Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 12: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:46, 12 May 2009

< 11 May	13 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political Positions of Barack Obama

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. "Word of mouth advertisement" is not a reliable source. SilkTork *^YES! 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chiaffalo

I happened to run across this article, and the thing is, I can find no evidence that this art project ever came to fruition. Moreover, it doesn't seem notable enough for an article about an event that was planned but never actually took place. For a rationale, I guess I'll say that the project, at least as a fait accompli, is unverifiable in reliable sources. Deor (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the utter lack of WP:RS on teh Interweb, I'd say this project was a Fail! Eddie.willers (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for a complete lack of any coverage whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete seems pointless...Modernist (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above. ??? JNW (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SilkTork *^YES! 16:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Space Racing Games

A list of games that fall under the genre "Space Racing". Since "Space Racing" does not have its own article, and WP:LISTCRUFT discourages list pages about subjects that do not have their own articles, I propose this article be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholly original research with no objective context. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total, useless Spaceracegamecruft. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too narrow a criteria ("First person shooters set in jungles", "Underwater puzzle games")? Marasmusine (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is debatable whether half the things on this list fall into this catagory anyway... Too narrow a criteria to get its own list. Taelus (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial intersection as well as lack of context and verifiability. MuZemike 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Our biographies of living persons policies have much more importance over the fact that the event of this woman's arrest is a news story in the UK. The content of the article can be retrieved and merged upon request.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Orobator

Fails WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E. Many people get arrested every day. A simple arrest for alleged drug trafficking does not make someone notable even if there is extensive news coverage. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per numerous sources pointing towards notability over the normal drug mule case. Orobators story is known in many nations. Also the reasons for the deletion seems a bit weak to say the least.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Citing three Wikipedia policies is a bit weak? Extensive media coverage does not equate notability. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." It is likely that this is the only event for which she will be in the news. If that proves not to be the case, then an article can be considered. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have said what is needed to say. I rest my case and let other people decide. But your grounds for deletion does not apply on Orobators article.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, and the fact that the nominator nominated the article for deletion three different times in less than five minutes on very vage grounds.--Judo112 (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominated it for speedy which was not accepted. I am going through the proper channels for deletion. I thought about a WP:PROD but decided that it was better to have a discussion. Just because a speedy is not accepted does not mean that an article shouldn't be deleted after proper discussion, so you'll need to come up with better reasons than that, citing Wikipedia policy. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No but it doesnt neither mean that it should be deleted just because the nominator is of a strong "deletion opinion" like you. And i have to agree with Judo it seems a bi strange that you nominate it for deletion just minutes after a speedy deletion request was denied.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Especially on the grounds that "decline speedy - multiple sources indicate notability".--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E is still a fair reason to argue for deletion, especially considering that the admin who declined the speedy stated the article was a potential AFD candidate [1]. Nothing strange going on here. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the admin asked for someone to check it out and then perhaps nominate it for deletion. The nomination should have been placed here after a look trough and not in haste. And perhaps not by Harry but by a impartial administrator.--Judo112 (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am an impartial observer who has actually read the guidelines I quote. It is perfectly acceptable for me to nominate, and it is improper for you to suggest otherwise. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need for any sort of personal attacks. Everyone is entitled to their opinion concerning individual articles here on Wikipedia its not a "one man state".--Judo112 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but who is engaging in borderline personal attacks? You say, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion concerning individual articles..." immediately after saying in essence I have no right to voice my opinion by nominating it for deletion. As the creator of this article, maybe you would be better to take a step back. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a step back Judo. There's no reason why the same person cannot nominate it for AfD after putting it up for a speedy delete. Just stick to discussing whether it meets the guidelines please. Quantpole (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is both Judo and Harry the dog,s discussion and Judo shouldnt be the blame-game victim. However i ask all parties to read trough this.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested in meta-discussions.--Judo112 (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. THe guidelines on 'one event' go on to say "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." I think we can now say that there is persistent coverage, but obviously, interpretation of this will vary. Quantpole (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You really cited 1 policy/guideline. Agree with Quantpole--Unionhawk ^Talk 11:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, they are three different guidelines with different criteria. That's why they are listed separately. If we were to include everything that was mentioned in multiple news sources for a few days, this would no longer be an encyclopaedia. What is considered "persistent" news coverage needs to be looked at retrospectively, not in the heat of the event. It is far too early for this article. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to event name Keep but move to event name (2009 Orobator-Laos drug mule incident/allegations?) Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article should retain her first name, but not include the year as she was arrested in 2008, and the story only came to light this year.Martin451 (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The situation is a Cause celebre example of WP:BLP1E. The unique facts driving news media over-exposure are Orobator's pregnancy and strict capital punishment laws in Laos — but news sources cover Orobator only in the context of the arrest in Laos. Avoid news media coverage as rationale for an encyclopedia article, which is premature for this developing incident. Mtd2006 (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as suggested by Hipocrite. This is an international incident and controversy with plenty of RS coverage that will continue to develop beyond the NOT#NEWS scope. --J^mundo 15:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Yes, I hate it when people use wikipedia for news, but the volume of coverage here is so overwhelming that there is absolutely no question of notability, even if it's a single event. I also want to pointt out that this event is tied into so many interesting legal, cultural, diplomatic, and ethical issues. It's interesting. In my opinion, this is among the best possible examples of single events that should be covered in detail by wikipedia. Cazort (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is what WP:NOT#NEWS is about. Flashy story with high coverage? Yes. Enduring historical notability? Almost certainly zero. Ray^Talk 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Cazort and MarkusBJoke. This is not just about drug mule, it has human rights issues in it, e.g. Orobator's pregnancy and attempts to bring the trial forward. Martin451 (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:BLP case. The article implies she trafficked drugs which is clearly negative material about a living person. Articles purely based on said negative content should be avoided. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article is problematic, then edit/improve it! I don't think material being "negative" is valid grounds for deleting a biography of a living person. We are to avoid slander and defamatory content...but there's no problem with neutral statements of simple facts backed up in numerous reliable sources. And is the article really that negative? After all, a lot of the articles are about how people are calling for her protection and trying to make sure she doesn't get executed!!! Cazort (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are also WP:BLP issues. It is not usual for someone who is not already notable to have a page created because they have been charged with a crime. There is also the potential for this page to become a campaigning vehicle for Samantha Orobator's supporters, which again is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. (There are already hints of this with the addition of the "Human rights in Laos" see also.) The fact is, she rose to prominence because she was a pregnant woman potentially facing the death penalty. Now that it has been confirmed she won't, interest in this story will wane. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the see also link, not to turn it into a campaigning page (which as you say it should not be), but because according to news, her rights have been violated, e.g. trial date moved to stop her getting legal representation. As for her being pregnant, she is currently 4-5 months pregnant, yet was arrested 9 months ago. Martin451 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, people have their rights violated in custody every day. That does not mean they merit a Wikipedia article. In any event, the last execution in Laos was almost 20 years ago, so the threat of execution was remote at best. Laos does not routinely execute people. It is also standard in Laos, as even Reprieve acknowledges, for defendants not to have access to lawyers until right before the trial. There really is nothing unusual enough in this case that merits a separate article on the individual. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, she is a suspect, the article doesn't imply guilt. either way, this has significant coverage and rather than outright delete, merge it with a death penalty in Laos article, if it exists. riffic (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article does NOT fail BLP because it's sourced to multiple media sources which are accurate and reliable, and it's a fairly major news story. Having said that I don't know how significant this is going to be in the long term hence I'm not sure about the 'one event' test.--Yo Dawg! What's Going On Today? (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-Rename and move to Case of Samantha Orobator. Undoubtedly there are multiple, secondary, reliable sources but they are about the case (i.e. arrest, consequences and preparation for trial) and not about Orobator's life and career. This should not be a bio article. TerriersFan (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is notable, current and encyclopaedic. Anyone facing such a barbaric punishment (that's what capital punishment is) is big news in civilized countries of the world (that excludes the USA, Saudi Arabia, etc.) I'm not going to quote lots of pointless wikipedia policies and guidelines in providing my reasoning as that's a moronic thing to do. If you want it kept, say why. If you want it deleted, say why. Don't just quote lots of policies and other acronyms - that's the most annoying thing about wikipedia: the policies which allow lazy editors to vote without thinking properly or explaining THEIR reasons.--217.203.140.226 (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is an excellent example of why the article should be deleted or renamed. It is based on a misconception. She is not facing capital punishment. If that is the only reason why she is notable, it is a false reason. The policies are there for a reason. Read and understand them before commenting. Without policies and guidelines, Wikipedia becomes a pointless free for all. Harry the Dog WOOF 06:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Straightforward BLP1E. (If she's discussed months from now, that will be a different matter.) The person commenting anonymously immediately above is of course free to term this vote ("!vote") and/or myself "moronic". Lazily yours, Hoary (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable human rights case, which gained worldwide media attention. The British government sent someone over to talk to them about this even. Dream Focus 20:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly!--Judo112 (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UK government always intervenes when a citizen is arrested in such circumstances. So that hardly makes it notable. They sent somebody because they don't have a resident consul. This has now gone from the headlines as I was sure it would. Nothing new on Google news search since 7 May. Simply no more notable than any other arrest for alleged drug smuggling. Many of the details are simply speculation (we don't know how she got pregnant again; people are assuming it was against her will but we don't know. For an encyclopaedia, it has to be verifiable. When we know the full details of the case, we can determine whether it is a notable event. Until then, it is only speculation. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Cazort and Dream Focus. Significant incident which had prompted reactions and talks between the governments of the two countries involved, and which has received widespread coverage. Aridd (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Human rights in Laos. ~~I can't see that every Westerner accused of drug smuggling in SE Asia needs a Wikipedia article. Fences and windows (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)~~ Although her case is by itself not notable, it deserves inclusion in Humans rights in Laos, in particular because she became preganant after being jailed, almost certainly by being raped in jail. Fences and windows (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all western durg smugglers have their own wikipedia page first of all. Second, Orobator is a special case which had recieved more coverage than your average drug smuggler case/person. So your reasons arent the best, but hey.--Judo112 (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will of course recognise a rhetorical flourish. She shouldn't have an article as she's only accused ("editors must give serious consideration into not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured"), she is not otherwise notable, and neither the potential motivation or exectution of the alleged crime was unusual or noteworthy. See Wikipedia:Notability_(criminal_acts)#Criteria_for_inclusion_of_articles_on_participants. Fences and windows (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about the alleged crime itself (which was not a huge amount of drugs), but about the events surrounding it, especially the human rights issues that have been publicised, how Laos wishes to be seen, the Anglo-Laos negotiations and possible prisoner exchange that has come out of this. Also it is not clear that she was raped, this claims that she consented (It is a mixed prison). Martin451 (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That is why if it is kept it should be merged. As to the pregnancy, it is possible that, as she was pregnant when she was arrested, she may have been told that because of this she would not face the death penalty. When she lost the baby, it is certainly possible that she may have sought to become pregnant again because of this. There is just too much speculation on the key issues that affect notability for an article to be included at this time, especially since the media interest has waned with the clarification that she won't face the DP and will probably serve most of any sentence back in the UK. This is an encyclopedia, not a rolling news service. There is nothing wrong with waiting for things to become clearer before recreating this article if necessary.Harry the Dog WOOF 05:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Human rights in Laos. While she probably doesn't warrant her own article, as per the policies cited by the nominator, the reason her case has received such international publicity is that it has brought focus to Laos's treatment of prisoners. If the issue becomes sufficiently major, the article can be split out again.--Aervanath (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until she meets notability requirements. She's a suspected drug smuggler under arrest and there are thousands of similar people, I'm not seeing anything important or significant about her case. Even if she technically met the guidelines for notability it would be WP:ONEEVENT at this point. Drawn Some (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletetrivial crime; the interest isv only in the conflict of cultures. If she does get the dealh penalty, which I gather from the story is unlikely, then she might become notable.DGG (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article meets all of the deletion criteria as set out by policy as stated by the nominator which is my long winded way of saying "per nom". -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep leaning merge. Wikipedia could have thousands of such articles on rather trivial people in the news. Seems a summary in another article, thus a merge, would be best to serve our readers as a modern example of the various issues at play. -- Banjeboi 00:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why was this re-listed? it seems consensus was already reached, either merge or close as keep and move on. riffic (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still say Keep as this person has reached notability beyond your average drug smuggler/criminal.--Judo112 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this discussion still going on. For me this is a straight to Keep article. No doubt about it.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Delete minded people dont seem to have mutch really to point towards deletion more than the usual pointing towards wikipedia rules this wikipedia rules that-... Which anyway points to keeping this article.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point to any Wikipedia policy that says that an article should be created for an otherwise non-notable person who has been arrested as drug-smuggling suspect? If we don't follow the rules and guidelines why bother having them? I have pointed to three policies this article clearly fails at the moment (although it may not in the future). If it does meet notability guidelines in the future it can be recreated, but for now it should be deleted or merged. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important current event, so deserves a mention Fahrenheit 16:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is the point; the event may be notable but the person isn't. Consequently the page should, if kept, be moved. TerriersFan (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if we, lets say, delete it... And she then gets death sentence or a really long prison sentence that will get enormous publicity what do we do?... Also the fact that she could be transferred doesnt change the facts about her and her notability.Actually that will only increase her notability because of the UKs efforts to bring her home.--Judo112 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judo112, you have just demonstrated neatly why this article should be deleted. You are arguing for it's retention based on speculation. "If" this and "if" that. If indeed any of these things come to pass, the article can simply be recreated by an admin. But at the moment she is not notable. The UK government provides support for any citizen arrested abroad who requests it. Plus, let's once and for all be clear that she won't get the death penalty, as confirmed by a senior Laotian minister, so that "if" is definitely not happening, and certainly lessens her notability. The only thing that conforms to Wikipedia policy is to delete and recreate later if notability is confirmed. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coatrack, not news, BLP1E. Take your pick. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am willing to WP:Userfy on request. SilkTork *^YES! 18:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gruesome Harvest

Wholly lacking in reliable sources, so fails the need for multiple, independent, nontrivial sources demonstrating enough notability for a separate article. Discussion on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gruesome_Harvest has failed to turn up anything that meets our criteria for inclusion. DreamGuy (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bob A (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you look at WP:NB you'll find this:
"a. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern books may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature."
So I did two things, I looked to see what libraries hold the book and if it is still in print. I checked WorldCat and it is held by dozens of libraries in my region alone, including major university and research libraries. On Amazon it ranks 5,500 or so in book sales which is pretty darn high meaning it is not only in reprint but also currently popular 60 years after first publication. Certainly common sense would indicate the book is notable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But by the very criteria you've quoted above, it fails the "widely cited or written about" clause and most of the others as well. A mere reprint existing in itself means nothing. DreamGuy (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In its present form, this article tells us nothing about how or why this book is more important than, say, Russel's Scourge Of The Swastika. If there was a proper, scholarly examination or critique then I would support that but a list (and link) of the contents plus a sentence or two is useless. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced and gives no indication of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, completely non-notable book. The article is simply a coatrack for propagating neo-Nazi ideology. Paul B (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that this book is notable. --Folantin (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note -- it has sales rank 5,377 at amazon.com. That's not too bad for an unnotable book. The only place where we appear to cite it on-wiki is Expulsion of Germans after World War II. As a 1947 publication, it may be of historical interest, and we need to take care to avoid "google bias" against moderately notable publications predating the age of the internet. google books reveals a 1987 reprint by the Institute for Historical Review, and it seems to enjoy some currency in contemporary far-right historical revisionists such as de:Claus Nordbruch. I do not think the book passes WP:BK, but I would prefer reworking the article into a discussion of this particular brand of historical revisionism over deletion. --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)##[reply]
- this seems to be a recent publication with a similar gist. After some further googling, I would advocate a merger into Morgenthau Plan. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the book appears to be selling pretty well and referenced at other places but it probably isn't ready/important enough for its own article just yet. - Schrandit (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It hasn't been discussed much, but it is part of the basis of another more recent book which has got coverage, After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift by Giles MacDonogh:[2]. Yet there is too little evidence that it is notable on its own, and to where would it be merged? It could be potentially used as a source for reaction to the Allied occupation of Post-War Germany. Fences and windows (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe fact that a book is for sale at Amazon does not satisfy WP:N and WP:NB. Seems to be lacking reviews or other evidence it had much of an impact. The book itself is oddly strident postwar German propaganda, asserting that the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern European countries was as bad as anything the Nazis are accused of doing. Edison (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails to meet the WP:N/WP:NB criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thick and thin libertarianism

Non-notable. The subject was derived from a blog post, and hasn't been published or referenced anywhere outside of Long's small community of "left-libertarian" bloggers, except for a brief reference in this blog post. Bob A (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed, it seems to only be a term used in a small circle. I do not believe it meets WP:GNG. If this were to be kept, I would reccomend merging it into another libertarian page or putting a {{Template:NN}} tag a the top. Paulish (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism. Badger Drink (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *^YES! 18:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism Joey the Mango (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Advertising Aervanath (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downrite Recordings

Serious notability concerns: independant label, no notable acts, no reliable secondary sources (that i could find), only external links to social networking sites. Created by Single-purpose account seemingly for promotion. Fails WP:COMPANY. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 No assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VH1 Greatest Hard Rock Songs

Non-notable list prepared by a network. Never mind that I haven't heard any of these songs, I fail to see how a list without any particular scale of inclusion would warrant an article, especially given the utter lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly subjective list from single source. Definitely not encyclopaedic. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-write- That VH1 did a list of its 100 greatest rock songs should probably be covered, although in its current form, the page is not very good, given that its just the list and some OR regarding the list. I'm sure more information is out there, regarding thing ssuch as when the series aired, who the commentaters were, and who was polled in the survey that was conducted to compile the list (that said, I don't have access to the resources right now to verify this, so if anyone could back me up, I'd be greatful). PS: Songs 85, 19 and 5 are awesome live (not that that matters a whit regarding whether or not this should be kept or not). Umbralcorax (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it may be interesting but it isn't notable. Where is the coverage about this list in reliable sources? -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google seach shows that this was independently covered, including by Entertainment Weekly [3]. Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - List is notable and received independent coverage from independent sources. Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^{talk to me!}_{what have i done?} 22:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly a copyvio, definetly not notable as a list. Hipocrite (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - listcruft. Eusebeus (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A television show got third party media review. The suggested guidelines for notability, say that is enough. Dream Focus 17:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? There are loads of similar shows produced every year. Here's a sample from just one channel:[4]

The 100 Greatest TV Adverts
The 100 Greatest Sex Symbols
The 100 Greatest Tearjerkers
The 100 Greatest War Films
The 100 Greatest Stand-Ups
The 100 Greatest Albums
The 100 Greatest Musicals
The 100 Greatest TV Character
The 100 Greatest Movie Stars
The 100 Greatest Family Films

The only reason that these programmes ever get made is because they are cheap. Hire a few talking heads, play a load of clips (cheap to buy the rights for these) Bingo! you've got 3 hours of telly, off to the pub, trebles all round.

