectual dialog with me even when we're at odds. They believe that these Micronation articles add a lot of value. I believe that they only have the potential to add value, but are instead used to provide a forum for a wide range of non-notable entities loosely grouped together under the umbrella of micronations. It isn't the end of the world if this article survives AfD. However, as someone who is dedicated to protecting the long term viability of Wikipedia, I do not think it is appropriate to use Wikipedia to merely compile a list of things that do not warrant an article for reasons other than BLP concerns.

Now, if this list were merely poppulated with a well defined list of things clearly considered micronations during their existence, then this would actually be the informative compendium of micronation knowledge you want it to be. However, it is not, it never has been, and I suspect there is not the will to ensure that it ever becomes so. To that end, by all means George, please feel free to continue avoiding the core points of my argument, as you have yet to address a single one. There has been a great deal of frustration expressed towards me because I am neither a member of the micronation WikiProject, nor an advocate for micronations. Well, would you rather I just lied to you, and spent the better majority of my time attempting to deceive you as to my actual positions? George does that. I'm here as an honest broker, making it clear that I am not a micronation advocate/owner/stamp seller. Look at the edit history of Micronation, and you will see that I have consistently reverted vandalism to the article. You will also see that I have been bold at times, but in all cases I listened to well reasoned arguments, even in situations where I was myself uncivil. I have compromised, and in some cases even yielded entirely to the arguments that were contrary to my position. Food for thought for anyone doubting my sincerity. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the dissembling, bad faith, incivility and personal attacks. With objective, unemotive, "fact"-based "dialog" like that, who needs policy-based content discussion. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm confused. Gene, you are George, the leader of Atlantium, and long time editor of Wikipedia who has been blocked many times for uncivil behavior, edit warring, and sockpuppetry, correct? Hiberniantears (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. You are confused. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out the fact that if you claim to know someone in real life that turns out to be you then you are telling the truth. rdunn PLIB 10:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec. Why is this article nominated again?--Coldplay Expert 02:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...because someone came up with better reasons than the wacko last month :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

last month was some kid who was angry about not getting their newly founded bedroom nation added to the list, this month is someone who thinks "...the concept of Micronations is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia." - Adolphus79 (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the nominator's rationale, but it's not everyone's. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, it isn't my argument. It is my opinion, but the case for inclusion of Micronation, as well as numerous articles related to the topic, has long been ironclad. I'm simply being transparent and honest in my views. I think micronations are stupid, but notable. I do not think that a List of micronations has demonstrated a long term pattern of being a viably maintainable article, and I do not think that the current list of micronations is even a legitimate list of micronations. The fact that Gene actually wanted to use Wiktionary as his proof that micronation has a dictionary definition demonstrates that his argument, like the topic, is ephemeral. If List of micronations was a list of things that have always been considered micronations from their inception, then I would have no problem with the existence of the list. If I had seen evidence that the members of the Wikiproject are able to come together and police the list so that it remains a grouping of items that are, and always have been obviously related, then we would not be here. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if the concept of micronations are not important enough to be included on wikipedia. Then why is there a Wikipedia:WikiProject Micronations--Coldplay Expert 16:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of micronations is important enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia, but most individual micronations are not notable enough even to be mentioned in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True - hence the argument for a list-class article which contains the individual micronationsnot worthy of their own articles, and links to those which are.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Maybe the article needs to be more clear about what a micronation is, but it is a useful list to those interested in micronationalism. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 16:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still dont see any reason why this article should have even been nominated.--Coldplay Expert 17:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should read my nominating statement at the top of the page. There is a significant difference between not seeing a reason, and not agreeing. While you may well disagree with my reasons, you do see my reasons. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand the nominators reasons and they have a valid point, however I disagree that it warrants deleting the entire article. Perhaps a demotion from featured status ~~and a mention in the lead defining the term.~~ (The lead already includes a definition sourced to the John Ryan book, which is good enough for me) As far as the given examples of inappropriate/unrelated micronations, I think they should each be dealt with case by case then removed from this list based on the outcome. -- œ ^™ 20:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it mostly comes down to John Ryan's book which has apparently been elevated to the status of the Bible (except for, the Bible is still in print as we speak). Has anyone noticed that the book's default-sort recommendation on the back says Humour/Travel Literature rather than Politics or Philosophy? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it's Humour/Travel literature? Why would that matter? It doesn't make a difference what category the term "micronations" is defined under just so long as it's defined in a published source. -- œ ^™ 22:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the published source is very important. When the main source relied upon is a tongue in cheek travel guide, then you are standing on very shaky ground. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OlEnglish is correct. It is the reliability of the source which is of crucial significance - and that is not in question here; Lonely Planet is a reliable source. Furthermore, the book is written from a third-person perspective, and as the authors make clear in their introduction, and in their published interviews on the subject, while it adopts a wry, good humoured tone, the places, transport facilities, commercial establishments etc it describes are all real; what it is most certainly not is an in-universe tongue-in-cheek piece of creative fiction, like this. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. The source for all of these entries is actually a joke: "This book is intended for entertainment only" (Ryan, John) In pretty much every case, these "micronations" are things made up in school one day that use this book as a source. Please, reconsider your keep votes to at least include deleting references to "Ryan, John" unless we can actually find some real notability. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There are a few notable ones, but the rest is junk. Ryan's book cannot be used as the only source. I find it notable when the Australian government deems it necessary to post a note on its website with regards to Hutt River or when a British court states that Sealand is outside the UK's jurisdiction. Most importantly, at their inception, neither of these entities claimed to be a "micronation"; as nuts as some people deem them to be, they were serious and followed through on it. There might one or two others, but the rest is simply a kid in his (yes, mostly his) bedroom. And now suddenly John Ryan's including this kid but not including the other is considered "the authority"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your assumptions above are mistaken. No court has ever declared Sealand to be outside the jurisdiction of the UK; a court has stated that it had no authority to rule in a case involving Michael Bates because it occurred on a property of the Royal Navy - HM Fort Roughs (aka Sealand). Ryan is an important source - but he is a long way from being the only one. One example: Macquarie University's professor Judy Lattas has published an important paper on the prevalence of right-wing politics among Australian micronations. Aside from that there are dozens of reports from reputable media organisations, all around the world, concerning most major micronations, extending over a period of 15 or more years. One point I do agree with you on is the need to consider exluding from WP dedicated articles about individual micronations for which Ryan is the only third party source. That affects possibly half a dozen of WPs existing micronation articles; the remaining 60-something articles either already cite multiple reliable third party sources - or can be made to do so with a modest amount of effort. I have been contributing to WP micronation articles for almost 7 years, and there has never been a problem with "bedroom nations", because our notability and verifiability policies automatically preclude their inclusion. When they do appear - which is lot less frequently than some people seem to think - they are summarily deleted. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"One point I do agree with you on is the need to consider exluding from WP dedicated articles about individual micronations for which Ryan is the only third party source. That affects possibly half a dozen of WPs existing micronation articles" Well it's good we can at least agree on that much. After this AFD is completed, I wouldn't mind getting your input on such a list. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commentwell I think that while this page is certainly screwed up...I belive that deleting is overdoing it.--Coldplay Expert 10:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. With respect to the nominator, I don't see a valid rationale for deletion. What I see is a list of small, self-declared nations ("micronations") that have, for the most part, been published as lists in many reliable sources for some time. A very small example: The Futurist, a notable magazine [23] published by the World Future Society, ran a cover story on the topic in their May-June 2009 (Vol. 43 No. 3) issue, including four separate articles devoted to micronations. NPR covered it in November 2006; The Economist covered it in 2005 (Vol. 377, Issue 8458); Forbes magazine published a list of micronations in November 2002 (Vol. 170, Issue 11) Stephen Mihm ran a story in The New York Times in May 2000 Utopian Rulers, and Spoofs, Stake Out Territory Online); and there are literally dozens more, including The Sunday Mail, Sunday Times, Sunday Herald Sun, Chicago Tribune, Information Today, and I haven't even started on the books and journal articles. I haven't a clue why this list was nominated for deletion. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As there are quite obviously some undisputed micronations per reliable sources, then having a list of them is perfectly legitimate. Deletion is not a solution for content disputes over what is and isn't a micronation regarding the fringe candidates. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could the proponents of "keep" then actually promise to go on a serious de-weeding tour should the article survive and nuke all single-source entries? Every entry the only source of which is Ryan's book must go. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. That would mean removing "Lagoan Isles". "Austenasia" and "Dubeldeka". We should also remove "Humanity" and "Morac-Songhrati-Meads" (both apparently part of a decades-old hoax), "Llanrwst" (not a micronation) and "Sunda" (alleged present-day successor to the defunct eponymous ancient polity). Multiple sources exist for all other entries. --Gene_poole (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I would support this article's conclusion if George could make a commitment to maintaining this level of accuracy. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe the proponents of "delete" can look past a simple list to see if each linked article uses more than one reference... the list itself uses mostly one source, but each article (for the most part) uses multiple... I did not know that we needed to list every reference for every article on the list itself, and if we are going to use that as a standard for deletion, then there are a lot of lists on Wikipedia that should be deleted. At least this one is fairly well organized, free of redlinks & non-notable entries, and is decently referenced. If all you want is for us to copy each of the references from each entry's article to this list, we can do that... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point being this is all content discussion, the failure of which is never grounds for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable list, and because it is a former feature article. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this well-defined list of micronations. The concept of micronations is a notable one, and a list of verifiable micronations is an important part of the encyclopaedic coverage of the concept. However as this list would overwhelm the Micronation article, it is most appropriate to keep it as a separate article. Per the comments above it also appears that this is a bad-faith nomination related to a content dispute, and so shouldn't be here in the first place. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Excellent article. --AStanhope (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you respond to the nomination? It needs to be more than an excellent article and even if it didn't you aren't convincing anyone that it is an excellent article. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since when is dictionary.com an authoritative source? It's a convenience, but the absence of something in them does not indicate any lack of notability. It's just a handy reference, based for most part on the Random house dictionary and the American Heritage dictionary, to good but abridged English dictionaries. The sources Veriditas as other found are pretty much proof on this. An incomprehensible AfD nomination-- except as the improper offshoot of a contents dispute. DGG ( talk ) 09:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not in Webster's dictionary or the Cambridge dictionary. Do you know of any reliable unabridged dictionaries that it is in? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and a trout for the nominator. We don't need to worry about a definition. If reliable sources have called somewhere a micronation, it goes in. Fences&Windows 03:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be daft to delete something alot of people use. rdunn PLIB 10:37, 16 September 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May Wynn