The audience is rarely told who votes for these things, (because it depends solely on what some low-paid production assistant has cobbled together and is by no means an objective list) or what the criteria for inclusion (sorry DF, but it does mean something) are. Does Wikipedia need an article on any or all of them? I think not. pablo_hablo. 20:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as totally subjective and only being based on internet votes (which can be tricked easily). --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists like this can be notable, for example all the lists the American Film Institute puts out are commented on by the media, but this one doesn't appear to make the cut. Nothing from a quick Google search and Google News search evidences notability, and I doubt this would make it into library stacks either. Them From Space 14:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bootlegs are usually deleted [5]. Name can be reused as a redirect to Metal Acoustic Music if wanted. SilkTork *^YES! 18:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic metal

Contested prod. Unofficial bootleg album, not released by the band or their labels. No sources to establish notability and a seriously doubt any could be provided. Rehevkor ✉ 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, unofficial demo. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions.
1) Even if there's such a thing as a non-notable Metallica album, wouldn't this deserve a mention in Metallica discography?
2) Metal bands in general do tend to write acoustic tracks sometimes. Would it be possible to write an encyclopaedic article with this title?
I'm thinking we might need to merge a trimmed version of this to Metallica discography and then disambiguate this between Metal Acoustic Music and a redirect to Metallica discography for the moment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If not an official album so non notable by default, it's a bootleg, something Metallica has hundreds if not thousands of. It's release was not sanctioned (as far s I'm aware) or authorised by Metallica or their labels. Unless there's significant coverage and sources for notability it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Rehevkor ✉ 18:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a bootleg with no coverage, so fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as this is a dictionary entry rather than an encyclopedic subject per WP:NOTDICDEF. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off task

A simple definition, original research - deleted yesterday anyway, and includes a talkpage full of bizarre (and in places violent) drivel, seemingly added by the IP of the article's creator. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP Drawn Some (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 14:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly formed dictionary definition. Not made up one day, but still. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds that WP:NOTDICDEF. --Dlduncan2 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced dicdef without encyclopedic potential. No evidence this can be usefully expanded beyond its current state. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Subject meets WP:ENTERTAINER so that means we keep the article but it needs to be cleared of copyright violating text (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Keshawarz

Unremarkable actor. Some Google news hits as cast in stage productions, but no non-trivial coverage. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple recurring roles on notable TV series, such as 24 (TV series), Lost (TV series), The Sopranos, and Damages (TV series) establish notability per WP:ENTERTAINER in my opinion. Alone, none would, but I think enough recurring roles can be equivalent to a few starring roles to satisfy WP:ENTERAINER. Keshawarz is, I think, one of those actors that a lot of people would recognize without actually knowing his name. If that's taken to actually be an argument for deletion, then so be it. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 06:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep. Every bit part actor in Lost needs their own article.~~Weak keep. He's been in a lot of high profile series, and gained quite a bit of coverage as a villain in the musical production of Tarzan.[6] Also got +ve coverage from Fox as an understudy for Taboo:[7] Btw, this text violates the license of Lostpedia[8] as it is under a CC-NC license and their article came first[9]. Fences and windows (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 MLB Off-season

not being updated, info should already be on individual team season pages Spanneraol (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Un-necessary duplication of info from team season pages. No one has updated this, does not exist for any other seasons. Spanneraol (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No other off-season that I'm aware of has a similar page, and all this info should already be on the respective teams' 2009 season page and/or 2009 Major League Baseball season. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially, this type of thing would be taken care of in 2009 MLB season with the simple phrase, "During the offseason...." Mandsford (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We have consensus that this is an unneeded content fork of Tea Party protests, so also redirect there. There is some disagreement about whether deletion or merging is appropriate, so I'll restore and userfy the content on request if somebody does want to merge anything from this fork. Sandstein 06:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationwide Chicago Tea Party

Article is a clear fork from the main Tea Party protests article and from the sub-article New American Tea Party which is currently in an AFD discussion. I think it was inappropriate to create another fork while discussion on deleting the original fork is ongoing, and leaning heavily towards delete. [10] TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 16:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The New American Tea Party article (the one under deletion discussion) was at one time called Nationwide Chicago Tea Party, its name was changed back and forth with that by the same editor who started this new article. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the previous article you reference, New American Tea Party, the article could not be completed as necessary because the original name "New American Tea Party" suggests it is a group or organization. I hadn't known this until after doing more research, so the article turned out to be what I mistakenly thought was the American Tea Party (ie. Nationwide Chicago Tea Party). But since that was not the case, I created the article for Nationwide Chicago Tea Party so it had the correct title and theme. Comparing an article about an organization to an article covering an event seems a bit far-fetched to qualify the event-article for deletion. There are no other articles in Wikipedia covering the February 27 Nationwide Chicago Tea Party events, which is why I created it. Tycoon24 (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT would seem to preclude an article then.Drawn Some (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you create a new article about the same subject when the other one you're fighting for is still under deletion discussion? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the main article. The Tea Partiers need to work out their differences and come up with an informative article. If a section then becomes worthy of an article so be it, but these POV forks are unhelpful. Drawn Some (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Drawn Some's points. This appears to violate WP:ONEEVENT, and it really should be back in the main article. AyaK (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason for this article to exist and there doesn't appear to be anything worth merging that isn't already covered in Tea Party protests. Also, it's a bit troubling that a nearly identical article to New American Tea Party would be created when that article is currently under deletion discussion (as the creator of this article well knows, since he is the only one fighting for it's retention). I would actually argue for snowballing this one. Why should we waste the time going through the exact same deletion discussion again? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. It's already mentioned in the articles on Tea Party protests and Timeline of Tea Party protests. It's wholly non-notable, blog-level political advocacy with a position paper woven in. This essentially makes WP a primary source for an attempt to get better exposure for its organizers and/or participants, rather than writing about already existing notable topics. Instead, the topic is really about this website and this one. See also WP:NOT. I apologize for being quite so blunt about it. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I chime in too? I think the nationwide chicago tea party page looks good. After reading others comments im not sure what the fuss is all about to delete it. Does everyone here know this is different than the april 15 tea party's right? That's two events not oneevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.153.81 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may chime in :), please consider registering an account. Yes we do know they are different events from the April 15 events. However they are both encompassed under the broader subject of Tea Party protests. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 01:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fits the definition of a content fork. 69.251.135.219 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as failing WP:N,or merge to the main tea party article. Edison (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party is still up for deletion. The article is not failing WP:N, that tells me user Edison in all likely did not bother to check the sources. Local news coverage, CNET, About.com, Investors Business Daily, TheStreet.com, Seattle Times, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, reuters, and CNBC are just a few of the reliable sources referencing the information. It's irrevocably impossible to deny the fact that the February 27 events called the "Chicago Tea Party" happened. Most of 90% of the article is covering unique details to the February 27 protests that cannot and are not covered anywhere else in Wikipedia. The article is clean, it covers the events in a neutral tone, and it sticks to the necessary details about the February 27 event. How much longer is this nonsensical discussion going to last? It's really absurd. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised too, it should have been deleted awhile ago. Actually I'm surprised that this article was created while a similar article was up for deletion. That similar article had even been called this while undergoing AFD, and the material was in that article. I would like to call WP:snowball here. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 01:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you refuse to answer any rebuked comment or question I have brought up, and instead if all you have to offer are witty remarks that claim you are right without proof, I'm simply going to remove the tag. Tell me, TharsHammar, since you added the tag, and since you seem to know so much about these events; show me one article, one piece of evidence, or a single reference that suggests the February 27 Tea Parties were not grassroots and were in fact astroturfing. Don't give me a reference or source to "teabagging" jokes on the April 15 Tea party, or the claims of "Astroturfing" on the April 15 Tea Parties. PROVIDE TO ME a single reliable, relevant source to suggest the article is anything but what is currently written in Nationwide Chicago Tea Party. Show me local news, any reliable source for that matter, that suggests the February 27 grassroots protests article belongs in another, separate article covering the Tax Day Tea Party; where as, half of that article is dedicated to talking about "teabagging" methods and/or claims of "astroturfing." Heck, even the MEDIA got three paragraphs smashed into one large section, a whole section dedicated to media created stories around the actual event but have nothing to do with the protests. Even then, the event the media is creating its story around are the APRIL 15 TAX DAY tea parties. The February 27 events DO NOT belong in a main article where it is primarily composed of accusations that are simply not being accused of to the February 27 events. Not a single editor has shown or given me a single specific argument that suggests the deletion tag should remain. I Will Remove The Tag If No Valid Argument Is Brought Up. I'm going to repeat: Local news coverage, CNET, About.com, Investors Business Daily, TheStreet.com, Seattle Times, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, reuters, and CNBC are just a few of the reliable sources referencing the information in the Chicago Tea Party article. TharsHammar has refused to offer a single source to counter what is mentioned in the references already in the article. His opinion seems more drawn as reasoning against the article. Tycoon24 (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, TharsHammar, if you're unable to offer me a sound argument without all of this trivial nonsense, but with factual, related referenced article proof that the Chicago Tea Party is the same thing as the Tax Day Tea party (and that they belong in the same accused "astroturfing" article)... if you cannot do this, I will argue that you are violating WP:FILIBUSTERS. If you cannot, with utmost civility, provide valid arguments (and not just "buzzwords" to keep the WP:FILIBUSTERS going), I will remove the unnecessary and wrongful delete tag. Tycoon24 (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I will report you for doing so. Good day. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 12:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tycoon, I think I'm misunderstanding your argument here. You don't want the February protest(s) tainted by the astroturfing charges detailed in the main Tea Party protests article? Those charges started with the Chicago Tea Party, and Santelli, Freedom Works, chicagoteaparty.com, etc., long before April rolled around. If this article is allowed to remain, the astroturfing charges will surely appear here, too. Also, if this is to be an article about events seperate from the April 15 events, why use sources and content about the April 15 events and disguise them to make them appear to be about the February events (the Rush Limbaugh April 15 quotes, for example, with the word "today" omitted)? I haven't !voted here yet, but I'm not seeing any reason not to vote delete/merge. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, you brought up a good point. It's not that I don't want the astroturfing charges in the same article as the February 27 Chicago Tea Party, it's that there aren't any charges leveled against those protests from a reliable source. Surely, if the charges are there and the February 27 protests are the same thing as the Tax Day protests, then anyone can easily do the research to find such charges. If they exist, then they will be added to the article. However, as far as I know, they don't exist. The most recent non-libel claim of astroturfing (source taken directly from the Tax Day protests article), states this:

On April 9, 2009, the blog Think Progress claimed that most of the 2009 protests were conservative lobbyist-created "astroturf" projects and not spontaneous grassroots protests. Instead, Think Progress contended, the protests were nationally coordinated and organized by Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks^[1].

Before anyone makes any comment following this, please read the above referenced article. In the first sentence it clearly states, "Yesterday, Think Progress reported on Republican lawmakers planning to speak at anti-Obama “tea party” protests taking place nationwide on April 15." Then it goes on to explain how the April 15 Tax Day movement is supposedly "astroturfing," but you have to read carefully to pick up the information correctly. Think Progress states, "Freedom Works staffers apparently moved to 'take over' the planning of local events in Florida." So... this begs the question, what type of events were taking place before Freedom Works apparently moved in to "take over" the local events in Florida? Before the organizations picked up the local protests to help guide them, what were those protests called? Obviously they weren't guided by any organization. They were grassroots. They were not as large of protests as the Tax Day April 15 Tea Party; however, that's because they were grassroots. They were guided by three grassroots organizations (as mentioned in the Nationwide Chicago Tea party article), and covered by a much smaller number of media -- primarily existing of local news or others that I've mentioned previously.

It's possible the title of Tea Party protests is deceiving most people people. It used to be (and still should be) Tax Day Tea Party. Not a single referenced source in the Tea Party protests article is covering the February 27 Tea Parties. Not a single source leveling charges of "astroturfing" discuss the February 27 events. Nor does it cover the previously organized events prior to February 27 that were also grassroots. So what I want doesn't matter in this discussion, it's what the articles, references, sources, or whatever, it's what has already been said about these events (and what hasn't been said in Wikipedia).

The other problem I have is the continued lack of reason TharsHammar has brought up -- yet he's the one who calls for the article to be deleted. Just take a look at his previous comment after I asked him kindly to show me a particular source to argue his point. He doesn't care to make his point, he just wants to keep his WP:FILIBUSTERS going. This is a violation against Wikipedia, and I will tell him right now, if he continues this I will report him. Today. I'll give him a few hours to respond with factual-conviction before I report him; but otherwise, he is simply using his opinion to hide others factual research. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Keep:

A group called the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition was formed February 20, 2009 by three grassroots organizations: Smart Girl Politics (SGP), DontGo Movement, and Top Conservatives on Twitter (TCOT). These organization led the Nationwide Chicago Tea Parties.

In response to the growing protests, various organizations began collaborating and helped to guide future rallies.

The "future rallies," the April 15 Tax Day tea parties were guided by Freedom Works, The Heartland Institute, The Coalition for a Conservative Majority, The Institute For Liberty, the alleged Fox News promoters, and others. Different organizers equal different events.
There are future rallies already scheduled. July 4, 2009 is the next date for tea party protests. The addition of these events, with addition of more and more sponsors and organizers, the currently titled article Tea Party protests will assuredly become too large to easily depict information on all of these events. This calls for sub-articles, which is an acceptable and desired method for resolving such events and articles about them.
The first instance of this is when the article Timeline of Tea Party protests was created. The main article got too cluttered and required additional sub-categories to explain the events.
The Nationwide Chicago Tea Party is essentially created to provide a background to the various protests and events that occurred and ultimately caused increase support from various organizations to jump-on-board to promote future events. Without this sub-article, those researching the February 27 "Chicago Tea Party" may finish reading Tea Party protests and leave with the wrong impression of the February 27 protests.
There is a vital "bridge" of information to the Tea Party protests that must be made clear on how they were formed and what led to the Tax Day Tea Parties. The Nationwide Chicago Tea party puts a needed gap in this bridge to make the connection as to what events led to the more widely known Tax Day Tea Party. The Tax Day tea party article (or Tea Party protests) does not place this gap in the necessary bridge to provide full information on the historical events which led to more current events. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of that addresses why this article should exist when the subject is already covered in a much more extensive article. If anything, you're making the case that the section on the February 27 protests in Tea Party protests should be expanded. But that is an argument you should make there, not by starting a parallel article more to your liking. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tycoon, kindly do not submit multiple bold-formatted statements of your preference for "keep", "delete", "redirect", etc.. It makes unnecessary work for the closing administrator. The convention is to preface new comments with the word "comment" in bold type, or less conventionally, to use a bullet point or just make the statement so it doesn't duplicate your already bolded preference for the outcome of the process. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article is nearly the same as the article New American Tea Party which was just deleted after extensive discussion (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_American_Tea_Party). The arguments made in that discussion should be taken into account here as well. This is particularly tiresome, given that the sole defender of this article was also the sole defender of that article and just happens to have created this article when it appeared that the other article would be deleted. It would be nice not to have to have the same discussion twice. There is no question that this article is simply a content fork of Tea Party protests. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Note: Loonymonkey, please do not take information out of context to use as a claim. The information about the New American Tea party and why the article was confused for an event over some organization called "The New American Tea Party" was already discussed in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_American_Tea_Party article. The internal link is fine, but your out-of-context opinion-comment about it here are not OK. Please keep this discussion on topic. Thanks. Tycoon24 (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No... no, I'm definitely not making the case that the Tea Party protests article discussion on the February 27 events should be expanded. If anything, it should be cleaned up and stick to only the most relevant information from the February 27 Tea Party that relates to the April 15 Tea Party. Otherwise, let the main article for the Chicago Tea Party further detail the events on its sub-article. In fact, please see this discussion for further Talk on the current proposed name-change from "Tea Party protests" being moved to Tax Day Tea Party. Here's the issues at hand: The two events had similar motivations (an argument for merging the two articles), but they were organized by different people (an argument that the distinction is important and would be blurred by covering them both in one article). If I'm not mistaken, it's the first argument that I am running into issues with for reasons against keeping the articles separated. The second argument, which is the issue that I'm trying point out, if the two articles are merged it must be made clear that the February 27 events were different in that they were organized by three grassroots organizations, and not the alleged "astroturfing" organizations. Unless any of such allegations against the February 27 Chicago Tea Party protests have been written or are found, if from a reliable source, then allegations against the April 15 event organizers should not be merged or blended in with non-existent allegations against the February 27 protest organizers. If there were allegations, then it can be edited into a merged "main" article. So, from here, I argue that it'll cause the currently titled article Tea Party protests to become very cluttered, with some information covering some organizations who protested in the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party; all the while, at the same time, other sections will be cross-discussing other organizations that guided and promoted the April 15 Tax Day Tea Party. This is the problem that I believe will be instantly created if these two articles are merged. Tycoon24 (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Response I found a great reference that much better explains what I have been trying to argue this whole time. Here's a quote:

Present on the March 2 call were the majority of the coordinators of the Feb. 27th events, most of whom had been calling in daily the prior week. Some on the line had independently organized their own Feb. 27th event and subsequently learned of the online group. All of the people on that call had worked themselves very hard to obtain what can only be described as a near-miracle. In less than six days, a handful of people on the national level (fewer than ten) and forty - sixty people on the ground were able to organize and manage events that resulted in 15,000 - 25,000 people across the country coming together to let their voices be heard. In Lansing, Michigan, co-organizer Joan Fabiano decided on Monday, Feb. 23 to organize an event at her State Capitol for that Friday. In less than four days, she and two other women from the area managed to gather together 300 - 400 of their fellow Michigan citizens. In St. Louis, Bill Hennessey, with the help of radio show host Dana Loesch, found themselves on that Friday standing under the Arch with 1,500 other Missourians.

And this doesn't even have information on the February 16 protest. But it still clarifies the point of differences in events (hopefully) a little better than I have. Tycoon24 (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Updated Response Talk on when/who/why first "astroturf" allegations occurred -- most notable are "when" the first allegations occurred and against whom.

On the allegations against "astroturfing" -- a quote:

"People came out and the idea of protesting the stimulus caught on around the country. But it wasn’t until Rick Santelli gave his spontaneous “rant” on television, calling for a new tea party, that the idea of holding Tea Parties came into focus. Brendan spoke to some of his key people in various states and found that all of them were eager to make Santelli’s idea a reality. It was that spontaneous."

Notice, however, that even a few days prior to Rick Santelli's rant, at least two or three local anti-spending protests had already taken place (with no alleged astroturfing organizations). Even the Wikipedia article on "grassroots" clearly defines what the Wikipedia article on the Chicago Tea Parties reads as a grassroots formed protest. The Chicago Tea party is a different event sponsored and promoted by different organizations to the April 15 tea parties. The reason I keep posting "updates" is because I have a sense many of you either don't believe me (thus, the sources I keep adding), or may not have enough background knowledge on the events to offer a helpful response. So I'm trying to be as helpful and clear as I possibly can. Tycoon24 (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're merely continuing your content dispute from the main article, which isn't the purpose of this discussion at all. You're avoiding the central issue of this discussion, which is that this article is a content fork of the larger Tea Party protests article, and that article isn't nearly large or complex enough to require a daughter article (particularly for sections that are just a few paragraphs). At most, you're making the case that the section should be expanded in that article, but that's an argument you should have there, not here. Your most recent tactic, that of requesting a page split on that article after the fact, to justify this article, is fairly disruptive and seems to serve only to drag this process out a little further. I look forward to this discussion being closed so we can get back to editing the article. (note also: Please DO NOT move or refactor the comments of other editors. I would like my responses to remain after the paragraph I was responding to, thank you.) --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as this is mainly a content fork. Reading the article and sources, there was nothing more notable then the other tea parties. Plus, this event is covered in the main article and time line along with other major city events. Brothejr (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note (As per but not limited to the "Levels of desired WP:DETAIL," under WP:SUMMARY -- It has been suggested that some content from Tea Party protests be split into a separate article entitled Nationwide Chicago Tea Party.) The Tea Party protests article has been requested for a name change to Tax Day Tea Party. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CFORK. Minor, local tea parties are not worthy of their own articles. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over 30,000 people made it to this event, nationwide. Considering the event was organized in less than a week by three grassroots organizations ( Smart Girl Politics, DontGo, and Top Conservatives on Twitter), and considering how these "minor, local" tea parties led to the Tax Day event, this is absolutely worthy of its own Wikipedia article. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astroturf campaigns promoted by fringe sources are not notable, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.....Speaking of astroturf, it might be worth noting that about sixty-five-thousand-plus people, on average, go in person to a regular-season NFL football game (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance). So, half a pro football game gets thirty thousand people. Great Smoky Mountains National Park gets an average of 30,000 visits a day (http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/Detail.cfm?ID=785) . Songwriter/performer Leonard Cohen recently announced without a whole lot of advertising that he was going to do a tour, and the first performance sold out over 16,000 seats in just a few days-- two performances, there's thirty-thousand people.^{[citation needed]} About thirty-thousand people also die of influenza in an average month worldwide.^{[citation needed]} These kinds of numbers of people don't, of themselves, merit WP articles. Nor is there anything particularly unique about the way it was organized, which was via web networking.
.....Note that the website http://www.nationwidechicagoteaparty.com presents February 27 as "Round 1" of the Tea Party protests, with the April 15 protests labeled as "Round 2". Both involve the same ad-hoc coalition, same type of events, hyped similarly via standard web networking methods, also including the use of an array of self-referential web domain names, with various public demonstrations in various places on various dates along a timeline beginning in February, as indicated in the Tea Party protests article and the timeline article. They all have the same theme and all trace their heritage back to the Boston Tea Party. The timeline of Tea Party protests also cites many other "Tea Party" demonstrations on dates other than February 27 and April 15. In other words, the February 27 protests properly merit a brief mention such as is presently given in Tea Party protests, not a position paper presenting itself as a somehow a separate "thing". The history, stated issues, and goals of the "Chicago Nationwide" protests are the same as those of the "Tea Party protests" in general. Also, please see WP:NOT, including WP:NOTBLOG, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTWEBHOST, etc. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I would also like to point out TharsHammars previous attempt to delete Timeline of Tea Party protests, too. The proposed deletion was not approved, and as one editor said, "merging its content into Tea Party protests will leave that article 'overburdened' and cluttered." Thus, Timeline of Tea Party protests remained despite TharsHammars belief that "This article is basically junk and needs to be merged into the main Teabag Party article, where the information can be contained nicely." For very good reasons, the article was not deleted or merged. Point being, if an article that is clearly just an outline of the Tea Party protests is allowable on its own, then why can't an article that covers in more detail the first Chicago Tea Party (that was organized by different groups than the April 15 tea party) be allowed an independent article from the Tax Day protests? Tycoon24 (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we understand that you really, really want to keep this article. That's pretty clear. But try not to get personal with it. To quote you, directly above, "The internal link is fine, but your out-of-context opinion-comment about it here are not OK. Please keep this discussion on topic." --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge into Tea Party protests. This is one component of the broader national movement. It does not warrant a stand-alone article, which creates confusion. But parts of it should be incorporated as part of the Tea Party protests article. TeaParty1 (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Tea Party protests. To separate out the individual protests duplicates much of the background and history, and is an example of recentism: in the long run, nobody will remember the subtleties of what the organisers called their protests or who exactly organised them. Fences and windows (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tea Party protests. POV forking is not an approved method of dealing with disagreements over content. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main article on Tea Party protests can cover the subject. If that article gets too long, then consideration could be given to spinning off some of the detail into daughter articles, leaving behind a summary. I doubt that will become necessary, but even if it does, the structure should be one main article with one or more daughter articles, not parallel articles (one concerning February 27 events and one concerning April events). JamesMLane t c 18:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: I have clearly stated my reasons for keeping the articles separated. I've refined those reasons and posted them Here, beginning with "In accordance to the 'Levels of desired WP:DETAIL,' under WP:SUMMARY..." And I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that suggests any other alternative is a more appropriate option. From the WP:PRACTICAL policy, it's important to remember what a consensus is not.

In just one example showing why the Tea Party protests page is already a mess--even though the article is covering only the April 15 events--Tarc decided to make a random drive-by edit, deleting a reference and factual context of it in the Wikipedia article, replacing it with exactly the commented "reason" he gave for his arguably blatant violation of WP:VANDAL (but in good faith I'll give him the benefit of the doubt). So I responded to it Here, only to run into TharsHammar who immediately removed a tag with the comment, "when? it says right there Feb 10." For TharsHammar's sake, I'll assume good faith but please do Wikipedia a favor and research a topic before making such awfully inaccurate statements and edits. Here was my response edit.

I cannot fathom how "cluttered" the article will get if the merge took place. In reference to my Requested move and name change of "Tea Party protests" to "Tax Day Tea Party", I'd also like to point out something mentioned on its talk page that I had not yet realized:

Rename to something. This could easily be construed as to refer to the events leading up to the Revolutionary War (the one in the 18th century, not some proposed war against Obama). 76.66.202.139 (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it was from an anonymous editor, but the argument cannot be refuted. If "Tea Party protests" are not a current event, is it encyclopedic for the title of an article to violate or cause conflict to the WP:DATED policy? Tycoon24 (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

smerge POV fork. Hipocrite (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate football

Although Ultimate Football (and Ultimate Football League) get a number of ghits, I can't find any showing notability of this version in the first half-dozen pages of ghits or gnews hits. Notability may indeed exist, but the noise is overwhelming any signal in the article.

Note that previous versions of the article described a more generic version of the game (with a different starting place and year), but I can't find any version with references.

Taking this to AfD instead of prod because the number of different editors who have contributed lead me to think this won't be uncontroversial. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sourcing; none of the prior versions seem to have had sourcing either. The current version was written by an editor who calls himself "UFLCommish", and an unregistered user. The article asserts that this is "world famous" and helps teach media relations to junior officers in the U.S. Army. I don't see any evidence that the U.S. Army has ever heard of this. Mandsford (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourceable. I don't doubt that our fine American fighting men and women have devised a football variant to help pass the time and expend energy, but this is about as notable as a company beer softball league. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in boot camp one day. The computer game published by MicroProse in 1995 (not to be confused with the goofy little Flash game currently making the rounds on the net), however, certainly warrants a stub at this location. Badger Drink (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at all. Fences and windows (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grønnlia (Lade)

non-notable location. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete and obvious lack of notability. And someone should send the pictures to WP:FFD. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notable as a garage band made by two twelve-year olds who broke up before they bought their instruments. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Locations are notable if they are settlements, or are large geographical features which stand out in the landscape (such as mountains). In a hilly and mountainous country like Norway, a small grassy hill by the school does not stand out anymore than the school's playing field. That people can get hurt on the ice is universally true, it is not a special characteristic of Grønnlia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Er. A small hill by a school. What possessed anyone to make a page about it? Fences and windows (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:R'n'B, the author requested deletion (G7). Jamie^☆S93 00:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trinocum

This is clearly either a hoax or completely non-notable. A Google search returns no relevant results, and a PROD-tag was removed by the article creator, naturally. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP. Except for the part about Bigupunukuhu. Drawn Some (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - the author has replaced the content with a request for deletion. I've applied the {{db-author}} tag to the article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have two cows

Delete as unencylopedic and failing notability guidelines. I don't dispute that "Two Cows" is a well-known, widely used rhetorical device. Nevertheless the article doesn't add any non-obvious information on its subject beyond reproducing the "Two Cows" joke. Encyclopedic articles are about their subject matter; that is, they more than merely exemplify their subject matter. If a reader who encountered the "Two Cows" joke elsewhere came here to find more information on it, would he leave any more knowledgeable? No. Accordingly, the article as it is now is unencyclopedic. To the extent I doubt any verifiable information could be found to make it encyclopedic, the article should be deleted. Furthermore the notability of this subject has been asserted but has not been shown by reliable sources. The only relevant sources are telling of the joke, and new twists on the joke, not a discussion of the joke and the meanings behind it. Please see section on article talk page about the ProQuest sourcing. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom T-95 (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand. Term has a notable history of usage in political and general social discourse. One (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it could use a better title than "You have two cows" (I can just hear the America Online voice saying that), the "two cows" analogy is well-known in political science and economics, and a sourced article (which this is) covers a legitimate topic for which one one might consult an encyclopedia. In some cases, a well-known joke is, like a fable or a song or a story, both instructive and indicative of culture. This would be such a case. Mandsford (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This is one thing wikipedia can do well, provide a background to the various metamorphoses of a joke or cultural phenomenon. --Moloch09 (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Meets notability and verifiability standards. Could obviously use a bit of cleanup, but a lot of articles could. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joke#Cycles.
This is not, basically, an encyclopaedia article, and it could never be one because there's not enough to write about. But it is part of an encyclopaedic theme (which is Joke Cycles, e.g. "You have two cows" or "In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia edits you!"). We already have content about that theme, so merge this there.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - topic is of some notability, and there is sourced information already there.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at the sourcing. Yes there are sources, but they are not good 2nd or 3rd party sources. I have made a topic on the article talk page about the sourcing, how the ProQuest ID #'s don't work for some, and how on the other sources it is just an editorial page telling of the joke in some form or another, no real discussion of the joke. 5 years after the articles creation with many discussions about sources its pretty clear that if good sources did exists they would have been added by now. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 20:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. What I think is "pretty clear" is that nobody's taken a critical look at the article for five years.
    I think the useful, encyclopaedic sources won't be talking about "You have two cows" specifically. They might be talking about the phenomenon of joke cycles, though.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - After about 700 edits to the article over those 5 years one would hope that someone at somepoint would have taken a critical look at the article. But maybe not, since there is disagreement on clarity I would rephrase it as, "Its pretty clear to me." TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Historical Comment I'm not going to vote one way or the other, but I will share some back-story. One this page is NOT five years old, it is actually nearly 8 years old. (Here is a link to the archived version from December 2001). This is actually one of the oldest pages on the entire Wikipedia and was a pet love of many of the original group of editors, including people like Larry Sanger and Lee Daniel Crocker. We loved it because it actually served as a launching point for MANY new articles, because we realised that the jokes were useless unless we had corresponding articles to explain the topics. You'll notice that the archived version still has dead links in some places (these were all subsequently repaired). In its own weird way it was a key element in the development of the 'pedia, and I remember a lot of discussions where we would laugh about how much additional work this page kept generating. This "anecdotal WP development history" has never been recorded anywhere... possibly no-one even actually cares. So is it worth preserving for posterity? That's up to the new generation to decide. Manning (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per One and thanks to Manning. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per one So you've got an article that's been here 8 years. And it has sources and and tells how the subject is significant. 64 Google scholar hits for the phrase. [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22You+have+two+cows%22&lr=&sa=N&start=200 200 Google book hits. And then there are 130 Google news hits Lots of even minor sources add up. This represents significant media coverage, and anyone with a problem with current sourcing should look for better sourcing in the reliable sources available on Google. And I never heard this joke before. Now I know more than I did before. I think anyone looking up the subject comes away with more than they had. And the amount of information in an article really has no bearing on its significance or notability. The fact that it is apparently a classic joke and well known in poli sci and economics, despite my ignorance, meets notability. Dloh cierekim 03:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cracky, even the nominator acknowledges it's notability. Dloh cierekim 03:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute this joke has been widely told. I do though lay out why I think it fails the notability guidelines. "The only relevant sources are telling of the joke, and new twists on the joke, not a discussion of the joke and the meanings behind it" so that would mean no 2nd party sources. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 03:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see the coverage of the Polish jokes. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 03:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-sourced and interesting. Why kill a perfectly good article? Its place in Wikipedia history is just the icing on the cake. Fences and windows (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- very well known, often referred to (sometimes by real economists). If there are problems with the article, fix the article, don't delete it (unless the article were in a much worse state than it seems to be now). AnonMoos (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nominator's statement ""Two Cows" is a well-known, widely used rhetorical device." There are multiple reliable and independent sources which cover the subject. Edison (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given in the nominator's second sentence. (The rest of his argument is a misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia should be). Alex Middleton (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given by AnonMoos and Alex Middleton. AyaK (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known, widely told, and well-sourced. Problems with the article itself can be fixed, but the topic is notable. Its place in Wikipedia history I didn't know - not criteria for keeping, but very interesting. Thanks Manning. Flying Toaster 18:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons given above.--CharlieHoward (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Basit (terrorist suspect)