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

An actress with only one major film credit (The Caine Mutiny ) and only as a supporting character. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- At the time you found the article, yes, it was pretty weak. But I've done some digging, and it seems she was quite the starlet for a couple years in the 1950s. --M @r ē ino 05:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her notability pre-dates the internet, but she appears to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Location (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ENT in my opinion as "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Jujutacular^talk_contribs 15:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's certainly enough of a screen curiosity so that it would be easy to envision readers turning to Wikipedia for a bit of information on her--including me, because I just happened to do so myself and was very pleased to find this article. And remember, of course, that Wikipedia stubs usually act as acorns, gradually sprouting into more complete articles. Skymasterson (talk)
It's WP:SNOWing. Close this nomination, please. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 17 September 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. Skomorokh 04:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Weekly

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

Non-notable student publication. No significant independent coverage. Both references are to other University of Chicago ~~student~~ publications. — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the UoC Chronicle Article, this newsweekly has a circulation of 10,000. Also, the UofC Magazine is not a student-run publication, but the official university magazine more directed to alumni, etc. see, [24] Many established student papers other than a school's primary daily paper have an individual page on wikipedia, such as Stanford Chaparral, The Georgetown Voice, and Tiger Weekly. --Milowent (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the Chronicle not being student-run, and have corrected that above. However, it is still affiliated with the university, which makes it not sufficiently independent to provide notability IMO. And the size of circulation doesn't inherently make something notable. — DroEsperanto (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason for keeping either. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tend to think this is a keeper as a legitimate newspaper that has won awards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their awards hardly seem noteworthy since that organization gives out literally thousands of awards a year to college papers. link to one year's listing for one award category — DroEsperanto (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: First off, there are tens of thousands of "legitimate newspapers" out there that fail either of notability or verifiability: how many towns of any size in the United States, for instance, don't have some manner of local weekly? Secondly, following DroEsperanto's comment, "winning awards" is not part of any notability guideline on Wikipedia; winning major, significant awards often is. This isn't even the major student newspaper at the University of Chicago - The Chicago Maroon is. As far as reliable sources go discussing this paper in significant detail, as the GNG requires, it isn't easy, but "Chicago Weekly" + "university" on G-News returns a handful of hits referencing the paper's collapse and its rescue by an alternative area publication that doesn't seem itself to have an article. I'd finally take the paper's claim to a "circulation" of 10,000 with an enormous grain of salt. The entire student body of the University is only 14,000, counting graduate and part-time students. Are they seriously suggesting that 2/3rds of the student body read not the main student paper, but an alternative student newspaper? I'm willing to buy that the paper prints up 10,000 copies, but not a lot beyond that, and IMHO, claims to notability on that basis are deeply suspect and certainly unproven. Ravenswing 08:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any guidelines for notability of a newspaper? I wouldn't expect the existence of most newspapers to generate many mentions in other newspapers, except when they fold or have other controversies befall them. But to my mind, a newspaper of significant (weasel word - I don't know that there can be a set threshold) circulation is something worthwhile having an article on. For instance, were I to visit Salem, Oregon, I'd like to be able to find out that the Salem Monthly is the local alternative rag. And there's also the UWeekly in Columbus, Ohio, which is a 2ndary paper for Ohio State. That's why I decided to vote keep above. --Milowent (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently, although there is an essay. And being useful or like similar to other articles doesn't make something notable. — DroEsperanto (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you can show me a reliable source confirming that circulation figure, that might be something; the UoC Chronicle does not, of course, qualify, and I stand by my remark about the suspect claim of "10,000 circulation" at a school with 14,000 students. Ravenswing 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Doc, thanks for the link to the newspaper essay, that is helpful, I need to remember that one. I know about OtherStuffExists, and I am employing it in terms of "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." Going to the essay, the article currently reflects that the publication has won some awards, though they don't sound very special to me. Arguably, the publication also meets #5, "are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets"--a significant publication to the UofC market. I'm not saying its a strong winner; its the close ones that generate more debate.