Abdul Basit is just an Arabic name, like John is an English name. RobbertSH (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is ridiculous. The citations aren't relevent; one of them doesn't even apply at all. "Once there was a serial killer who went by Jack... you should beware all Jacks." Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is redundant to Abdul Basit (disambiguation). Cunard (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no real content. Anytime I fly in an airplane I seem to be a terrorist suspect as are all my fellow travelers. I don't get an article, either. Plus this seems like an attack article or libelous. Drawn Some (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless. Fences and windows (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a collection of random stubs. Symplectic Map (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate information (ok, terrorists subjects named Abdul Basit) but generally a synthesis to make notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no idea what the intention/point of the article is. It might well be a veiled attach on some unknown person called Abdul Basit. Who knows -- no source; it should go. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shivanshi

Delete unsourced one liner about a name without any indication that it is notable in any way. WP is not your baby naming guide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. I tried some searches, such as "Shivanshi + Name" that didn't come back with anything. This doesn't even seem to be that common of a name! Cazort (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agreed, no content, just a random name. American Eagle (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of names. Fences and windows (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 00:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vibe (band)

This is a fairly non-notable band, nothing to establish why they're notable and generally seems on the face of it a small indie group. Also included in this nom is their only album Chena Jogot. treelo _radda 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 15:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as long as no good sources can be found. I find not a single source mentioning the album. It's tricky to search for the band because the name "vibe" is so common, but I can't find any sources. Cazort (talk) 15:33, 12 May 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) 00:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable source coverage, fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Vibe appears to be notable, but not this band, so 'delete. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus AfDs appear to have pushed themselves to the limit on May 12th. One two three... 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pushed to the Limit

Completely unremarkable movie. Contested prod. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Yea, may the angels come down and smite this article, and may it perish in the fires of hell."~~ Keep Wow, didn't catch that. Good job Schmidt! (damn, and it was such a good line, too...) a little insignificant 15:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "Keep". I like to dig a bit deeper into these things when time allows. Sometimes I hit gold. Sometimes I come up empty. And save that line... it's terrific and Wiki affords plenty of opportunities to share it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job- the some of the wiki's best articles wouldn't still be here today if someone hadn't dug deeper into the case. And yes, I'll save the line. a little insignificant 13:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unremarkable as in fails to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Sorry if that wasn't clear from the nomination. I'll fix it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, gotcha. Sorry about the confusion, I should have looked into it. a little insignificant
Comment I find four sources, all non-public access and with what looks like fairly minimal coverage, but in reputable sources: [11]. This strikes me as a borderline case to me, in terms of notability, and I don't really have a recommendation, but I thought I'd throw the sources out there. Cazort (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep Per proper WP:AFTER, I also found those 4 news sources as did User:Cazort, one can either pay-per-view (no) or visit the microfische archives at a decent public library (yes), so for me it seemed to tickle the GNG. Then when I was able to add two nice in-depth reviews of the film, it pushed it over the top for me. However, the gold pot at the end of the rainbow was that the film was screened at the 2006 Action On Film International Film Festival 14 years after its initial release and the star actually received some recognition for her work in her film, the screening of which specifically meets WP:NF in that "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. All learned through practice of diligent WP:AFTER, and consideration of WP:ATD, WP:POTENTIAL and WP:PRESERVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I'm going to see if I can dig up some better references, it at the moment I think that strong keep might be a tad much - of the refs only one, the TV Guide entry, actually speaks to notability. The other indepth review is of questionable reliability, and the rest of the sources are of no real note - the NY Times is, in fact, just a repeat of the other (and acknowledges it). Still, you're right that the pay-per-views look ok, as is the festival, so I'll chase the other reviews up and see where we sit. - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was kinda surprised myself that it had been screened at a festival 14 years after its initial release. Sometimes even a crap film will make its way back. Of course, the AOF film festival did not exist in 91/92. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that Cazort found, admittedly without having read the full text, do not appear to be primarily about the movie. They might be useful if someone decides to recreate a non-copyvio article about Mimi Lesseos. I appreciate the diligent work you do on movie articles, but, with all due respect, arguing that this is a historically notable film based on a screening at a niche festival and a scathing review in TV Guide seems somewhat misplaced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not read the sources, then with respects, any opinion about what they "might" contain is meaningless. And even were they to not be exclusive, as long as they are more-than-trivial, they are emminently satisfactory per guideline. And guideline NEVER says a review must be positive and full of praise, so a "scathing" TV Guide review of a crappy film is absolutely wonderful. I would expect and hope for nothing less. And to argue that a crappy film cannot meet historical inclusion criteria of guideline sounds like you are arguing that guideline is incorrect. It specifically states, with no equivocation "The film was given a commercial re-release, 'or screened in a festival', at least five years after initial release". Guideline does not demand that the festival be Cannes, nor that a commercial re-release be nationwide. Further, and even though no one has yet written its article, the film festival in question has itself been amply covered in reliable sources. Niche films, good ones or bad ones, will be screened at niche festivals. Guideline does not demand otherwise. The 17-year-old film has met guideline requirement for notability with its sourced assertion of screening more than five years after its release. You may not think that gives it notability, but that opinion runs contrary to what guideline explicitly states. You are welcome to change the guideline if you disagree, but the film meets that specific criteria for inclusion. And thank you for noting my diligent work in movie articles, as diligence is a good thing and due diligence per WP:AFTER allowed the discovery of these informations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point was simply that you appear to be arguing that this movie meets WP:NF by asserting that qualifies as a historically significant film per criterion 2 of the guideline. I doubt very much that you believe that it is, in any sense, historically significant, but I may be wrong about that. Your work to improve movie-related articles is commendable - do you really want to keep this article by twisting the WP:NF guidelines so far out of shape? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)I fixed the typo of WP:MF for WP:NF Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use the same guidelines as do you. That someone dusted this stinker off and actually screened it at a festival 14 years after initial release allows it as historical per guideline, crap though it may be. Interesting note that at that screening, Mimi's work in and as actress/director/action hero of her film actually received recognition, so others have a higher opinion of it than do I. I might think the film is a turkey, but guideline is elegantly guideline, and requires no "twisting". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that it meets the test. I don't believe the intention of including the "historically significant" criterion was to allow articles on movies like this one. (That's not a statement on whether "bad" movies can be historically significant, because I'm sure they can, just not in this case.) I think you do yourself a disservice by using a literal reading of a guideline to garner a keep here, but that is your choice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being mentioned once in a film magazine and being shown on a projector in someone's garden is only permissable if Wikipedia has entriels about all the non-notable peers of Dickens and Hardy the duo The Iron Rod (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, the Action On Film Festival is not a screening in someone's garden and TV Guide is not "some film magazine". Interesting comment though. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With yet greater respects, "In January 2009, the magazine cut several networks from the grid listings, including DIY Network and MTV, citing "space concerns". - 1 It is a listings magazine! This suggests that also DIY Network films are notable - if they are shown in a notable film festival, such as the Action On Film International Festival, which despite claims to be "one of these most progressive film festivals on the scene today."^[2], I'm certainly not 100% certain the festival itself is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, let alone a terrible wrestling movie that happened to be shown there once. The Iron Rod (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For their expertise and editorial oversite, TV Guide is accepted as a reliable source for television-related news, celebrity interviews, and film reviews... not for their programming listings. Their review of the film was in-depth and not a trival list mention. That they cut several networks from their grid listings for "space concerns" in January 2009 has nothing to do with an in-depth review from January 2008. And again and with respects, the Action On Film Festival is not a "screening in someone's garden" as you stated. If you feel the festival is not worth being considered a festival by Wikipedia, despite its own coverage in reliable sources, that is up to individual editors to determine. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Of the four pay-per-view sources, one was definitely trivial, one probably was, and two were the same article. However, those two weren't trivial, and when combined with the festival showing, coverage in Black Belt magazine, and the TV Guide review, it seems that we have enough to establish notability to Wikipedia's standards, and to write a bit more than the usual plot + reception. So I'm happy enough to keep the article. - Bilby (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice rescue from MichaelQSchmidt. Fences and windows (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable film. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an excellent job identifying evidence of notability. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- References --

^ Think Progress, 09 April 2009, Spontaneous Uprising? Corporate Lobbyists Helping To Orchestrate Radical Anti-Obama Tea Party Protests
^ http://www.aoffest.com/about.html

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. Closed a bit early due to WP:SNOW. Jamie^☆S93 16:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Stow

Non-notable person. Fails WP:BIO and the basic criteria. Google returns nothing, as does Google news. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 14:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect a hoax. a little insignificant 15:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, this looks like a hoax, and I can't find any sources either. Cazort (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A hoax. Iowateen (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as hoax and WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, but did you guys actually look at the web search? He does apparently exist, according to his own website, so it's not a hoax (or if it is, someone has waaaaaayyyy too much time on their hands), but he's miles away from notable, as this was the only weblink on him. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as I first tagged this. Not even close to notable. Maybe not a hoax, but who cares? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an academic does not confer noteworthiness any more than being a plumber does. Hairhorn (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a hoax, but passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. The article says that the subject “is a fervent detractor of Gordon Brown”, among other things. Being a fervent detractor of whomever only confers notability to someone if others listen, and I am not talking about a few students in the subject's classes only.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus is that Michael Q. Schmidt's improvements are enough to establish notability. Thanks Michael! Eluchil404 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Collective (2008 film)

Unreleased movie. Not surprisingly, not yet notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is definately not a "Coming Attractions" website Kale Weathers (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was wondering how an upcoming movie could be "award-winning". a little insignificant 15:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatantly obvious self-promotion of a non-notable film. Created by the film's director about the film he made with his wife, with straight copy/paste of their promo material and some spam links. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:NF and WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete IMDB isn't exactly the most reputable source, but it says this is a 2008 film, not only can I not find other good sources but there seems to be some conflicting/contradictory evidence. That, combined with this page being used for promotion, makes me want to delete it ASAP. Cazort (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Update, Schmidt's sources have convinced me that this is worth keeping. Apologies for my hasty search...I did not realize there were more sources out there. Cazort (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a lot of digging. Thanks for your input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Iowateen (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Unreleased? Guideline for WP:NF does not demand a theatrical release and wide distribution though such is preferred. Due practice of WP:AFTER show that the film has indeed been released and is definitely not WP:CRYSTAL. A very cursory search forund that it was seen at the Brooklyn International Film Festival, Vail Film Festival, The Independent Feature Film Market, Screamfest Horror Film Festival, Indie Spirit Film festival. Further, a diligent search shows it tweaks the WP:GNG: Off Off Off and Gothamist, with acknowledgements of its release in such as Kansas City Star] and Denver Post]. Crystal? Unreleased? With respects, might it not have been better to have actually looked before opining? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The movie's director appears to believe otherwise, even after some of those screenings. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The author not understanding MOS or how to seperate himself from COI are reasons for us to improve an article if it can be done, not delete it. I will not presume to know why the author made the error of date in the article name, and can in good faith suppose it underscores his inexperience as a wiki editor. But since I have moved the article to the correct name and addressed it having a 2008 release and coverage per GNG, it becomes properly and encyclopedically worthy of wiki. In keep opinion, I was commenting on claims of NFF and CRYSTAL, and the fact that a search easily found the correct release date... which facts called sourcing and a move... not a deletion. I was not commenting on its author. His earlier version might call it 2009, but what has been easily verified, now that the article is ours, is 2008. How about we move on and further expand and improve a now properly NPOV wikipedia article. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Film festival releases alone are not notable. It has not actually received any SIGNIFICANT coverage (which does not include just saying it was at a festival), nor significant reviews. It fails both WP:NF and WP:N. Also, for future note, it is generally not good to move an article during an AfD, just note it should be moved if kept. Also, the author did originally have it listed as 2008, then it was speedied so he recreated under a new title, showing a fairly good understanding of how to try to avoid anyone noticing he did it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. That would depend on the festival... as being screened at Sundance or Tribeca or Cannes might actually add toward notability when a lesser festival might not. However, no claim of notability through the festivals is being made, and as stated above, the festivals were only offered per WP:AFTER to confirm that it has indeed been screened... multiple times... to counter the erroneous but good faith claim by the nom that the film was unreleased, and that of editors who opined delete as WP:CRYSTAL, when it was not crystal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NF is the general film notability guideline, not the future film one (which is only a small component and is WP:NFF). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, NFF does not apply. Reading the nomination with raised eyebrows is what sparked my initial speedy keep. And naturally, NF (not written with new films in mind) is subordinate to N and GNG, which this film passes, having coverage in reliable sources and having won critical recognition for its genre. I was WP:BOLD and moved the article to its correct year in order to halt confusions, as its not "unreleased", not "coming attractions", and not "upcoming", and it being given the wrong year in conflict with sources sparked some confusion in early opinions. The author's original article must have been as bad as this one was originally. He could benefit from lessons on how to write a properly sourced article or how to use a sandbox for constrction. However, it belongs now to wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:NF needs notability. 22:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Vote changed to ~~Delete~~ Week Keep: Passes WP:NF well enough for an independent film. Iowateen (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to see if I can find a new source or more. So far there is two with significant coverage thanks to Schmidt. Iowateen (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple awards at multiple festivals (and no, not every film wins an Academy Award). Not bad for an "unreleased" film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How notable are those festivals though? I could start a film festival today and give out awards to any film I felt like (sorry, playing Devil's advocate here... ;-) ) Lugnuts (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A point I had considered myself when I read WP:NF specifically stating "standards have not yet been established to define a major award". Since we're not talking about local bake sale award, I suppose we might be allowed to consider an award "in context" to what is being awarded. However, since I don't wish to turn this into a debate over what constitutes a major award, I can comfortable fall back on WP:NF sharing "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". And whether this coverage is in reviews of the film or in its winning recognition (even if minor), I look at Broklyn Daily Eagle, Off Off Off, Gothamist, Quiet Earth, and the slightly more than trivial Real Vail, The Brooklyn Paper and Kansas City Star.. and see that guideline has been satisfied... specially for a small time independent film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Schmidt's new sources, after reading them in depth, show significant coverage, and I think the sources are reliable and independent of the topic. This solidly meets WP:N in my opinion. Apologies for the hastiness of my original search. I changed my recommendation above. Thanks! Cazort (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that its notability has been demonstrated by the references that have been found for it.--Noosentaal^·talk· 11:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cazort FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotion of unreleased film. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't entirely unreleased - it has been screened at film festivals. --Noosentaal^·talk· 11:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Dank, under the G4 criterion (recreated article). Jamie^☆S93 21:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideate

Neologism / Wikipedia is not a dictionary Passportguy (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry. I just realized this had gone through an AfD earlier. Will tag for speedy deletion. Passportguy (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Orlando

Unremarkable actor/screenwriter. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Life Goes On (film), since as far as I can tell, that's the only notable work? Symplectic Map (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Cut, Print"? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, 19 May 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 00:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Life Goes On per Juliancolton, I don't see anything to merge really. Drawn Some (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there's enough out there to go on for notability. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Am currently away from my own computer resources, but will be expanding and sourcing per WP:CLEANUP and WP:POTENTIAL when I get home in a few hours. Did my own cursory search per WP:AFTER, and believe their is enough to make this properly encyclopedic per guideline and properly sourced to meet WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Producing multiple notable creations, makes one notable. Look at the blue links on his Filmography, and what role he played in them. Dream Focus 02:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note A non-admin tried to close this AFD and falsely claimed the consensus was Keep -- I don't know what world he's in, but three keeps vs three delete/redirect votes is in no way a consensus to keep. The rules on nonadmin closures so that they can only be closed for obvious consensus votes, and the Keep votes do not even have the majority, let alone a consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction I believe by looking above it is three "keeps", one "merge and redirect", and one "redirect". As an editor who has voiced one of the ivotes the non admin closer saw, was it wise for you to revert him simply out of disagreement? Note: as an involved editor myself, I did not myself rush to revert your reversion. That is for others... non-involved others. My two cents. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the person who declined the speedy delete. He has some films that appear notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Viers

Unremarkable sound designer. All sources appear to be self-sourced. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Declined speedy deletion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sound designer has been lauded by Oscar winning sound designers and has produced more sound effects for the industry than any other sound designer. His book The Sound Effects Bible is an industry first, receiving praise from Skywalker Sound, Midway Games, Alan Howarth, Randy Thom, and Frank Serafine. He courted by companies like Sony, Apple, and Adobe to create their exclusive sound material for all of their software. To claim that he is unremarkable reflects ones lack of knowledge of the sound effects industry as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.253.12 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any coverage about him in reliable sources. I can find no information to indicate he has won any notable awards for his work. With respect to the praise and high-esteem with which he his held by his colleagues, where are the sources to substantiate it? -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aside from the back cover of the book (http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Effects-Bible-Create-Hollywood/dp/1932907483/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242310122&sr=8-1#reader), there is also the publishers website (http://shop.mwp.com/products/the-sound-effects-bible-how-to-create-and-record-hollywood-style-sound-effects). Here is a review of the book (http://www.postmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=&tier=4&id=789341E56E77405EB7C2866AD1BE7B98). Sites referrencing Ric Viers (http://www.abouttheimage.com/3809/audiomicro_now_representing_ae_micro_music_publishing_archive_and_ric_viers/author2 - http://www.gokafi.com/guests/ - http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/showcase/CaseStudy.asp?ID=113 - http://nab2009.sprnetwork.com/2009/04/22/nabshow-floor-interview-ric-viers-ceo-blastwave-fx/). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.253.12 (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of that list, I'd only consider the Post review of his book a reliable source. I still don't see notability being established with a single book review. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that because he hasn't been given any awards for his work this sound designer doesn't deserve notability? This is despite his peers agreeing that he has written the book on sound design, as listed on the publishers site and for some reason is not reliable enough for you. Although, Michael Wiese Productions is one of the largest film business book publishers in the world and the most respected. Finally, with Viers's creation of close to 200,000 sound effects to date, it is a quarantee that you hear his work all of the time and not realize it. Doesn't this constitue notability?
  - Not necessarily. Notability on Wikipedia has a fairly specific meaning. See WP:NOTABILITY. And WP:COI, I suspect. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Sony interview and the NAB radio interview are indepth coverage, and the Post review too. I'm not totally convinced, but I think there is enough to establish notability as a sound designer. Fences and windows (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close and turn over to WP:RFD. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garlic Belt

The article was redirecting to the article on Southern Europe but the latter nowhere mentioned the term "Garlic Belt".