Re circulation: Ravenswing, the circulation figure isn't currently in the article; I cited it above because it seemed to be some evidence of notability. (here's a ChicagoBusiness article saying the purchase raised NewCity's circulation, but it doesn't say by how much. 14,000 students is pretty sizeable, and that wouldn't include the employees, academics, etc., who are part of the UoC community they are likely also a target of the publication.--Milowent (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, that may be an assertion of notability, but a suspect claim like that isn't evidence. By contrast, the Harvard Crimson, an internationally-known daily over a century old which is the lead student newspaper, claims a circulation of circa 20,000 with a student body over twice that of UoC. Ravenswing 19:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mean the notable The Harvard Independent? :-) --Milowent (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said so if I meant it. I didn't think I'd have to draw out the example explicitly, but here goes: if a newspaper of the impact, history and fame of the Harvard Crimson, serving a university with twice as many students as UoC, has a circulation of 20,000, the odds that this indy, alt weekly, less than a decade old and having reorganized after failing has as large a circulation as half as many are damn near zero. Failing reliable, independent confirmation of the same, we can't consider it. Ravenswing 01:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, i was just being a bit silly noting that The Harvard Independent also has an article. I wait to see you confirm that it has a zero circulation just as you await my confirmation that it has 10,000 --Milowent (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. No enduring historical notability attaches to a relatively insignificant student publication. Ray^Talk 18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Chicago Weekly was the successor to the Chicago Weekly News. And then there was a University of Chicago Weekly published by student which the NYT reports back in 1898. There is thus a long tradition of there being a student weekly newspaper at the UoC and we will have no difficulty developing this into a fine article upon the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What NYT article are you referring to? And the mere existence of similar publications (even if they were the same publication) for a long time does not make something inherently notable; see WP:OLDAGE. — DroEsperanto (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to be arguing above that the topic is not notable because the publication is young. They are mistaken. As for sources, please see the links at the head of this discussion. If you have not studied these, please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I gave the impression that I was opposing because of its age, then perhaps I was unclear. What I mean to express if the paper were 100 years old, that wouldn't inherently make it notable. In any case, according to this abstract, this particular publication is only "8 years old" as of 2003, so the 1898 article (and the rest before 1995) seem not to apply. Looking through the google news archive in that time period excluding "Chicago Weekly Tribune" (a similarly named but separate paper) and including "University of Chicago" (to exclude other similarly named publications), the results are few and weak, mostly people quoting reporters for the Chicago Weekly. The linked article above seems be the best one by far. I assure you that I have made an honest effort to find multiple quality sources. I would be thrilled if some turned up, but looking at what I've found the paper doesn't seem notable, and no one else has brought forth any quality sources yet. — DroEsperanto (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Decent article on real-world newspaper at a world-class school in a world-class city. --AStanhope (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Indeed this is a notable secondary newspaper for a major metropolitan area. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:39, 17 September 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) 02:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Poets

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

Non notable person and doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. No gnews hits and no ghits from reliable sources. I'm not really sure why 'Illinois Poets' is a title of one, other than 'Michael Lee Johnson' was speedy deleted once. Clubmarx (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page, as it is essentially the same page. Note the probable WP:COI issue with the article contributor and this site:

Strong Delete both articles. no sign of notability, which is main reason. massive COI, self promotional content, etc doesnt help, but if notable could be rewritten. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles per above. Jujutacular^talk_contribs 15:47, 11 September 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) 01:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lambert (musician)

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

Doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. I could only find one local story/item about his release party and that doesn't make a person notable. Clubmarx (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related album page:

delete no notability shown, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A7. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:16, 11 September 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) 00:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 20:36, 18 September 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Peters

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

Unremarkable author and teacher. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Completely unreferenced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator wastes no words, I won't either. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assertion of notability appears to be as an author, however, he fails WP:AUTHOR. Location (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite my deletion-sorting listing above, I think it's obvious that he should be judged under WP:CREATIVE rather than WP:PROF. However, there doesn't seem to be enough notability for his writings: just having some short stories published isn't enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above sound reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:45, 12 September 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) 02:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spandex disco jeans

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

Delete. Does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. There is already ample content about these types of leggings at the leggings article under "shiny leggings." They do not merit their own article. Moreover, the article is mostly opinion and original research. AKeen (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete yes, already adequately covered, per nom. multiple problems with article, but without references.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing special about this particular type of spandex-flavored pants - it almost feels like it was created by a fan of this garment. I'm not even going to call for a redirect, since "Spandex disco jeans" doesn't seem like a common search term - at least, that's my opinion. If anything, there should be a redirect to leggings as per the nom's note. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:19, 11 September 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 Project for the New American Century. Cirt (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New American Century

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

Delete No reliable sources indicating notability: blogs do not constitute RS. Appears written as an advertisement to promote this film for the 9/11 conspiracy festival premiere. No attempt in the slightest to present this film in an NPOV way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Project for the New American Century or, in the alternative, merge and redirect. Bwrs (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea to add a redirect, whatever is decided. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 13 September 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. Skomorokh 04:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Tango Rhums

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

Unfortunately there is nothing about this band that meets WP:MUSIC or WP:N. The most I could find is from their label's site which amounts to nothing and their facebook and myspaces pages which again offers nothing. I don't believe any of its members are notable (none have an article on Wikipedia). One of the "former members" is notable, Jah Wobble, who was in Public Image Ltd. but I can't find any verification that he was even in this band. The Pet Shop Boys are listed as an associated act but I can't find the association. J04n(talk page) 03:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed all three of the former members (Jah Wobble, Bonnie Langford and Noele Gordon) - it was basically three lies, which is why is was unreferenced. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - epically fails on grounds of notability Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Was essentially a personal newsfeed for the band before I got to it. ALso, as pointed out above, contains blatant lies. Zazaban (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under Music Notability criteria 7 "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." The Tango Rhums, and the associated Newtown Products (founded 1979) are the focal points for the thriving music scene of Glenrothes Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.128.153 (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are their any verifiable sources to support this? J04n(talk page) 20:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there are, Glenrothes isn't a significant enough scene on a world scale to merit even their most prominent band having an article. The band doesn't even have an album, for heaven's sake. Zazaban (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - the previous post ( by Zazaban) is mildly offensive and smacks of isolationism - I don't see any reference in the quoted criteria that either the City or music scene of such has to be significant on a 'world scale'. The last sentence of Zazaban's post doesn't even merit consideration in a reasoned discussion of music. Regarding verifiable sources : these will be posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.128.153 (talk) 23:14, 12 September 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 02:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hodges

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

Non-notable individual. A number mentions in church related articles; however, lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance to support notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable: If anything, it's the church that would be notable if sufficiently covered. Of the four references supplied, the first is trivial coverage, the second and third are about the church and not Hodges, and the fourth is about a separate organisation. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 22:56, 11 September 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) 00:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the church, which actually is notable. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO; the church doesn't seem notable either, despite the dubious claim of "fastest growing church in the United States" from what may not be a reliable, third party source. Altairisfar _talk 13:40, 18 September 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. GlassCobra 20:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Amrit

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

I'm not finding sufficient sources or references to prove that subject of this autobiography meets any notability requirements. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to meet WP:BIO and a Google search [25] and search of Google News [26] don't turn up any in-depth coverage of Mr Amrit. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 13 September 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) 00:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its seems quite likely that Mr. Amrit created this article himself, though it really belongs on his personal URL, not here, if that's the case. But "Bula Bollywood" apparently may actually show on Fiji television for what that's worth. --Milowent (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please refer to the following sites and search result on google to prove that this is a genuine article:
- http://www.ajaywebsite.com - this is Ajays Personal Website and has all the activites he is involved in. If you search Ajay Amrit on Google you will see his name in many articles in relation to what is stated in his website.
- http://www.carvingdream.com - this is ajays entertainment company
- Videos on You Tube from his TV series Bula Bollywood: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]

Also now more references has been added to verify that Ajay Amrit is also involved in Community Service and is a notable person in Fiji. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.37.10 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 18 September 2009

Reply: I don't know if User: 202.170.37.10 is also User:Dbau13, but the above comment by the former is virtually identical to the comment the latter left on my talk page a few days ago. Consequently, I'll just repeat here some of what I said there:

It sounds like you're laboring under several misapprehensions, so I'll try to straighten them out:
YouTube is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.

The fact that someone or something can be found by searching on Google does not, by any means, imply that they should have a WP article. If you think it does, feel free to write an article on my cat.

The subject's own Web site and own company's Web site don't count as reliable sources either.

The statement that "this is a genuine article" isn't a reason that the article can't be deleted. Actually, even if it is "a genuine article" about a genuine person, it still doesn't mean the article can't be deleted.

Before you [comment on the AFD], though, I strongly recommend that you go read a few Wikipedia articles on deletion and notability, such as WP:Notability (people), WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Why was my page deleted?, WP:Introduction to deletion process, WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and WP:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates.

Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and submit article to Cleanup for a thorough sandblasting. The person recives some coverage in Fiji Times... which seems he may have a notability in Fiji... but if the article cannot be improved, it can go. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat stronger than weak delete. He seems to be a person of some importance in Fiji, but I can't bring myself to call it notable. He's cited as Chairman of ABC Foundation in one article, but also of the Rotary Club in another. ABC Foundation itself doesn't seem to bring up anything more than his name does in gnews, and "Bula Bollywood" in gnews brings up nothing. the June 2009 Fiji TV schedule suggests that Bula Bollywood may be less "hugely popular" than the wp article suggests, but I could be judging a book by its cover there. Looking at the material that's there, and failing to find any other information ("Ajay Amrit", "ABC Corporation" +fiji, and "Bula Bollywood" all brough up zero hits in Proquest, Gale, and Ebsco databases, even as passing mentions), I have to conclude that he hasn't done enough of the things necessary to pass Wikipedia:Notability_(people), and the things he has done are also not of sufficient worldwide importance to warrant inclusion. I have a regretful, axeman, feeling about it for some reason, but I don't think he warrants an article. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per sources which indicated notability. plus alot of information found.--Judo112 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - to make things more clear, I've just gone through the article and removed the citations that either didn't WP:RS (Amrit's own sites & YouTube, for example) and or didn't actually back up the statements in the article. All that's left is, well, a whole lot of uncited information and WP:OR. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:56, 25 September 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 00:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J Williamson

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

Article is a possible autobio written by an SPA describing the owner of a costume shop in Philadelphia. While there are a number of references / links mentioning him, few are true reliable sources, and those that are don't constitute non-trivial coverage. Most local business owners will have a few quotes in the local media, but that doesn't create notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator for the reasons listed above. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jujutacular^talk_contribs 03:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. fails WP:BIO, nn individual. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:45, 11 September 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. I'm invoking WP:IAR to close this discussion early. It is obvious this is being canvassed off-site; it is therefore necessary to archive this AfD and re-nominate after a while since it will be impossible to form a fair consensus at this point. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CyanogenMod

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

I'm fixing this broken nom with keep votes and no nomination statement! The article was AfD tagged by anon - 68.189.104.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with a a statement on the article talk page -"An article about a minor modification of a minor mobile operating system is in no way notable." I'm not expressing any opinion myself -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It's not like this is the iPhone. It's just yet another Apple ripoff like Windows and Linux. -68.189.104.172 (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't have any knowledge about mobile operating systems. Even though Android is not as "famous" as the iPhone, it's yet more powerful, modular and OPEN SOURCE. Please stop trying to delete an very good article just because you are an Apple/Microsoft fanboy. Velazcod 00:21, 11 September 2009 (EST)

Excellent use of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Well done. Also, Linux is a ripoff of Apple? I will not dignify that comment with a discussion. --Eris Siva (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author probably still won't understand what you and I are just laughing about. Velazcod 00:24, 11 September 2009 (EST)

You too aren't the only ones laughing lol! He probably doesn't realise wikipedia runs on ubuntu servers. As of June 2010, this is a very useful article Ms.henrick (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The thought of deleting Cyanogen's Wiki page is absolutely crazy. Not only does he deserve the "honor" of having a page dedicated to him and his mods (he's managed to pull off what untold numbers of Google Developer's can't, or won't), people searching for information regarding (Cyanogen)mods for their Android phone deserve reputable information. I thought Wikipedia was a source for that. Enough said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.97.152 (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cyanogen and this mod have been taking huge steps forward in developing for mobile platforms - both for Android-specific devices, and for the Linux kernel in general. The article is well-fleshed, informative, and a source of important information for future users. Currently growing in popularity and usage, and mentioned in many media outlets, CyanogenMod is already notable and groundbreaking. "Leaking" a usable Donut operating release, the inclusion of the developing BFS, and its bleeding-edge mentality are all turning heads...from the general public and developers alike. --Eris Siva (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the invaluable contribution, dedication and hard work by Cyanogen, the Android OS is greatly enhanced. As a end user, I have grown to enjoy my G1 and My Touch 3G devices even more with the work done by Cyanogen. I would recommend everyone to use his build and modifications on their Android based devices. Please leave the article on here for others to learn about and someday benefit from.