Delete Probably a joke. Borock (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it were an article I would say delete but there are enough occurrences in serious articles on the internet that it is a plausible search term for a redirect. Drawn Some (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article's been blanked. Speedy? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inappropriate AfD for a redirect, next time use Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion. Gigs (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Closing it up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. However, the content is a serious issue and needs to be cleaned up. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam

Does not meet notability requirements, plus many smaller problems. Drew Smith W hat I've done 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this case, it could be covered elsewhere, such as in the article of Sathya Sai Baba. However, if this had been six murders in a church in Indiana, rather than an ashram in India, would we describe it as non-notable? Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Most church killings in the U.S. probably would be WP:ONEEVENT and not get an article, it would probably have to be a pretty spectacular case, there are shootings in the U.S. regularly. See Category:Spree shootings. Drawn Some (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has serious issues with Notability: This article was written based on material banned by the Second Arbitration commitee and as well as contains other unrelaible sources.This material was removed originally from the Sathya Sai Baba article due to Wikipedia:Libel and WP:BLP concerns.The following are the list of banned material and other unreliable sources used in this article.

1) Source Priddy - banned in the second arbitration of the Sathya Sai Baba article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy

This article references following Priddy sources.

Analysis of 1993 Murders Discrepancies by Robert Priddy
Janakiramiah, Sai Baba’s blackmailing younger brother, Robert Priddy

2) Source Basava Premananda - Declared Unreliable in the BostonMA mediation discussion on Sathya Sai Baba in 2006. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation

This article references following Premanada Sources:

Analysis by Bhasava Premanand of the 1993 Murders
Investigate the Murder at Satya Sai Baba's Collage, The Indian Skeptic.May 1998.] Image of body as carried on Indian Skeptic( warning: graphic images ).
SATYA SAI BABA. Retelling The Story, Babu R.R. Gogineni Former General Secretary of Rationalist Association of India - Self published document based on Basava Premananda

3) "The Findings" - This source was declared as unreliable in Boston MA mediation discussion in 2006.

This article uses the following references from Findings:

The Findings. An investigative report and collection of incriminating testimony complied by The Baileys.
The Findings. Terry Gallagher - A Letter to the Baileys.

This article is definitely Wikipedia:Libel. I request it to be deleted as it lacks notability and reliability. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of WP:BLP, and move any non-violating material to Satya Sai Baba. Priyanath ^talk 01:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I strongly oppose the argument that this is a non-notable event. There were many newspaper articles about this event (See http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/articles/excerpts.html ) and it even appeared in Dutch newspaper (Volkskrant). I will make a list of newspaper article that treat this event. I am not sure whether this article should be kept because there is some good reason not to have the killings in the article Sathya Sai Baba because the involvement of the Sathya Sai Baba is not clear. Then where should be merged to? To Sathya Sai Baba movement? This seems like a better idea. [[[User:Andries|Andries]] (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- THE WEEK JUNE 20, 1993, pages 28-33High intrigue. Deadly power struggle in Puttaparthi
- The Hindustan Times 9-6-1993

- The Hindu 9-6-1993

- The Hitavada, Nagpur 9-6-1993

- Times of India 9-6-1993

- Indian Express 9-6-1993

- Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad 10-6-1993

- Deccan Herald, 10-6-1993

- The Hindu, 10-6-1993

- The Pioneer, New Delhi 10-6-1993

- The Times of India 10-6-1993

- The Times of India 11-6-1993

- The Hindustan Times New Delhi 9-6-1993

- Indian Express 9-6-1993:

- Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad 10-6-1993

- Deccan Chronicle 10-6-1993.

- The Hindu 10-6-1993:
- The Times of India, Delhi, 13-6-1993
- Indian Express, New Delhi 13-6-1993
- Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad, 9-6-1993
- Indian Express, Vizianagaram, 16-6-1993

- The Telegraph, Calcutta 16-6-1993

- Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad 26-6-1993

- The Hindu, Hyderabad 27-10-1995

- The Hitavada, Nagpur 24-6-1993

- The Hindu, Coimbatore 18-6-1993

- The Hindu, Vishakapatnam 1-7-1993

- Frontline 2-7-1993

- Indian Express Vijawada, 4-7-1993

- Nagpur Times 8-7-1993

- The Hitavada 8-7-1993

- The Hitavada 9-7-1993

- Indian Express, Vijayawada 11-7-1993

- Dalit Voice 19-7-1993

- Times of India 27-10-1993

- Deccan Herald, Bangalore 20-2-1994

-- User:Andries

Comments: I strongly support deletion of this article as it lacks notability and reliability. . Here's the reason why?

There is no argument about whether this incident happened or not. At that time when this incident happened it was published in those newspapers. This incident is already mentioned in the Sathya Sai Baba article. There is already a section talking about this incident.

Question: Is this incident is notable enough to have a separate article?

I don't think this topic is notable enough to need a separate article for the following reasons. The material it is sourced suffers seriously due to lack of notability and reliability. . There was no clear indication linking this incident to Sathya Sai Baba. Nobody know for sure why this incident really happened. Who was behing this?. Where there any following court case after this incident? No. My point is that such incidents happens all aound the world.

Also I would like to point that "Ex-Baba.com" website mentioned by User:Andries are negative attack websites on Sathya Sai Baba. A similar site "Robert Priddy another attack website was banned by the Second Arbitration commitee stating that these negative attack websites are full of POV views and cannot be considered as reliable / notable source for the Sathya Sai Baba article.

As I said before this current article suffers from serious notability issue as it is based on sources banned by the Second arbitration
The article is sourced to several other unreliable sources.

I would also like to point that User:Andries was banned from editing the Sathya Sai Baba article for his WP:COI. His views may be biased. I am not sure if he is even concerned using all these material banned by the second arbitration in this article.

Radiantenergy (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. No, incidents like do not happen frequently. Because SSB is the most prominent Godman of India and the prime minister and the president sometimes visit him. SSB claims to be God and is considered so by his followers

2. I linked to newspaper articles on exbaba.com , so these are reliable sources and can be used without problem. I admit that exbaba.com also contains unreliable sources.

3. I admit that most of it is already in Sathya Sai Baba where it should not be because the involvement of SSB is not clear. If it should be somewhere then it should either be a seperate article or moved to Sathya Sai Baba movement. Please note that I did not write that the article should be kept. I only wrote that the argumentation to delete it i.e. lack of notability is flawed.

4. The incident was not only discussed when it happened it was also treated in the BBC documentary The Secret Swami. And Basava Premanand published a book about the incident of more than 500 pages, Murders in Sai Baba's Bedroom It is no longer in my possession.

Andries (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Notability Issues in the article.: I still think the article should be deleted.

1) Attempts on religious leaders are not uncommon. There was an attempt on Pope John Paul's life. Should such incidents be reported in the Biography of the person. Yes. This incident on Baba's life has already been included on the Sathya Sai Baba article sourced to BBC. As I stated before there is a separate section discussing this incident.

2) Unreliable Sources violating WP:BLP:

i) Basava Premananda and his book - Murders in Sai Baba's Bedroom: Major part of this article including the photos is written based on Basava Premananda. Neither Basava Premananda and his 500 page book were accepted as reliable source in the'BostonMA' discussion. . Wikipedia articles cannot be written based on unreliable sources.

Discussion Link from BostonMA discussion on Basava Premananda's book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source#Premanand.27s_Book

ii) Robert Priddy as a source. Arbitration ruling banning Robert Priddy: The arbitration stated as below 6.1.1) Robert Priddy is a former Sai Baba devotee who wrote a favorable book, Source of the Dream - My Way to Sathya Sai Baba. He later left the movement and wrote an unfavorable book, The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma. The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma is only held by one large library world wide according to Worldcat; it is published in India and is not available for sale on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk. Priddy maintains several web sites: http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/Nos/index.html is a conventional author's web site with links to many of Priddy's works. http://home.chello.no/~reirob/ titled SATHYA SAI BABA stories, myths and deceits http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/ and http://home.no.net/abacusa/ are attack sites containing large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research.

Discussion Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy

iii) "The Findings as a source": The Findings was declared as unreliable by BostonMA in the mediation.

This article should be deleted as it is based on unreliable and banned material. It is definitely Wikipedia:Libel as it has serious notability issues.

Radiantenergy (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but ... BBC has a 2004 documentary that discusses this event at considerable length ( transcript here); the incident was covered extensively by contemporaneous Indian media (as shown by links listed above). So notability is not an issue per se. However the current version of the article is far from good since it includes some very poor sources (geocities and wordpress pages and www.saipetition.com !). All content sourced to such unreliable sources needs to be removed at once, especially given the associated BLP concerns. In short, keep the article but make sure that all its content is reliably sourced. The latter though is a content rather than deletion policy issue, and should be dealt with on the article talk page.Abecedare (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event in itself meets notability guidlines. The article is not neutral however and needs a cleanup. --Deepak D'Souza 12:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is full of badly written, probably libellous material. Whatever happens to it, all the unreliable sources and speculation needs to go. It reads as an attack piece. After one mediation in 2007 editors should know better. Fences and windows (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 02:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Blomberg

No reference to player in official senior national team records and no international fixtures played by the national team in 45/46, possible hoax. Prod removed by IP with no reason given. Camw (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Camw (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete smells like hoax. --Angelo (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. John Sloan @ 18:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Giant Snowman 20:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above users. Dalekusa (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as being not able to be verified. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homewood Avenue

Non-notable street or notability not established. It is a 'side' street, has no historical or architectural significance. Alaney2k (talk) 13:52, 12 May 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 00:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a brief google news archive search and I found no mention of this street other than references to individuals who lived on it...which I think constitutes trivial coverage. Cazort (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Street isn't covered in sources and there is nothing remarkable or significant about the street itself. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a totally average street, and average streets are never notable. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing special about this street, it is just another residential street. The street I live on is almost as long as this, and it is not special either. Dough4872 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Warrender

The article is of virtually no interest; hardly any info there. This is mainly because he is not really notable. Although he has played for a couple of teams, there were not many appearances, and some of these were for reserves, etc. He no longer plays in a professional league, and this is not because he is too old, etc. (aged 23), he is just not at ALL a notable footballer. Willplatts (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 15 appearances in a fully professional league (see Soccerbase) is easily enough to pass WP:ATHLETE. The fact that he no longer plays professionally is irrelevant as notability does not expire -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also sources here and here, so he passes the general notability guidelines too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And for that matter here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here as well. Giant Snowman 20:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:ATHLETE and, thanks to the sources above, also the more general criteria of WP:N. To delete when we've kept several footballers that are even less notable (i.e. one relevant appearance) would be showing bias unless we also deleted hundreds of other articles. Suspect that it will soon be getting snowy. Dpmuk (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep: let's put that down to a new(ish) editor not mainly active on football articles, and therefore unaware of criteria: confusion of famous and notable perhaps. Kevin McE (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK, I see what everyone thinks. I do still stand by my opinion though, and as noted above, I believe there are plenty of articles that could be done away with... I am curious, ChristheDude, what do those links prove? I am not familiar with all the rules, but 2 links to a local newspaper with articles about a non-professional club, and a link to the Beeb with a couple of sentences mentioning him? I'm not trying to be provocative, just what is it meant to show? Willplatts (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eg, Josh Fuller: this footballer was has played 20 minutes for Grimsby Town. Who in their right mind thought that this merited an article?? Willplatts (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE, and all the editors involved in the creation and maintenance of that policy. I understand your bewilderment, but it is a generally accepted principle in Wiki that arbitrary quantitative distinctions should not be made, so there cannot be a threshold of 10 or 20 appearances. So an absolute criterion, appearance in a fully pro league, regardless of number of appearances, is applied. Kevin McE (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - To answer Willplatts' question, what the links "prove" is that the subject easily meets the requirements of WP:N, which is one of Wikipedia's core policies. The policy states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The coverage is significant in that the player is the sole focus of all the articles, the sources are clearly reliable and independent of the subject, therefore he passes the bar with flying colours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per stats provided on Soccerbase. --Jimbo^[online] 18:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Player has made 15 league appearences for Blackpool F.C.!! John Sloan @ 18:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 20:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criteria having played profesionally for Blackpool. BigDunc^Talk 19:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 02:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy mix

Non-notable product by minor company Passportguy (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per contested PROD: "non-notable product" --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete appears to be vandalism, a hoax, etc. a little insignificant 13:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable product. Iowateen (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an Urban Dictionary definition of the product. But that's not why. No notability other than that it exists. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "It is also God" nuff said. JuJube (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 02:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Tallent

Unsourced, unverifiable (suspected hoax). PROD was removed. —Snigbrook 13:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect a hoax as well. The only sources I can find are unrelated to the article. a little insignificant 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. He apparently does exist (see [12] and look for the name), but the facts don't line up. He's in a different conference than what's here. Can't say hoax, but I can always say WP:BALLS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Delete As I noted in the my {{prod2}}, there is a baseballer of this name, and he was selected in the Major League Baseball Draft; beyond that, though, there is nothing to suggest that any of the article is true (the Tallent for whose existence we can find sources played at Chattanooga State Community College and Armstrong Atlantic State University and was drafted by the Philadelphia Phillies in 2004). That Tallent does not appear in the University of Tennessee's all-time draft register and that there is no entry for Tallent at baseball-reference.com, databaseBaseball.com, or Major League Baseball's official site, each of which is a reliable sources that comprises every player ever to have played in an MLB game, more than suggests that this is quite less than real. Joe 17:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scranton Manufacturing

Slightly self-promoting article about a company with no sources other than several self-published ones — can't see how this could possibly be notable. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with your criticisms that this is a self-promoting article and doesn't have sources. But I think you need to argue more than this--that it CANNOT be sourced and CANNOT be cleaned up. This is harder to argue. I think this is an example of an article that could not easily be made into a clean, full article, but could be. A very quick search yielded the following: [13], not all are about the company, but some are. Many of the articles are not public access but some of them, such as this one: [14] are written about the company in detail. It appears to be a notable manufacturer of garbage trucks. The company has a number of mentions in publications like "Waste Age" and "Recycling Today", as would be expected for such a company. These links aren't terribly useful but some of them do establish that municipalities are buying this company's products: [15] Personally, I think articles on topics like this, even if they are difficult to piece together, enrich wikipedia. I would like to see this kept as a stub, at least. I think we could gut the page and write at least a couple paragraphs based on the sources I gave here alone. Cazort (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether this is a notable business or not, this text is so relentlessly promotional in tone that this text ought not to be allowed to stand, and its presence only masks the fact that we still don't have a real article about it: Co-Founder and CEO, John H. McLaughlin has used the philosophy of Henry Ford to surround himself with people who know their job. "I have motivated and instilled my own ethical values, attitudes, outlook and philosophy into the best team possible... a team of highly qualified, educated people who respect God and Country and like the lifestyle and values of small town America." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely in agreement that the blatant advertising needs to go. But in that case I think the proper response is to delete the offending material, and if there is a problem with it being re-added, contact an admin about banning users, semiprotecting the page, etc. WP:Deletion is pretty clear that deletion of the page is only to be used as a last resort, if the page cannot be improved. Many pages on businesses are started essentially as spam, but then later grow into full pages when editors cut out the spam and write a real page. I think it's important for you to argue here about why this page cannot be improved. I'm open to discussing that. But arguing that the current state of the page is misguided. Cazort (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just gutted the article, removing all promotional material and reducing it essentially to a stub. I also started searching in a bit more depth, for example, searching for Scranton Manufacturing's brands. Porta-vet seems to have attracted some attention: [16]. The K-PAC brand seems to have some coverage but I can't find a reliable source (anything other than the company's site) documenting that Scranton Manufacturing now owns that brand. Cazort (talk) 16:22, 13 May 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) 00:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Cazort has done a good clean-up on this, but I still don't see any solid evidence that this company meets the threshold of WP:CORP. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Three delete, with two keeps (one weak). The deletes argued well in line with policy, whilst the keeps did not. Therefore, the result is delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Awake

Queried speedy delete as not notable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For an album supposedly to be released this month, I'm finding bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The album is due out either late May or early July, so there will be a page for it then anyway. I can assume that the track listing and cover here is genuine, [17], so it seems like enough information to keep the page. It is quite an anticipated release from a well-known Australian band. Demonofthefall (talk) 09:53, 18 May 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) 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Even if it had been released, it still wouldn't pass due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Artwork and a track listing does not an article make. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I just added a lot of information to the article and a link to the page of the first single from the album, which I wrote. Once the album is released, there will be a lot more information to put on the page, as well as pages for future singles. Two songs have been played on air now, one getting a lot of airplay and having a video. It is quite an anticipated release. Rowan5215 (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Geenen

Non-notable poker dealer/blogger that has been interviewed by a magazine - however that doesn't make her notable Passportguy (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the general notability guideline. Only one independent published work about her - GNG requires numerous. The second source in the article is a forum post about someone else. Google News has squat, normal Google search gives only the trivial mentions that the article does. Not notable. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Geenen has also dealt two World Poker Tour appearances on TV. And is the featured dealer in Howard Lederer's 'Professor' DVDs and is one of the few people in the poker world to have been photographed with Andrew Beal, the banker from Texas that played the Las Vegas Corporation and lost over 40 million dollars doing it. She was also one of the bloggers featured in the first publication of All-in Magazine's Best of Blogs and noted to be the first poker blogger on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grupnesque (talk • contribs) 03:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC) — Grupnesque (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you provide us references to these sources? Cazort (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then that makes her an accomplished individual, not a notable one. Notability is based on what sources say about the individual, not merely what an individual has done. And might I say how remarkable it is that you found this discussion in your second-ever Wikipedia edit. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 04:07, 13 May 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 00:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per previously given reasons. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the person arguing to keep provides reliable sources to justify claims of notability, which seems unlikely as I have been unable to find any. Cazort (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I feel strangely about having this pointed out to me by a friend? I search Wikipedia all of the time. Is it unusual to have someone find a topic and make a comment on it? Let me proceed. Linda dealt the final table of the Ultimate Bet Aruba Classic WPT in 2005 - this post on her blog has pictures of the WPT table set-up before the event so the dealers could practice around the bubbles on the table: http://table-tango.pokerworks.com/2005/09/30/582/ and this post references the WPT in Aruba in 2003 http://table-tango.pokerworks.com/2003/10/12/ultimatewpt-trip-report/. Freddy Deeb won the 2005 event and Eric Lindgren won the 2003 event. You could verify it by watching the video.

Linda was the dealer on the first videos that Howard Lederer did for his Professor series: http://www.secretsofholdem.com/ please contact Howard for verification if needed - or buy the videos. If you notice all of the posts on her blog (http://table-tango.pokerworks.com/2003/10/24/friday-october-24-2003/)during the time the videos first came out, she carried a link to Howard's videos because she originally put (Rick Bierman the creator of the video project) in touch with Howard and she was offered a percentage of the video sales.

She also carries a section of her blog on Project City Center which has a pictograph from the ground up to approximately the middle of 2007. The link to the pictures was on Wikipedia Project City Center for some time - someone deleted it, without specifying a reason, of course. http://table-tango.pokerworks.com/category/project-city-center/

Delete if you must but Linda is a very key player in poker and its development over the years, including hands-on poker experience and dealing to and knowing all of the big name poker players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.43 (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/nyregion/where-children-are-supposed-to-be-heard-not-simply-seen.html. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Museum of Southeastern Connecticut

A7 declined on the grounds that it is a museum. While normally I would agree, this one is more like an activity center for preschoolers with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. A Google News search turns up plenty of coverage [18], including a profile in the New York Times: [19]. The article needs to be rewritten and expanded. Pastor Theo (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe nominator did not comply with WP:BEFORE and the instructions for AFD, in that there are easily found reliable sources with substantial coverage, satisfying notability. Google news archive search shows many sources which satisfy notability and can be used to improve the article. See [THE VIEW FROM: NIANTIC; Ch"THE VIEW FROM: NIANTIC; Children's Museum Born of Teamwork." See [20] The New York Times, Oct. 9, 1994 "Where Children Are Supposed to Be Heard, Not Simply Seen." See [21] the New York Times Dec. 30, 2001 "The View From/East Lyme; The Tale of a Children's Museum Without a Lease." These are all substantial articles about the museum, and not mere directory listings or news items about some event. Many more articles show up in the Google news search,some with subscription required. Edison (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Clinton, Sr.

Not notable. Relatives of famous people are not considered notable. Drew Smith W hat I've done 11:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although being related to a famous person does not confer automatic notability, the parents generally meet the requirements of WP:N, in that they receive significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Indeed, nearly any biography of an American president is going to cover the upbringing and childhood influences of that person.

While the person may not be inherently notable, neither are they barred from having an article written about them. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if significant coverage by multiple independent of the subject sources exist ON Roger Clinton Sr., then produce them. Otherwise, he is not notable.--TM 12:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Notability says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. So the question becomes is there significant coverage of the subject. There are numerous published books that talk about Clinton Sr. including:
The comeback kid: the life and career of Bill Clinton? - Page 8 by Charles Flynn Allen, Jonathan Portis
The dysfunctional President: inside the mind of Bill Clinton - Page 43 by Paul M. Fick
The final days: the last, desperate abuses of power by the Clinton White House? - Page 146
Clinton confidential: the climb to power : the unauthorized biography of ... - Page 14 by George Carpozi
Private lives/public consequences: personality and politics in modern America - Page 330 by William Henry Chafe
Partners in Power: The Clintons and Their America - Page 30 by Roger Morris
Bill Clinton: an American journey - Page 122 by Nigel Hamilton
The fathers of American presidents: from Augustine Washington to William Clinton by Jeff C. Young

That's just the tip of the iceberg and these are published books not web references!!!!. He clearly meets the WP:Note criteria.

P.S. I appreciate the nominator's courtesy in notifying me of the AFD debtate even though nominator knew I would probably disagree. There are few people on Wikipedia who would show that level of courtesy.Americasroof (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources mentioned are about Bill Clinton. Not Roger Clinton. Drew Smith W hat I've done 14:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the sources refer to both persons, including The Fathers of American Presidents: From Augustine Washington to William Clinton. Mandsford (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link has the details linking to Roger Clinton that I used to post the books rights away. Americasroof (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does he have any notability other than as a relative of a notable person? Getting mentioned in books/articles about his stepson means that he should be mentioned in Wikipedia in the article about his stepson, not that we need to create a separate article. If no reliable and independent sources have written about him other than as an adjunct to Bill's biography, then why should we break away from the sourcing and have a separate article? Many relatives of notable people were notable themselves, or become notable using the influence and advantages deriving from the relationship, if they are still alive after their relative becomes rich and powerful. They may get good jobs, write books, get appointments, or be notorious for influence peddling. George W. Bush benefitted from the prominence of George H.W. Bush, long before he was himself thrust into state and national politics, by being placed on boards of directors or into a public relations job with a baseball team. In this case time seems not to have been on Roger's side. Roger is adequately covered in the [[Bill Clinton] article. Not anything of substance to merge that is not already there. Edison (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read right off of WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive", emphasis on "less than exclusive" is important here. If topic A is covered in significant depth ina book about topic B, that's just as significant as an equal amount of material written in a lone article on topic A. Do we delete the article on the Colorado Delta clam because it is only notable in the context of the Colorado River Delta? If you follow the logic you're using here, we would delete over half of wikipedia. This discussion for deletion should focus on one issue: whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources to write a full, tightly-sourced article. And people above have established very firmly that this is the case. Cazort (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would apply the principle stated above to articles about relatives of notable people. I would not apply it in general to clams who live in a place, but all species have been found in AFDs to be inherently notable, just like all villages and major geographic features. I doubt that any recognized species has not had a monograph written about it, since scientists have to publish or perish. I say again, if they are only mentioned in conjunction with their famous relative, then mention them in their famous relative's article, rather than creating a stub, unless the amount of well sourced and encyclopedic information about the relative is extensive enough to justify a reasonable spinoff article. Edison (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The standards of notability are pretty high for this sort of article. All of the sources are in relation to his son, which means that a fully independent notability hasn't been established. Think of it this way, if Bill had never gone into politics, would we have this article about his father? I think the answer is clearly no. Gigs (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

I agree with you that if Bill Clinton hadn't been in office we wouldn't have this article here--but I still think that he is notable--and not just through "inheritance" but rather, he is notable because he has attracted significant coverage in reliable sources. "Notability is not inherited" means that him being Bill Clinton's father alone is not enoguh to establish notability--but if Bill Clinton's high-profile status generates significant coverage in reliable sources for his father, as is the case here, then the father is clearly notable! This doesn't even strike me as a borderline case because there are a wealth of sources! Cazort (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Where are they? All I see are books and articles about Bill Clinton. Gigs (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The news sources I give below cover Roger Clinton Jr. directly. A lot of them talk about his drinking problems, other issues. It's interesting material and its far above the threshold for many topics that are (rightfully) included in wikipedia without ever becoming subject to the same degree of scrutiny that this article is (wrongly) being subjected to. Cazort (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize this AfD is about Roger Clinton Sr., not Jr., right? Gigs (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Besides my points in discussions above, there is clearly significant coverage in both news: [22] and book: [23] sources, including the sources given above. The logic/reasoning being given by people arguing to delete is not only wrong, it is dangerous, because if followed-through on, it would justify deleting much of wikipedia! Cazort (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED states... "Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents". Reliable sourcing only provides a basis for notability to be established... Reliable sources do not automatically establish notability, and in this case, the consensus has generally been to require fully independent notability. Gigs (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think we need to establish notability by finding sources on Roger Clinton Sr. that don't mention Bill, then I disagree with your interpretation of guidelines. I am sticking to the very basic, fundamental of WP:N. Significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:NOTINHERITED generally is used to say that if you can't find any material on Roger, Roger being Bill's dad doesn't justify Roger having an article. But in this case there's a wealth of material on Roger. Cazort (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to point something dangerously "theoretical" about the way you have placed an emphasis on those guidelines. It sounds like you're interpreting to say that we should be having this discussion based on whether or not Roger would be notable, given the hypothetical situation that Bill Clinton was not notable. I don't think this is a useful road to go down--it's not reality. The sources that are out there are based on the reality we are living in. We can't have discussions based on hypotheticals. I'm not even going to go down that road. Cazort (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just realized that you are using an "essay" which is NOT a wikipedia guideline, to attempt to override WP:N. The general notability guideline takes precedence here...it was reached by consensus. Apologies for not realizing that WP:NOTINHERITED was just an essay, I was discussing it as if it were a guideline which is why my argument may seem confused. Now I don't even think this discussion is worth having. Cazort (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he were to have harnessed his position as the father of the president in order to do something independently notable, he would meet the criteria for inclusion. There's no evidence that he did that. It is definitely still useful to look at whether someone would be notable had their relative not been when deciding a NOTINHERITED case, but that is taken in light of their actions and circumstances subsequent to their relative becoming notable, which may indeed give them independent notability. That just hasn't happened here. Gigs (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how Roger Clinton, Sr. has not attracted significant coverage in reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on you to show that. So far all that have been posted are sources about Bill or Roger Jr. Gigs (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The weakness the NOTINHERITED arugment is that it is an ESSAY while the overriding argument on WP:NOTE is a GUIDELINE!!!! The GUIDELINE has the overriding consideration is third party articles. Guidelines trump Essays. I don't understand this argument that Roger Clinton Sr. searches don't pull up any articles. The print.google search I posted is specifically about "Roger Clinton Sr.". Included in the search are at least 3 books that devote specific chapters to Roger Clinton Sr. ("The Raising of a President: The Mothers and Fathers of Our Nation's Leaders"; "The fathers of American presidents: from Augustine Washington to William Blythe and Roger Clinton"; "First fathers: the men who inspired our Presidents") In nosing around what's available in the books online, there's a lot that can be added with regards to his father that shaped Clinton.Americasroof (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People have already given it above: [24], [25] Cazort (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger died while Bill was still in college. He led a very ordinary life and received no coverage at all in reliable and independent sources until Bill became famous many years later. Then his coverage was derivative, only as the dead stepdad. It is perfectly appropriate to cite an essay WP:NOTINHERITED to support a keep or delete !vote in AFD, since essays can become guidelines if they reflect the outcomes of enough AFDs and thus express the consensus of the community with respect to an issue or particular subject. They are a useful way to present the views of a number of editors without repeating their entire content in the AFD each time. If a national leader has a sibling, spouse, child, or cousin who writes books(like Elliott Roosevelt, David Eisenhower or Margaret Truman, makes movies or documentaries, is on the boards of companies or charities, gets appointed to head the Red Cross, starts companies which become prominent, founds think tanks, even though the relationship gave them the inside track, then they are notable in their own right. Edison (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spouses, parents, children, often receives significant coverage of the mundane details of their life for the sole reason that they are the spouse, parent, or child of a famous person. It sounds like the people arguing to delete are arguing that we should not "count" or "allow" sources that cover people because of their associations with famous people. Wikipedia becomes increasingly (and in my opinion, dangerously) subjective if we start questioning why material got covered in sources and only allowing sources where the coverage originated "for the right reasons". The material either is there or isn't. And if it's there then the subject is notable. WP:BIO says that notability is not the same thing as being famous--it's about being worthy of notice, about being recorded. It doesn't say anything about why it was deemed worthy of notice and why it was recorded. Am I understanding your arguments correctly in that I am hearing that you are saying we should not "count" coverage that originates for the "wrong reasons"? Cazort (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My position is what WP:NOTINHERITED says:"Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents." I cannot say it any clearer. Edison (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the text from that page, because I find it to be in conflict with WP:N. Notability, the way I interpret it, is about receiving enough coverage in reliable sources that a tightly-sourced article can be written about you. If you want to reason with me, reason on the basis of WP:N: "Significant coverage in reliable sources". If you want to discuss that essay and its texts, discuss it on the talk page--I started a dialogue there and am eager to discuss it there. Cazort (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Notability isn't the smartest, or the most famous, or the one that cured cancer. It means there is enough information available from multiple reliable sources to piece together a biography. Save the tallest, smartest, and other categories for Guinness World Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:N is the guidline, true. But it doesnt neccessarily trump the essay WP:NOTINHERITED As the essay doesnt contradict the guidline, but rather expand on it.Drew Smith W hat I've done 23:10, 12 May 2009

Since I see a conflict between WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED here, and notinherited is just an essay, I think it would be helpful if people could clarify exactly why they think WP:N is not satisfied. That's what I'm failing to see here and why I keep arguing with people. I don't think it's constructive to repeatedly point to the essay because I do see them as being in conflict. If notinherited were truly "expanding on" the guideline, there would be a way to frame an argument to delete without referring to that essay. Cazort (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as nominator it is taken as a given that your !vote is 'delete'. Coldmachine^Talk 07:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While a nominator isn't prohibited from labeling his comment, it should take the form of "'Delete', as nominator" in order to prevent confusion. The administrator is not allowed to tally up !votes in making a decision, but he or she does look at how many people have weighed in with an opinion. Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. Relatives of famous people are not per se notable, but can be shown to be notable in all the other usual ways. This name was all over the news in 1992-1993. This man's legacy is well-documented in numerous reliable sources. There are plenty of sources dragged up in an easy search as noted above. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person gets plenty of coverage, and not just passing mention of being the father of someone famous. Dream Focus 21:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Long-standing consensus is that relatives of notable people should be covered in the notable person's article unless they have received substantive coverage in their own right. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all articles to the tune of Xth United States Congress - summary and Xth United States Congress - state delegation, as the consensus appears to apply to all articles of such a theme and not just the 46th Congress. This is license to delete these pages as CSD G6 "Housekeeping", assuming I do not get there first. —harej 11:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Xth United States Congress - political parties. —harej 11:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

46th United States Congress - summary

I'm AfDing all articles in the format "Xth United States Congress - summary" and "Xth United States Congress - state delegations". They are essentially direct copies of "Xth United States Congress" articles, and completely unneeded.

As an example, lets look at 46th United States Congress - state delegations, 46th United States Congress - summary and 46th United States Congress. The two spinoffs are almost identical information with different formatting; the summary is indeed not a summary at all, being around the same size as the central article. The summary contains almost identical information to the main article, almost word for word, while the state delegations article is simply the list of representatives/senators in the main article organised "list of delegates from state X (rep and senator)" rather than "list of senators from state X" "list of representatives from state X". This is meaningless and useless cruft. There is not even any evidence that the creator considers them viable; he as good as admitted that these articles were created as a place he could play with away from an editor he was in a dispute with.