Keep To repeat my message from the discussion page: CyanogenMod represents a major development in the entire mobile space. It moves rapidly, far more rapidly than any casrrier pushes out updates to their phones, and is on the cutting edge of innovation with features like BFS, a scheduler released about two weeks before its inclusion into the OS. This is an enthusiastic, growing community headed by an enthusiastic developer, and is certainly one of the many developments the Android team was hoping to inspire. That CyanogenMod can exist and succeed like it does is, alone, justification for Android's existence to many, and is a major draw for the platform. Klondike (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Klondike, your arguments are WP:LIKE and WP:USEFUL. CM has no coverage from reliable secondary sources other than a brief mention in a lifehacker article. This is a clear delete. Jamougha (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Engadget, TechNews, and other development websites have also covered Cyanogen's achievements - and specifically this mod. --Eris Siva (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links? The page you linked to does not mention cyanogenmod. It doesn't link to cyanogenmod. Jamougha (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engadget did not credit CyanogenMod for the pictures, the "Read" links link to CyanogenMod forums on Xda, for TechCrunch, see Crunchgear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.19.233 (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The read link does not link to 'cyanogenmod forums'; there is no such thing. It links to a post by cyanogen about an early build of donut. This is not cyanogenmod; donut is only being incorporated wholesale into cyanogenmod in the current experimental branch. The second link you posted links to the same post. I think you've demonstrated my point. Jamougha (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Crunchgear. Correct - that entire article is about the Donut release of CyanogenMod, and links at the bottom of the article. There are numerous corrections in the comments. --Eris Siva (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The CyanogenMod ROM is more akin to a distribution of Android (as Debian, Red Hat, or Ubuntu for Linux). There is a distinct userbase, a devoted group of testers, and significant customization beyond the Android Open Source Project releases. The releases include community driven development, merging of new technologies, and popular selection of material for inclusion. Beyond BFS (mentioned above), CyanogenMod has featured the Advanced Launcher, kernel support for tethering, cgroups, swap, compcache, inclusion of the 2.6.29 Linux kernel, filesystem changes, initialization modifications, and numerous other unique features not present in other distributions/releases of Android. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.19.233 (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CyanogenMod is one of, if not the strongest force in open mobile-os development and Android optimization specifically. The subject is notable and reliable sources are on the rise. Having said that, the article currently reads like an advertisement and should be edited to comply with NPOV guidelines. Monban (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CyanogenMod is noteworthy in my opinion. It is the Ubuntu of Mobile Linux (Android) right now. Mobile Linux is newsworthy. A distribution of a noteworthy Operating System should likely be noteworthy. We don't need a giant article, but something brief and appropriate would fit nicely here. -vessenes

Keep Wikipedia is not paper. CM is as notable as many of the topics on here. At the very least it could be merged into the main android page. --Ryan Gardner (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If anyone deserves a wiki, CM does! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.168.59 (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CyanongenMod offers a drastic improvement to the basic myTouch Android phone offered by T-Mobile. It should be on Wikipedia. -Snafilter (talk) 11 September 2009

Keep This is the sort of experimental community driven uber-geekitude that Android was intended for, as I understand it. As long as there is Android there will be independent builds, and the ones as great as Cyanogen's will hav any deleted wiki pages simply recreated I'm sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4hed517 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CyanogenMod is in many user opinions the best mod to Android available. I believe it merits a wikipedia page. -urbanrock —Preceding undated comment added 04:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - CM made my already good phone much more usable. The ROM is much better than the stock ROM my phone came with.

Keep I would hardly call Android a "minor" OS, as its market share is at least 7%, topping Palm OS, RIM OS, and Windows Mobile. Cyanogen is also rising in search volume, according to Google Trends. I agree with the sentiment that it is a distro, but also assert that it may be a derivative altogether now, as it has diverged heavily from Android trunk or any stable, official release from T-Mobile. I believe CyanogenMod was the first mobile phone OS to use the Brain Fuck Scheduler, and has also brought Donut to the edge crowd. Its growth is exponential, and at this rate would reach 10K Twitter followers by the end of the month. Assuredly, only a medium percentage of CM users are also Twitter users. Cyanogen was asked to provide download statistics, hopefully he'll respond soon. 96.235.22.36 (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cyanogen makes the G1 a usable, GOOD phone. There are topics far less notable with WP pages. The page needs work, yes, but it's brand new. Give it a chance to improve before killing it. Joshuas88 (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cyanogen is what makes G1 useable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LinkinX (talk • contribs) 04:26, 11 September 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) 01:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Network Scale-up method

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

Was proposed for deletion as “non-notable neologism used by a single academic group”; I have no objection to the deletion – the article is extremely short – but the topic seems interesting enough that I would like to see what the community thinks before it is actually deleted. Bwrs (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Kinda tough to say, but ultimately I have to go with delete. Everything I've found is mostly related to this paper. Nothing that really indicates this is notable. Jujutacular^talk_contribs 02:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the list of papers linked in the article, here, show a bit of notability. I'm open to other editors' opinions of these. Jujutacular^talk_contribs 02:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine for a stub. Enough references can be made to get it to work. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete the prodder was correct. Interesting and notable are quite different things. It is not enough that something be interesting to be included in Wikipedia, the topic of the article must meet our standards of notability. This term appears to be a neologism and the method under any name has not achieved notability through sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. If & when this becomes notable it may be included in the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 15:04, 11 September 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) 00:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drawn Some - PROD made sense; WP:NEO Chzz ► 21:47, 18 September 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) 05:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myah Marie

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. No references to independent reliable sources; a Google search produces plenty of hits, but they're all just trivial listings or probable self-promotion. I am unable to find any actual evidence of notability. Robofish (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all attempts at finding a source only found various profile pages and other non-reliable-sources.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 18:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. No independent reliable sources to confirm notability. Singularity42 (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably the most ghits I've seen on an article that should be deleted. Gobs of them, but nothing substantial, nothing showing actual notability. Per nom. Jujutacular^talk_contribs 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 02:04, 11 September 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 Cott Corporation. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rooster (drink)

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

DELETE. Google News (all dates searched) reveals nothing which would suggest that this is a notable beverage of any kind. JBsupreme (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cott Corporation. Notable enough to be mentioned there, plus there was an incident about the product reported in the news: [35][36]. Location (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent company. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 12 September 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. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sprint 8

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

Article is poorly referenced. References do not conform to WP:RS. References were obviously Googled without being checked for relevance. No indication that the subject is worthy of note. Possible advertising as "Sprint 8" appears to be a commercially marketed program. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable product, service, or exercise routine. I cannot believe that people are actually marketing sprints and interval training as something new! Yasso 800s on the other hand should be in Wikipedia. Location (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete I suggest that the article not be deleted. the topic is notable. I have included two links, one from LA Times, that talks about the merits of Sprint 8. [37] [38]. cheers --Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 4 September 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 00:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only unsourced and non-notable, but incredibly dangerous. You want some breath when you finish an exercise routine. Nate • (chatter) 00:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The articles from the Times seem to be more of the human interest sort. Seems like Yet Another workout. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:12, 11 September 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. JForget 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Martin - Greatest Hits