Note to closing admin, if this closes as delete - I've avoided adding them all here because there are about 200 of the damn things. The format is summarised above, and all the articles are found in here, so it shouldn't be too hard to bag them all. Ironholds (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment - Xth United States Congress - Political parties added in. Ironholds (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't fault the nom. I also think that the actions in creating all these articles, seemingly out of annoyance, need looking at. There was some very good advice on the talkpage of the creator, saying that if all of these are necessary, then start with one, get that into a decent state, then move onto others. Quantpole (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, which is why I left it for a while - I wanted to whether the articles would turn into something useful. Rather than actually following my advice the creator instead created a new set of borderline useless pages. Ironholds (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even the formatting is barely changed. I'm having a tough time finding substantive differences between the two. The whole point of the lead is to provide the summary, and I can't help and see how this needless forking improves the readability of the articles. It just creates more pages to patrol, synchronize, and look up when finding information. This is exactly the kind of clutter that hurts the usefulness of the project. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't see any point to them; as Ironholds points out, they're practically the same as the articles they were copied from. If the creator wants to continue with this, then suggest completing one to a fuller degree. Skinny87 (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, and I would also add "Xth United States Congress - political parties" to that mix, as that is yet another regurgitation of material already found in the "Xth United States Congress" articles.SPNic (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ As noted, this is a copy of 46th United States Congress with some minor alterations. A mass nomination of similarly created articles would be appropriate in this instance. Mandsford (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what I've done - there are about 200 of the damn things, so I decided against listing them all here. Ironholds (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favor of a mass nomination, but there is some red tape that you have to go through. I don't think we can vote to delete something that isn't on the list; nor do I think that you can list an article unless it's been tagged. This is the only one of those 200 that has a deletion tag. You might want to consult with an administrator for suggestions on shortcuts. I'm going to propose a shortcut below, don't care if I'm booed or hissed for this. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consulted several; consensus was "how the heck are you going to list all of those" "They're all the same format, we'll work it like that and just list one" "okay". Ironholds (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all "--th US Congress- summary" articles as G3, vandalism. Duplicating 200 or more articles that are 50+ KB is a massive waste of space. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't fall under G3 - vandalism is doing something with the intention to harm the wiki. The user in question wasn't trying to do that. Ironholds (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion. The user intended to to take up 10 megs for reasons all his own. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole lot. The summary of each article should be the first section, not a separate article. Article spin-offs should be more detailed, not less detailed. Also, WP:WHATAMESSTHISMAKES. Drawn Some (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete: I have talked with the major contributor, and the only reason he has made these pages is because of a small amount of information. He had added a little bit of factual information to the original article, only for it to be removed numerous times. He just got fed up and made a new page with the information in the original article plus his new information. If we could find this information, add it to the article; then delete it would be great.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could that user be a bit more specific as to what he's added? I assume it was removed from the other pages for a reason; it may not be appropriate to include it (which seems fairly likely). Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let alone whether it is appropriate or not to include the material, this process should not be a way to circumvent consensus. If the user thinks it should be included then there are various ways for it to be discussed. Creating a load of additional articles which then get merged is not the way to do it. Quantpole (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tottaly agree. This is not the way to go about getting information up, but the edtitor says he is not interested in "Wiki wars" he just wants to write about what he has learned as a historian. I have tried to get him to pinpoint which information was removed, but he has not been on since I last talked to him.--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if he can't locate where this information is then we're not going to keep 200 unneeded articles around until he works it out. He isn't interested in "wiki wars" good, but the correct response when faced with opposition is not to create your own set of pages where you can have eminent domain. I'm going to inform the user who thinks he had this dispute with Stiltim about this page - he might be able to remember what this "extra content" that he didn't include in the main article was. Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete per above and similar deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/56th United States Congress - summary.DCmacnut <> 20:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already stated. If the editor in question ever remembers the information he added and that he says was reverted at a regular article, he can discuss it there or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress. -Rrius (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Having looked through Stilltim's contribution history, the edit history of the first of these articles he created, and of the article it was based on, I just don't find the protestations of having had a substantive distinction credible. The first article created was 50th United States Congress - summary. It had its genesis in a very short dispute at 50th United States Congress. As best I can tell, the only major changes were to revert the inclusion of an infobox and to re-link dates. I am not going to check all the articles, but I am having a lot of trouble believing the assertion that the summary articles were created over a dispute as to content rather than style. Most of his contributions to the main Congress articles have consisted of changing dablinks and other minor changes. The suggestion made, through Gordonrox24, that Stilltim was reverted multiple times before getting frustrated is also hard to swallow.

He was reverted once on each of the articles where he deleted infoboxes and linked dates, but he did not follow up on any of those on any talk page. Moreover, his deletion and link edits were all marked as minor and contained the deceptive edit summary "cleanup". In the end, this behaviour is hard to justify and even harder to understand. It is inconceivable that an editor of such long standing made no attempt whatever to discuss the matter on the talk page of any of the articles involved or the editor who reverted him. The attempt to sneak in his preferred format one last time, in my eyes, detracts from his credibility.

Stilltim's only attempt at an explanation was to User:Ironholds, who seemingly had nothing to do with the dispute. That explanation, here, has a whiff of wp:own about it. In the explanation, Stilltim speaks of another editor "disrupting" his attempts to create consistent format over a period of years. The infoboxes, though, were only added fairly recently and had only been reverted in this recent round of edits. What that shows is that Stilltim is not discussing a pattern of his adding material only to have it deleted. Rather, it shows that Stilltim will revert anything that does not comport with the way he wants the articles to appear. The articles now up for deletion cannot be kept just because not everyone agrees with his vision of how the ordinal Congress articles should look. -Rrius (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rrius. While I have worked with Stilltim on a number of issues (At-large members, general ticket, party identification, etc.) and find him to be a well researched editor focused on accuracy, I do think he has taken a special liking to the ordinal congress articles to the point of wanting only his version displayed. Based on my recent discussion with him, he has a "vision" in mind of how these articles should look. I asked if there could be a compromise, but in his mind the only solution is to let him bee and once he's finished "picture may be clearer." This is the same response I've gotten from him on other issues, where he feels his version is the right version, and if only other editors would understand that his way is better, all will be right with the world. His goal isn't to distrupt WP, and his intentions are noble, but no one owns articles.

With respect to the articles at hand, his response to me is tha that "individual accounts with a particular organization seems easier to find & use, rather than combine three or four presentations into one immense article." So, he wants one main article summarizing the Congress, one that displays the same info, but in terms of political party, a third formated based on state, and a forth formated with Membership changes. Basically, he does not want any discussion of party strength or membership changes on the main article, and would rather those be forks, because it is easier to present information to people unfamiliar with the subject. My view is that sending people to 4 different articles with the same info isn't simpler, but up till now I haven't made a stink out of it. But now he is objecting to what concensus determine should be with all of the ordinal congresses, and has gone of to recreate his own duplicate page in his own image. I feel we are left with no choice but to delete these articles. If there is a way to do a mass nomination for all "XXth Congress - subject" forks, we should pursue it. Stilltim has made it clear he intends to continue creating his summary articles until he is finished, so while I still assume good faith, it appears to me he is not interested in reaching concensus, only recreating what he feels was wrongfully changed.DCmacnut <> 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is a mass nomination - I just thought that sticking 200 articles in this was a bit OTT. Still, they all use the same format, so it shouldn't be a problem. Ironholds (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Layout of the ordinal Congress articles that should have occurred before the summary articles were created. -Rrius (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rrius. If Stilltim does not respond to my question on his talk page, I have no problem with a mass nomination/deletion of these articles.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 56th United States Congress - summary was deleted.--gordonrox24 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, the rest should be next. Stiltim reacted to this AfD by er.. creating more pages in this format. I'm not optimistic. Ironholds (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Stiltim is a smart historian, but if we can't get it to Wikipedia correctly, I see no reason to keep these pages.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having tangled with Stilltim over these articles before, I believe that the problem is that the user is overly attached to his contributions. See Wikipedia:No vested contributors.—Markles 16:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion here.--gordonrox24 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Crazy Bones

Fails WP:NOTDIR point 6. Indiscriminate detail about a notable topic, where all the relevant material is included in the main article. This is just a list of thousand names and numbers, none of them individually notable at all. Not everything that is ever produced or that gets collected needs an entry here. Fram (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It only has little detail because I'm not a collector and thus don't have the sticker books or albums that contain the extra details on each character. Given time this could be expanded like the list of Pokemon character articles. If it is deleted users will continue to either attempt to add it to the main article, or re-create this article again. Oh, and cheers for informing me about this afd, that sure was good of you! --LookingYourBest (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check WP:AADD. If it's deleted, then recreated, then it will be deleted again per WP:CSD#G4. Then if it's recreated, it will be salted. No biggie. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I forsee the Pokemon problem here. I'm leaning towards a delete !vote, but still deciding. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 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 00:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any value in keeping this list. It seems highly unencyclopedic. LookingYourBest compared this list to the list of Pokemon character articles--but a key difference here is that the individual items in this list are non-notable. Cazort (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally I'd rather see it all condensed in a single list, instead of getting multiple loose and stubby articles, but the referencing needs improvement. The majority of it is not independent. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sourcing (most referring back to the company website) is hardly independent--not to mention listing them here violates WP:NOTMIRROR. Cazort (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panama Canal Zone national football team

Fails WP:V and WP:N. The only reference provided is an unsourced website. Google searches of various combinations of soccer/football and Panama Canal/ Panama canal zone/ Canal zone find no additional information. Even if they did, it's highly unlikely this was anything approaching a real 'national' football team, more likely to have been composed of US soldiers than 'Zonians' Stu.W UK (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) My first reaction to reading this article is "Wow, TWO friendly matches with Panama!!!". But, actually, thats probably notable to someone! This makes me think that a keep !vote is in order. However, the lack of a reliable source makes me stick with a !vote for Delete. - John Sloan @ 12:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since nothing is known about them, although I am glad the two matches were friendly.Borock (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Friendly match" is the British English term for what in the USA is referred to as an "exhibition game"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Well, I did learn something. :-) Borock (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability --Angelo (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable football team. BigDunc^Talk 19:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somaliland national football team

AfDs for this article:

I am also nominating Daniel Muwathe, the team's alleged coach, although no proof is given.

Previous AfD in 2007 resulted in no consensus.

This team has played once ever, against a team of occupying soldiers. They are not notable. Membership of the NF-Board alone is not evidence of notability, as demonstrated by the number of deleted teams in the template at the bottom of the article Stu.W UK (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Giant Snowman 12:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Somaliland national football team and speedily delete Daniel Muwathe (WP:CSD#A7). John Sloan @ 12:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, i've gone ahead and tagged Daniel Muwathe for speedy deletion. John Sloan @ 12:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you can see, this has now been deleted. John Sloan @ 19:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Jogurney (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one game in the overall history of this 'team' says it all. Lack of notability. --Angelo (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be a Man... Ooh Yeah

I'm calling this hoax. Nothing to support this. As for the text... well, read it yourself, because I can't quite put it into words. Last I was aware, there wasn't a speedy for hoax material, so *shrug* Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is {{db-hoax}} for hoaxes. Believe it or not, this does actually exist - [26], and it's reasonably well-known among wrestling fans as part of the long-standing feud between Savage and Hulk Hogan. But as far as the bologna that's on the linked page, definite delete (reasonable content already exists at Randy Savage, so a merge (if there were any reasonable content to merge) is unnecessary), particularly as Hogan's own much better known album Hulk Rules is a redirect. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 09:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wrong title Indeed, Savage has had a music career and actually received radio play for a couple of his songs off this album (esp. for the title track). This one is real (as seen on Amazon), but this entire album article is definitely hoaxalicious (the 'references' consist of a Diff'rent Strokes video and a YTMND with a Savage Slim Jim ad). The actual album title (without the ...Ooh Yeah) links to the section about music in Savage's personal article. Nate • (chatter) 09:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rewrite. This is an article that, in its current state, needs to be put down. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed pretty much all the text, as all of it was pretty much garbage. It is better to have a small bit of correct info, rather than blatantly misleading information. I've adjusted the infobox to reflect actual data from the link Nosleep provided above. Even tho it's currently at what I would call stub-level, given the comments on the incorrect name and the information already existing on the target articles, I'll still stand by my AFD nom. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still incorrect to even have an article at this title. Be a Man... Ooh Yeah was never the title of Savage's album. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Potentially merge. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stimpson

Clear WP:BIO1E and apparently not even true. All mention of this guy completely disappeared not long after the furor in 2005 about him. If it was true, surely there would have been something more than just the initial, somewhat dubious reporting in 2005. At best, and it's a real stretch, this article might be merged into HIV test, in the Accuracy of HIV trsting section, since it seems his initial positives were false positives. Age Happens (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the merge to HIV test is such a stretch, but neither do I necessarily think it's.....necessary. Boy it's getting late. Delete or merge as WP:ONEEVENT dictates that we write about the event and not the individual. If it's determined that the event is not notable, then delete. If the event is notable, then merge. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 09:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Simon Atkins (2005-11-17). "Wonders do happen — but rarely". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited.
Uncle G (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 May 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 00:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly Move/Rename with a redirect. I think merging to HIV Test would be too much of a stretch: I think it is hard to argue that the event is not notable: [27] is quite a lot of coverage, and there is discussion of both (a) the possibility that he recovered=us&hl=en&scoring=a] is quite a lot of coverage, and there is discussion of both (a) the possibility that he recovered naturally, and (b) the possibility that the first test came back false, and (c) controversy surrounding his threat of a lawsuit, and then the idea that he deliberately tried to make money from tabloids after changing his story. Not only is this notable, it's highly interesting, and if all sourcable material were included in an article, it would be too big to put as a section of another article. There's a rich story here...and people will likely be typing his name in as a search. Cazort (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly WP:ONEVENT. It was never explained and there was never any follow-up after the initial news blast in 2005. Any discussion of whether or not it was "true" or what was the cause or what-have-you is irrelevant but I can think of at least three very plausible explanations and would expect that if it were confirmed to be as reported it would have been written up in medical journals. At any rate he's not notable apart from these one-event news reports.Drawn Some (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ONEEVENT would recommend covering the event, which would suggest a move, not delete. Can you give any justification to delete rather than move/rename? And there has been some coverage from later dates, it's just hard to find because google news often indexes dates incorrectly: 2007 article from a Chinese source relating a similar case in China to Stimpson: [28], same material in a French source: [29]. Also, if you want coverage in a peer-reviewed journal, you have it: [30]; his case is discussed in the context of false-positives for test. And that was published just this year, in 2009. Cazort (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/expand per Cazort. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a relevant article makes sense then maybe merge but this would seem a reasonble article is possible here. Here's a book mention as the first person to be cured of AIDS. Here's about seven news bits from the Aegis (AIDS) archives. -- Banjeboi 11:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there have been anecdotal reports from Africa of people fighting off the virus, Stimpson's case was the first to have been medically tested. He is the first medically tested person who they can confirm was cured of the AIDS virus! That makes him notable! Dream Focus 03:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/move to a new stub on various notable reports of [alleged] HIV recovery (if possible). This guy is definitely notable, but only for 1 event. It would be better to provide a place to add more cases like his, rather than accumulate more non-notable (non-HIV related) biographical info about him. Wikignome0529 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if there is much verifiable biographical information about him out there, then this would mean he was notable. But I haven't really found that so I certainly would not object to this plan. Do you have other cases in mind? Two of the articles I show hit on a possible case in China. Cazort (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure there would be any verifiable RS cases to add for cases of HIV being "cured"... A better target for a move actually might be a stub to add any media-mentioned cases of HIV seroreversion (and the topic in general), since cases of people no longer being "detectable" (but without the claims of being cured) are not as unheard of. I am not an HIV expert, but it just seems like it would be more value to readers in covering more of the topic and not the person (since the BLP notability is based on the seroreversion, not on other aspects of the person) -- Wikignome0529 (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violation of BLP1e - and possibly defamtory - says individual contracted HIV, which he may or may not have done. Requires deletion. Hipocrite (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above by another editor, BLP1E would not necessarily require deletion. Article could be merged or refactored to cover the event or topic instead of being a biography of the person. Also, subject was covered in the mainstream media for having contracted/reporetedly recovering from HIV, presumably with subject's consent. Subject in-effect gave up keeping his HIV status private when he went to the media. Wikignome0529 (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, it needs cleanup too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to HIV disease progression rates. The case is very notable, and this is the most appropriate place I can find for including it. Fences and windows (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as silly hoax Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-National Collective Social Movement

Unsourced account of "political movement" with no news coverage and zero Google hits, including Google books. Possible hoax: supposed leader "Ragnar Danneskjold" is also a character in Atlas Shrugged. Hairhorn (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G3 (with the appropriate tag added to the page). Even your kid brother's chess club should get a certain piffling number of Ghits; none whatsoever is pretty clear evidence of a hoax article. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 08:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3 - it's complete and utter Wp:BOLLOCKS. And when Google can't find a single result for it, it's pretty obvious that it doesn't exist. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I agree with the nomination, although I am excited to discover that fictional characters can establish National Movements. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to NLT (band). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Joseph Thorne

Thorne appears to be a bit part actor and a member of a boy band. Neither make someone notable. His acting credits appear to be limited to playing the likes of "DDR Kid", "Dancer", and "Playground Kid", none significant parts. He is a member of NLT (band) currently at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NLT (band) but appears to have done nothing notable outside that band. There appears to be no independent reiliable sources that show any individual notabilty for Thorne. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 08:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to say redirect to the band, as the only mentions of him specifically and not the band in web hits seem to be accompanied by the phrase "He's so hot." Consensus on the band seems to be 'keep,' and I might !vote that way myself, but there is scarce little out there in reliable sources on the individual. I'm always a bit reticent to delete something that has interlanguage wikilinks on it, thought the articles in the Portuguese and Finnish Wikipedias aren't much of anything. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 09:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paydin LoPachin

Expired PROD (reason: No reliable sources demonstrating that this person meets the inclusion criteriae, in particular WP:ENTERTAINER) removed before deletion with the mention "Adding Filmography". Unfortunately, it doesn't address the sourcing issue mentioned in the PROD. Google News turns up exactly one source, which might qualify, but the GNG requires several. Google Search only returns trivial or placeholder pages. MLauba (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unequivocally fials WP:ENTERTAINER, unless you consider "Cheerleader #1," "Brody's Next Victim," and "Mary #2" to be significant roles. Pretty girl, though, and I wouldn't be too surprised if she gets notable roles later on in her career. But that's not a matter for this discussion. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 08:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - Has one lead role (Triloquist), WP:ENT requires 2+. Seems to have a minor fan base with a few trivial mentions on the web + hotties semi-article. ENt requires 'significant following'. Lone news story [31] reads as a local human interest type story. In summary, she falls just below the bar. (It is not unreasonable to think this will change, however we have WP:CRYSTAL). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Weak Keep per work done by MichaelQSchmidt. She still only has one notable role, so she fails ENT. However, she appears to pass the general notability guidelines by being covered in multiple sources in a non-trivial fashion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as just squeeking past the WP:GNG ("Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive") per her less-than-trivial coverages in genre-specifc reviews ("Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media") for her starring role in Triloquist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the effort of sourcing is impressive, nothing added is anything but trivial coverage, and coverage centered on the character rather than the actress. I'm a bit skeptical this qualifies as "squeeking past the WP:GNG".