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

This compilation album which was planned for a UK only release appears to have been canceled. There's no trace of it on Sony Music UK's site, and the sourced retailers like Amazon.co.uk and HMV no longer list it (since they probably never received it). Nor has there been a digital release as it's not found on the iTunes UK store. I also did not find any indication of it being pushed back to a later date. I was only able to find one direct UK CD-wholesaler on eBay who is selling it, indicating that some batches of this album have randomly made their way to some indie wholesale/middleman accounts, but ultimately, it was never shipped to large retail store accounts. Imperatore (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:24, 30 August 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) 00:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the album's not out yet, but you can already pre-order it on Play.com. Also, we have the album cover on Play, so perhaps this should be copied across. Tris2000 (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It was probably put on pre-order ever since this particular retailer noticed the first batch was not on its away in time for the initial July 27 release. This is also probably the only major UK retailer (with a online shop) to still have a remnant of it in its database. Therefore I don't think the pre-order means anything, it's just the retailer who's not updated properly. Imperatore (talk) 19:04, 4 September 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, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:42, 11 September 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. JForget 13:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schumann PLL

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

Has not received significant coverage from third-party sources. Very few of these were ever made, no especially famous bands ever used one, and they are far less well-known or significant to the world of music than hundreds of other effects pedals. Conical Johnson (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:44, 3 September 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) 00:04, 4 September 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, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in gnews [39]. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on searches done by previous commenters, there is insufficient notability. Ray^Talk 18:37, 11 September 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. Many of the arguments in favor of keeping the article do seem to rely heavily on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which, while not policy is certainly a valid concept. Additionally, one of the keep "votes" does not explain why the page should be kept. Bearing this in mind, I conclude that consensus is strongly on the side of deletion –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Bali

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY Davidelit (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If articles are going to be written on individual hospitals, as they could be, there is no reason not to have a list. Borock (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has been up for some time, and there is no promise or indication that individual articles are planned. The article therefore remains simple listcruft, containing incidentally an advertisement which is itself, separately, unacceptable in wikipedia. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but determine notable hospitals, red-link them in the list, remove the non-notable ones, and place the notable ones on requests for page creation. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having spoken to a member of the Indonesia Project, my understanding is that none are wiki-notable. But I would concede that this is difficult to establish in the absence of articles. Would not the corrdct sequence be to write aricles about the hospitals, establish notability if it exists and then make the list? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 09:40, 6 September 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) 00:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As we are not the phone book. Even a listing of notable hospitals is irrelevant to an encyclopedia unless the list itself is notable. A category is highly appropriate here but an article is not unless more can be written about the topic than just presenting the list itself. Them From Space 02:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a phonebook or a directory. Ray^Talk 18:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and turn this into a category. Unless the list would be notable, we don't need to have an indiscriminate list of all the hospitals in Bali (even if we only listed the notable ones). Bfigura ^(talk) 03:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why should a list of hospitals in an Indonesian province be deleted when we have similar lists for every American state? And please don't throw WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS at me - that is a section of an essay that, in cases such as this, runs against the policy of neutral point of view, which means that any concept such as notability is just as valid from an Indonesian point of view as it is from an American one. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NPOV requires us to obtain a neutral point of view, not a point of view which treats all national perspectives with lopsided equality. A neutral point of view, rather than seeking the lowest common denominator, rejects that false paradigm and uses other criteria to determine suitability. In this case, the relevant criteria are WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT. This article fails on those points. If it should so happen that, as I do not doubt, hospitals in the United States are more likely to have significant secondary source reporting about them and are hence more likely to be notable, this is not a failure of neutrality on our part. It is simply the state of the world. Ray^Talk 11:33, 14 September 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. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Obama, You've Got Mail

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mr. Obama, You've Got Mail

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

A non-notable books. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are lots of references but nearly all are to the book itself (a primary source) which does not help demonstrate notability. The other references are to bible passages or past speaches. The article reads like a soapbox RadioFan (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 18:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the article has been improved (reliable references and more appropriate citations from reliable sources have been added) there are no reasons for deletion. Theprop (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are more references but they have the same problem the original ones did. I'd expect to see references on the movie itself (such as reviews) rather than its subject matter. They appear to be there to reference the point being by the movie. Still very soapboxy.--RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 7 September 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) 00:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book isn't discussed in the news at all, and hasn't impacted the world at all. Only 9 hits on a standard google search about an Obama book says a lot about its notability. Them From Space 02:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, and Google searches of the book don't turn up much aside from the books themseves. Netalarmtalk 03:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is what you've really got. Not mail. Not exposure. Not notability. JBsupreme (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to have been posted in the form of a review of the book, complete with reviewer's name listed at the top, rather than an encyclopedia article about it. Could of course be rewritten, but book doesn't seem notable anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination; book does not appear to be notable.Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 11 September 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. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NATO peacekeeping

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

This page is redundant with List of United Nations peacekeeping missions Jminthorne (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Parts of this are also redundant with NATO. The article seems to focus on Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. I recommend merging any info from this article before deleting. For example, I could not find the ops listed here on the List of United Nations peacekeeping missions (KFOR, SFOR and others). Wouldn't want to leave any orphans behind as a result of delete. Ebonyskye (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep This seems like it could be a notable topic. The article as it is leaves me a little confused however. I thought we were fighting a war in Afghanistan, not peacekeeping. Borock (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is redundant with NATO, and does not add any useful information. Buckshot06(prof) 23:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep While the article is currently in a very poor condition, it is a viable topic; NATO peacekeeping operations have received mountains of coverage in books, newspapers, etc. Nick-D (talk) 04:58, 5 September 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) 00:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very notable topic. And the article, even though brief, contains useful wikilinks. Bwrs (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitly notable, as evidenced in the article and its reference section. If anything, the list should be merged into this article, as lists generally are of lesser notability than their parent topics. Them From Space 02:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Probably notable topic. SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:42, 11 September 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. A merge can be discussed more in-detail away from AFD. MuZemike 18:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tilt-shift miniature faking

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

Delete and merge into Tilt-shift photography. Article is unreferenced, the term "tilt shift miniature faking" is not in common use and the article is a magnet for people adding links to their own photoshop technique blogs. Reader undertanding would be best served by merged into the TS photography article, where the faked/PS version can be contrasted with the lens based approach. Mfield (Oi!) 05:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without substantial cleanup and citation of reliable sources, I agree with deletion. But I don't think any material in this article should be merged into the TS photography article without qualification, or support from reliable sources. There are at least two serious flaws with the concept of this article, as well as with the brief citation in the Tilt-shift photography article:

There simply is no such thing as “tilt-shift”, and anyone who would even think of using this apparent compound adjective does not understand camera movements.
Though use of tilt for “miniature faking” seems to be quite in vogue, the term is largely a misnomer. In a close-up photograph, the DOF straddles a plane parallel to the image plane; with tilt, the DOF is wedge shaped about a plane at an angle to the plane of focus. To anyone who has actually photographed small-scale models and used tilt or swing in photography of full-sized objects, the two effects are quite different.

There is no question that many people are using tilt to give a shallow region of focus to scenes that normally would be sharply rendered, even if most don't really understand what is happening. In light of that, it may be appropriate to document the practice. But if any of this material is retained, I think the difference between what actually happens and what is often claimed should be clearly stated. And I'd consider using scare quotes, as I have above. The biggest challenge, as I've suggested on the Talk page for Tilt-shift photography, is finding a reliable source. JeffConrad (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the same arguments that JeffConrad put forward, I'd say keep, not merge. I recall it mentioned in the view camera class 25 years ago (it tilts and shifts and swings but isn't really a t/s, it's more than this :). The topic of "miniature faking" is now raised in every t/s lens review, although I cannot estimate its practical significance (perhaps some clever advertizing shots?). NVO (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if a term is in common use, it may be better to have an article than pretend the term doesn't exist. Like NVO, I don't see the practical significance of “miniature faking”, but a lot of hobbyists seem to be fascinated with it. Certainly, there can be very effective uses tilt/swing for selective focus, but I think in most cases the fascination is more with the novelty than the art.

But that's not really relevant to this discussion. As currently titled and written, this article is a source of misinformation. If it remains, it should be moved to something more accurate, such as Miniature faking, with an indication that the term is a misnomer and an explanation of why that is so. The net result of using tilt or swing with a small f-number is selective focus different from that to which many viewers are accustomed, and when this technique is used in a image of a landscape or cityscape, the resulting unsharpness may initially give the impression of the shallow DoF that obtains from an image of a small-scale model made at much greater magnification. But a side-by-side comparison of the two images would quickly demonstrate that they look quite different. The difficulty in making such a comparison is in finding a good scale model of a full-size scene.

The article on TS photography already mentions selective focus; Whether this merits more than a few sentences is debatable. Again, it's important that if this article is kept or merged, the information be accurate. It may be difficult to find a reliable source supporting “miniature faking” as a misnomer, though the concepts of DoF and the Scheimpflug principle are well enough established that a reasonable argument can probably be synthesized. I think it will prove impossible to find a reliable source that supports miniature faking as a true effect. I've yet to even find an authoritative source for the term tilt-shift photography. JeffConrad (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon several rereads of this article, I'm inclined to agree with Mfield's interpretation of its thrust. It now seems to me as if the article attempts to describe a technique for faking a technique that doesn't really fake miniatures at all. Under Techniques, the second paragraph begins

It is perhaps improper to refer to this technique as "tilt-shifting".

This statement is absolutely correct; as I've mentioned, the DoF that obtains from using tilt to rotate the plane of focus doesn't look anything like that which obtains from close-up photography. In comparison, the technique used by Smallgantics actually appears to work. So it's not a question of which technique is better—using tilt to simulate a scale model doesn't work at all.

Accordingly, I'm against merging this into Tilt-shift photography; to the contrary, I think the mention of “miniature faking” in that article needs clarification. If using tilt to simulate close-up photography of a small-scale model is mentioned at all (in either of these articles or others), it should be made clear that although using tilt to obtain a small region of sharpness is sometimes claimed to simulate a miniature scene, it doesn't really do so, and in fact, it isn't even close.

If this article remains, and I'm inclined to think that it should, the sourcing should be improved and the and the intent of the article, especially its relationship to fake “miniature faking” using tilt, should be clarified.

I agree with Mfield that this article is a target for link spam, but the same is true for Tilt-shift photography, so moving this material there probably won't help. Many of the links in that article should be removed. JeffConrad (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some kind of cleanup is required, but I don't think it should be deleted - the topic is popular at the moment and regardless of whether the name is technically correct (I don't know enough to make that call) that's what it's known as in the mainstream, and that's the term that people will come looking for. Possibly merging into the tilt-shift article could solve the problems, although I think people will come looking specifically for the "faking it" material, not real tilt-shift, whatever that is. That's what I'm here for.

So it's not a question of which technique is better—using tilt to simulate a scale model doesn't work at all.

I disagree - I'm no photography expert, but it looks like scale models to me. And I think most of the readers of this article, separate from the true tiltshift article will also be like me - not experts in this and looking for something specific. ShaneNZ (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The initial impression may be that of a miniature scene, but the difference is actually pretty obvious if you compare a photograph of a small-scale model with one of a full-scale scene that uses tilt to achieve selective focus. As I mentioned, though, the problem is finding two reasonably similar images for comparison. The most common images of scale-model scenes I can think of are those of model railroads; they really don't look anything like images that attempt miniature simulation using tilt.

I've cleaned up the article on Tilt-shift photography, trying to make it correct while still addressing “miniature faking”. It appears to me that this article is primarily about digital postprocessing, but the article really needs to decide what it is about. If the intent is to include tilt as well as postprocessing, a more appropriate title would be Miniature faking, as I've suggested. As I also mentioned, it's probably better to cover a topic that to ignore it, even absent truly reliable sources. But the material still needs to be accurate; otherwise, we do everyone a disservice.

Again, I recommend keeping this article but cleaning it up so that it's accurate. JeffConrad (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on this, and on the changes you've made to the tilt-shift article as well. A rename is probably the way to go, especially if there are other photographic techniques/post-processings that are used to fake a miniature look. ShaneNZ (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've bolded each vote to make it more clear for the closer. I will not close the afd, since there is no clear consensus yet. JForget 23:30, 10 September 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) 00:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Tilt-shift photography. This was used in the CSI episode noted in the article, and was quite an impressive use of the technique. It made a real photo look like a miniature. Edison (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Edison. I am not particularly interested in photography but this is interesting enough that I have read several articles about it in reliable sources so I don't even have to research it at this time to say that the topic is notable. It doesn't need a separate article, however, and is appropriately included in Tilt-shift photography. Drawn Some (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic indeed is interesting, but the Tilt-shift photography article is about photography, not about miniature faking as such. It would seem that the only material from this article appropriate for that article is that related to photography, so the material on Smallgantics would need to be excluded (except perhaps the brief mention already there). At present, the T/S photography article is introductory, but it's reasonably accurate and has reasonable support from reliable sources. Presumably, any material from here that would be merged would also be supported by reliable sources (which it presently is not). I suppose I could start by tagging some of the questionable statements and indicating the specific problems.

There also is an overarching question that may affect the decision: what exactly is “tilt-shift photography”? A Google search indicates that the term is in fairly common use, but as I've indicated on the talk for the tilt-shift photography article, I've yet to find an authoritative definition. To many people, it seems to mean selective focus using “tilt-shift”, often specifically in relation to “miniature faking”, but it also appears to find a fair amount of usage in the conventional sense of photography using movements on small- and medium-format cameras; for example, Canon have started to use it in the context of their tilt/shift lenses. So I think specific uses need to be treated as subsets of the general topic. And again, that article is about photography, so the material it includes must reflect that. JeffConrad (talk) 01:07, 12 September 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. NW (Talk) 22:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin-jerusalem cycle

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

Apparently non-notable event. I've searched for news and book coverage, including by keywords "Dublin", "Jerusalem", "cycle"/"bike", and "priest", and by the leading priest's name, but can turn up no evidence that substantial coverage in reliable sources exists. Prod removed by creator. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I similarly failed to find anything on Google. If references can be provided, it might be worth a Merge into, say, an article on the parish/church/etc but there's no indication which article might be relevant to merge it into. ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references for verification. Maybe merge if sources can be found. Jujutacular^talk_contribs 01:35, 11 September 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. As unsatisfactory as WP:NFF is vis a vis our verifiability policy, it is a notability guideline that has consensus behind it here. Skomorokh 00:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cross (2010 film)

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

Hasn't begun shooting, outside of an imdb entry there is little evidence this is happening, although currently scheduled for a May 2010 release the script has been floating around since 2000, so news of it starting should be taken with a pinch of salt. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If they start shooting, we can revisit through WP:DRV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow what an abuse of Wikipedia to post this so soon. JBsupreme (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jujutacular^talk_contribs 01:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe we can have this article once the movie is actually made... Netalarmtalk 03:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Gross violation of WP:CRYSTAL.Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now by virtue of WP:NFF which states: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". As of yet, there are no reliable sources confirming commencement of principal photography so the film clearly fails NFF. However, if and when principal photography does begin, the article is likely to get recreated and, at that time, it should be kept because it will have met NFF as well as WP:N due to already existing wide-spread RS coverage such as: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] and many more. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My !vote above is purely procedural based on existing policies and guidelines as they apply to the article's subject. For future reference in a case like this, I would advise to not nominate an article like this one for deletion just yet. There are many reliable sources about the film's pre-production process and there is suggestion that the principal photography will begin in September. Should principal photography begin in September, the article will be re-created within days of being deleted. The better option would have been to watchlist it until approximately the end of September and then do a quick search on whether photography has begun or not. If it has, expand the article accordingly. If it hasn't, go ahead and nominate. I'm sort of using WP:IAR here because the film clearly fails a specialized notability guideline but experience coupled with procedural knowledge of our policies and guidelines tells us that the deletion will only be temporary. If this film had no sources indicating principal photography being imminent, I say go ahead and nominate. But this is a borderline case where even WP:CRYSTAL may not apply because CRYSTAL says "individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Notability of this film exists by virtue of significant coverage in reliable sources and the ambiguous wording of "almost certain" allows for leeway on ascertaining the possibility of a future event. I still stand by my !vote above but I wish the article wouldn't have been nominated in the first place. There was a better way to handle it which was to wait a week or two and re-assess. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it being re-created once the cameras roll, as with any film under WP:NFF, but films are subject to delays, re-writes and casting changes, all or any of which can stop a film dead, but the fact that the article was created six weeks before cameras start is a problem with all film articles, and it means a lot of AfDs or PRODs as there is no applicable CSD section for "unremarkable film". At the same time Wikipedia film pages are rife with speculation whenever a film sequel gets mentioned so we have the blunt instrument of NFF and section redirects. At the same time the argument that "it will happen so why don't we wait" could apply to so many films which only really have an imdb entry (and the usual announcements in Variety). It's an odd situation, and I don't know any other way to resolve it than being firm and nominating everything that hasn't started shooting (with the exception of The Hobbit pt1 and pt2, which are in pre-production). Darrenhusted (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I agree with User:Big Bird and that was my approach when I added the "future films" template to the article some number of revisions ago; I was going to keep an eye on it and see if anything happened to the information about the film one way or the other. I think it's likely this will be recreated in a short while when principal photography starts, although it doesn't meet WP:NFF as it stands and I cannot quarrel with the nomination. I wish we had a kind of "holding tank" for articles like this. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. My thanks to Big Bird for the excellent research. Ironholds (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why pages like this are not ok, but movies like Pirates 4 have their own page, even though they have not started filming on that movie either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JerzeyHellboy (talk • contribs)

That page should be a redirect to the sequel section on the franchise page, and there is a merge discussion at the moment. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage in multiple reliable sources meets the general notability guideline, which WP:NFF should not supercede. Rlendog (talk) 19:15, 16 September 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. Skomorokh 00:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Mee

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

This player has yet to play competitive 1st team games — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergunner08 (talk • contribs)

Keep - the article itself disagrees with your claim, saying "in May 2008 he made his first team debut in a friendly in Bangkok", something backed up by this. The fact that it was a friendly rather than a league game is irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't played in a competitive first-team game for his club. Spiderone 15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - playing in friendlies has never been considered sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE, as by their nature they are non-competitive and teams field all sorts of youths, triallists and non-contract players. Harry Redknapp once dragged a fan who'd been abusing him out of the stands at a friendly, kitted him up, and sent him out onto the pitch telling him to see if he could do any better! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seriously? I thought that was something made up by the writers of Dream Team in, I think, 2006. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hasn't played a competitive first-team game. Can be recreated if or when he does so. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football, failing WP:ATH. --Jimbo^[online] 20:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appearing in a friendly does not confer notability. If he appears for Manchester City - unlikely, given who they've alredy got - then it can be recreated. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No prejudice to a recreation if and when he can pass WP:ATHLETE. Note to above keep !vote, per WP:ATHLETE, the fact that it was a friendly versus a pro game actually is, indeed, completely relevant. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's see some coverage as a professional athlete. NTK (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 03:47, 17 September 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Clayton (footballer)

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE because he has never played in a professional first team match. No sources provided to establish noteworthiness for other reasons. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete make when he becomes notable Spiderone (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as usual, remake when he plays... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:ATHLETE for not playing a professional match. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 05:37, 5 July 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.

[1] ttp://www.citypaper.net/fringe/2009/show.php/id/43/

[2] ttp://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/57975142.html

[3] ttp://www.phawker.com/2009/09/08/fringe-review-meet-the-burps/

[4] ttp://www.livearts-fringe.org/blog/index.cfm/2009/9/3/Getting-to-the-Mushroom-Village-The-Persistence-of-a-Tribe-of-Fools

[5] ttp://www.phillyfunguide.com/event/detail/53583

[6] ttp://www.livearts-fringe.org/details.cfm?id=8819

[7] ttp://www.hellophiladelphia.com/events/Festivals,_Fairs,_Parades/E0-001-023256584-8/Armageddon_at_the_Mushroom_Village.cfm

[8] ttp://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/4323651/

[9] ttp://tribeoffools.org/media/501c3.pdf

[10] ttp://www.youtube.com/user/1BigLebowski

[11] ttp://www.myspace.com/tribeoffools

[12] ttp://www.theatrealliance.org/news/2007/0501b.html

[13] ttp://www.theatrealliance.org/news/2005/0418c.html

[14] ttp://twitter.com/Tribeoffools

[15] ttp://mk-mk.facebook.com/group.php?gid=45751018198&ref=share

[16] ttp://www.livearts-fringe.org/details.cfm?id=8819

[17] ttp://www.linkedin.com/pub/terry-brennan/13/117/197

[18] ttp://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-891319251.html

[19] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre

[20] ttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/encyclopedia

[21] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_history

[22] ttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meritocracy

[23] ttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deserve

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]