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Johan Bull

Non-notable, one event and a contested event at that. Should be merged into article about Antarctica exploration. No reason for this to have a tiny stub of its own. Age Happens (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a specific target article for a merge? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. I think the History of Antarctica article would be the best place, in the section "Exploration" as it seems he isn't even mentioned there! He is already mentioned in the List of Antarctic expeditions article, 19th century. Looking at the List of expeditions article, I suspect that many of them might need to be merged in a similar way to the Temba Tsheri proposed deletion, if that is the consensus there. Age Happens (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to a more correct title and corrected the page name above. --Hegvald (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He is included in Norsk biografisk leksikon, both the current edition (freely available on-line and already linked from the page) and a previous edition (see references there). --Hegvald (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An entry in a print encyclopedia is the best evidence possible that we should have an entry in Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is important to remember that WP:ONEEVENT applies whether a person has a mention in some other encyclopedia or not. Other sources may not have our guidelines, and our guidelines include WP:ONEEVENT. The person wasn't even notable enough to include in the History of Antarctica section on Exploration, and even the first person status is in doubt, as indicated in the article itself. As noted elsewhere by Nosleep, the point of the WP:BIO1E standard is to make the aerticle about the event not the person, except in extraordinary circumstances. This person's notability is dependent solely upon that one event, for which an article already exists which should include him, and that event is hardly extraordinary enough to justify a separate article. Age Happens (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If topics covered in major printed reference works of the traditional type that were edited by experts and had to pay for authors & paper (that includes the current NBL, which was printed before it went online) could not be covered in Wikipedia because of some guideline, then that guideline would (in my view) be detrimental and should be ignored. In this case, however, it is clear that you are just over-interpreting the guideline. Did you even notice that your link went to a page concerned with "biographies of living persons"? --Hegvald (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might want to take a closer look at WP:BIO1E and compare it with WP:BLP1E. The general content of both is identical, and they are generally used interchangeably. I used WP:ONEEVENT in my comment because that was the link used by Nosleep. I usually use WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, and do so with the former for deceased people and the latter for living people. Forgive me for keeping to the usage of previous editor's comments as a way of avoiding confusion by people who don't bother to closely read the WP links. As to the other part of your comment, what other publications and outside sources use as standards is not the measure of what Wikipedia uses as standards. The Wikipedia guidelines are clear and in this case entirely unambiguous. Bull is known for one and only one event. And even that event is itself disputed. The event is so non-notable that he was even left off the Exploration section of the main article for Antarctic history. To quote the Wikipedia guideline in WP:BIO1E, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person."" The event was a minor onr in the exploration of Antarctica. There is an existing article for that. Therefore, there is no need for a separate article about the person or persons involved. Age Happens (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, you may take a look at what that page calls the "basic criteria", where the first sentence says that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." In other words, "what other publications and outside sources use as standards" is exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to rely on. --Hegvald (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temba Tsheri

Non-notable and/or poorly sourced. Just because a person is first or youngest or oldest does not justify a Wikipedia article by itself. Merge this all all other "First" articles with the appropriate complete article on Mount Everest. And 1 clearly biased online source is not suitable for reliability standards. Age Happens (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mount Everest, and by merge, I mean a sentence or two. Clear-cut case of WP:ONEEVENT - write about the event, not the individual. The event probably is notable, though. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all clear WP:BIO1E deletion candidates. Possibly they should just all be merged with Mount Everest: Age Happens (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all except Marty Hoey, which makes no real assertion of notability (no first or fastest or anything). Just delete that one. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 09:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What would we use for criteria on this? WP:ATHLETE? If so, it could be argued that climbing Everest is competing at the highest level of mountaineering. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think WP:ONEEVENT is imminently more applicable. If any of these people had notable long-standing careers as climbers (and I'm sure they're all career climbers, emphasis in that last statement on the word notable), if they had topped Kilimanjaro and McKinley and what have you, then I think WP:ATHLETE might be applicable. But there's not any evidence right now that it is. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Nosleep. Symplectic Map (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Temba Tsheri. A Google News search shows that he is also notable as an environmental[32][33] and anti-war[34] (library card or trial access required) campaigner. I'm not too happy with the bundling of all these articles in a nomination based on WP:ONEEVENT, as checking whether that applies needs to be done separately for each article subject, and there is no interdependence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that Mount Everest is currently 72 kilotyes long, so if some or all of these articles are to be merged then it might be better to create a spinoff article with a title such as Mount Everest records. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Pemba Dorjie. None of the sources found by Google News or Google Books appears to say more than that the subject held the record, and that there was a minor spat about whether someone else broke it a few days later. I can read enough English, Spanish, German, Portuguese, Polish, Italian and French to confirm that the sources in those languages don't say any more, which just leaves one each in Hungarian[35], Vietnamese[36] and Romanian[37], none of which mentions the subject in the headline, and all of which appear to mention the ascent time in close proximity to the subject's name. I have only searched in the Latin alphabet. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moni Mulepati. Has some additional notability as an author[38]. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leszek Cichy. The article already describes his second claim to notability, confirmed here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marco Siffredi. The article lists under "further reading" a 400-page biography of the subject published by a non-vanity publisher. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Francys Arsentiev. Her record-breaking achievement, her death, and the recovery of her body are all separate events. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Lobsang Tshering either to Mount Everest or to a new article Deaths on Mount Everest, unless sources can be found in a non-Latin script or under a different transliteration. My old friends Google Books and Google News don't seem to come up with any more than the fact of his death under this spelling. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep of Pasang Lhamu Sherpa (but with a move to Pasang Lhamu). The third paragraph of the article says it all. Loads of book coverage, with this explaining the significance of her posthumous award. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jozef Psotka. Has an entry in the Slovak National Biography. And yes, it is about this Jozef Psotka - the snippet displayed in the Google Books results says that he's a "horolezec" (climber). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marty Hoey. Has plenty of coverage in books and the press, which contains more information than just her fateful climb, and also was honoured by having a new, more secure, knot named after her.[39] Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe that my comments above have shown that these articles can't all be debated in a single nomination, as each subject has a separate claim to notability. Different people could well have different combinations of articles that they support keeping, deleting or merging, and we'll end up with a total mess that will be impossible for any admin to evaluate. I would suggest closing this and opening separate AfDs for any of the articles that the nominator, or anyone else, still thinks should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I'm aware that my evaluation of these article subjects could be affected by systemic bias - the ones for which I couldn't find sources necessary for a "keep" are ones for which we could expect many sources not to be in the Latin alphabet. I'd also request that nobody tells me that I should be adding all of the sources that I found to the articles - I've spent my whole evening just looking for the sources, so I would hope that, in the spirit of collaboration, someone takes up the baton. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pernom or merge in a sentence as noted above. This is all wp:1event: clear-cut. Eusebeus (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And what about all the other claims to notability that I mentioned above? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pembo Dorije. If this statement is true: "His climb is considered one of the greatest feats in mountaineering" then there is no question about notability. IMHO ONEEVENT is there to avoid having an article about a career nurse who briefly shot into fame due to one night stand with a rock star or something. It's not supposed to prevent having an article about someone who made a single outstanding contribution in their field. Are one-hit wonders ONEEVENT? Stevage 04:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please note that I specifically did not include climbers' articles who were also noted as having climbed other peaks, especially the famous Seven Peaks. Those individuals would indeed qualify under WP:ATHLETE but the ones noted above are not noted except for a single event, setting only one minor record in an Everest climb or dying there. The intent of [[[WP:ONEEVENT]] is clear, write about the event not the person. In this case, the event has a page already - Mount Everest and a section therein devoted to "various records" which is where most of the above should be listed. I concur that perhaps a separate page for Mount Everest Climbing Records or similar would also work. But as it stands, all of the above are One-event and quite clearly so. Just because they are listed elsewhere is not sufficient, since "elsewhere" may not have the same standard. We do have a standard, and it should either be adhered to or thrown out. And to answer Stevage, The songs in the one-hit wonders are One Event, but as an event they are suitable for an article. However, the band members who participated in the one-hit wonder fall under WP:ONEEEVENT and thus are not suitable under the Wikipedia guidelines.Age Happens (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For nearly all of these subjects I have expicitly refuted the claim that they fall under WP:ONEVENT, by showing independent reliable sources that cover other activities, including in one case the very achievement that you refer to. And coverage elsewhere is the very basis of notability, provided that the "elsewhere" is substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, which I have shown for all of the subjects for which I gave a "keep" opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we have to take your objections one at time then? Very well.

Your objection to Temba Tsheri is that he is, you claim, also "notable as an environmental and anti-war campaigner" which seems rather a leap of logic. Temba Tsheri signed a petition (which was signed by thousands of people and included over 70 worldwide organizations) and was mentioned (only mentioned, not featured) in some articles about the petitions. How, exactly, is that notable? Anyone can sign a petition. The only reason Temba Tsheri is even mentioned as one of the co-petitioners is because of the... WP:ONEVENT. We're back to square one. Notability for one event. And the Wikipedia guidelines for one event are quite clear. "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." The event belongs in some article about Mount Everest, not a separate article for every person involved in those one events.
Your objection to Moni Mulepati that she has some "additional notability as an author" merely begs the question. Writing a book about her one event does not qualify as additional notability. It's still all about the one event. She is still known only for that one event. Seriously? Did you read the link at all?
Your objection to Leszek Cichy is accepted. He is one of the Seven Summit climbers I noted above and I failed to remove him from the list. This one I can accept as having another notable event.
Your objection to Marco Siffredi would perhaps have gone better if you'd googled Antoine Chandellier, the author of the biography which you claim makes him notable for more than one event. Siffredi was Chandellier's good friend. A biography written by a good friend after the subject dies is hardly a reliable and independent source.
In the case of Francys Arsentiev you claim that her record, her death and the recovery of her body are all separate events. Well, I suppose. In the sense that each breath you take is a separate event from the previous ones. This is just silly. She died during the same event. Just that single event. The recovery, such as it was, of her body was the result of... that same one event. She is know only for that one event. Nothing else. They aren't separate events. They're the same event.
You object to Pasang Lhamu Sherpa because she is famous in Nepal? Again. You're begging the question. She is famous in Nepal for... being the first Nepali woman to climb Mount Everest. The third paragraph which "says it all" as you claim, only lists a posthumous Nepali award, a Nepali statue, a Nepali postage stamp and a Nepali road, a Nepali strain of wheat and a minor Nepal mountain in her honor? Why were these things awarded to her? Her one event. It's the same thing. One event. A person known only for one event. That event means she's known in Nepal, of course. And commemorated in Nepal for... that one event. Sorry, no joy on this one either.
For Jozef Psotka you claim that he is known for other things. He's known as a "climber" in a Slovak biography? Seriously? See the previous person. Known for what exactly? One event. Being the oldest person to climb Mount Everest without oxygen. That's it. The other mountains listed in the article are non-notable. Hundreds of people climb them every year. Not notable. His only notable event, just one event is why he's listed. You've provided no information that he is known for any other notable event.
With Marty Hoey we're back to begging the question again. She's notable for one thing. Dying in a fall on Mount Everest because of an unsecured harness. You claim that having a knot named after her also makes her notable. Why was the knot named after her? Because it was a new, more secure knot, named in honor of her for dying because of an unsecured harness. Right back to her one event again! The other things you claim she is listed under in the goggle search are 'all in reference to her death on the mountain.

What your objections all amount to are circular arguments and the petition principii logical fallacy. All of the people you objected to, save one, are notable for one event only. The other minor things which you claim as notability don't even come close to a standard of notability in each case. I'll repeat it for you, the guideline is quite clear, in the case of one event it is the event which should be the prefered subject of the article, not the person. In each case, the event is tied to Mount Everest and there is plenty of room for the individuals above to be so listed. Except in one case, all of the above are notable for one and only event. I'm sorry, but that is simply fact. Blindly listing Google searches without closely examining the content and begging the question in nearly every case does not amount to any kind of reasonable refutation as you claim. You're grasping at straws here. Age Happens (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time for another marathon response, which emphasises the point that putting all of these in one nomination makes proper scrutiny of each individual case difficult.

The first of the sources that I offered above for Temba Tsheri [40] focuses entirely on him and one other person as environmental activists, without even mentioning his climb of Everest, so how can you say, "The only reason Temba Tsheri is even mentioned as one of the co-petitioners is because of the... WP:ONEVENT"? It also makes it clear that he was one of the two people who presented the petition, not just one of thousands who signed it. The second source serves to confirm that this is the same Temba Tsheri.
The source that I gave for Moni Mulepati [41] is about the book, not about her climb. Just because there is a chain of events leading back to the climb doesn't make this one event. You might just as well say that Barack Obama is only notable for the one event of being elected to the Illinois senate in 1996, because everything that happened afterwards in part of a chain of events.
The Leszek Cichy case simply creates the impression that these articles were nominated without proper due diligence, such as the reading of the articles before nomination.
The 400-page biography of Marco Siffredi was written by someone close to him, as very many biographies are, but, being published by a reputable publisher, is perfectly acceptable as a source for determining notability. I have never known an article about a subject to be deleted when a whole book has been published about it.
Francys Arsentiev is a rather more marginal case, and I'll retract the statement about her death being a separate event from her climb, but I would still argue that the recovery of her body is a separate event. References in the article focus specifically on the recovery. Again, a chain of events is not one event.
WP:BIO#Any biography says that, "the person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" is a ground for notability. How does Pasang Lhamu Sherpa not qualify under this criterion? The source that I linked above [42] explains how notable this award is. The fact that there is no Wikipedia article about the award reflects on our coverage of the non-Anglophone world, not on the subject's notability.
In Jozef Psotka's case, it has always been the practice at Wikipedia to have articles on people who have entries in print encyclopedias, such as national biographies. The whole point of not being paper is that we should at least as inclusive as print encyclopedias, and the point of notability is that we rely on the judgment of the publishers of independent reliable sources to decide what to include.
The book coverage of Marty Hoey that I linked to includes coverage of events other than her death, such as [43] and [44]. If you want to shell out $3.95 or $7.90 you might also want to check out some news articles from before her death[45].
Finally I would ask you to retract the statement that I was "blindly listing Google searches without closely examining the content". Doesn't my analysis of Pemba Dorjie above show that that is untrue? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unbundle and relist separately I stand by my merge all above, but it doesn't seem at this point that the bundling is a fair process. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jozef Psotka separately. WP:BIO1E? Psotka climbed more eight-thousanders, as far as I know. He was the first Slovak mountaineer on the summit of Mount Everest (together with Demjan). He is considered one of the most famous Slovak climbers and deserves own article. I've added more links and citation, the article undoubtedly has room for improvement. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the articles are available in different languages Wikipedia and sources are available as shown in this discussion. The idea of merging some of the articles is interesting, but we should preserve the information so we can discuss each article individually. --J^mundo 19:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus between keeping or moving but neither the nominator nor anyone else mentioned a reason for deletion. Mgm|^(talk) 08:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha Benz

Non-notable, WP:BIO1E, major article under husband, Karl Benz. Article should be merged as a section only into husband's article. Age Happens (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional content could perhaps be gleaned from the articles in other languages about the subject (I wish my German wasn't so dreadful, it's the only one of those languages I come even close to speaking). Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon inspection, they seem to be translations of our article. Perhaps the Czech, German, Esperanto, Dutch, Polish, Slovak, and Vietnamese Wikipedias don't have a guideline equivalent to WP:ONEEVENT? Merge any useful content. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BIO1E advises "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". The lady's notability is surely established by the verifiable statements that (a) "a festive holiday every two years celebrates this historic trip of Bertha Benz" and (b) "In 2008, a Bertha Benz Memorial Route[1] was officially approved as a route of industrial heritage of mankind". The achievements are quite distinct from those of Karl Benz, who was explicitly not consulted over the historic use of his invention. Bjenks (talk) 11:55, 12 May 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, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If any action is to happen on the basis of WP:ONEEVENT, a move/rename seems more appropriate. The event involves Bertha Benz more than her husband, and the suggestion to merge into his page seems to have no real merit, the only possible justification being the sexist tradition of attributing all women's significant accomplishments to their husbands or to other men, and this practice has no place in wikipedia.

But in addition to opposing such a merge, I think Bertha is above and beyond the threshold of WP:N: there are very rich sources available: [46], [47]. These sources provide very detailed coverage of this woman as an individual, her personality, some basic biographical info, actions INDEPEDENT of her husband...and she has even been the subject of artwork and events. WP:ONEEVENT reads "...and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted"...this woman hardly strikes me as "low profile" given the coverage I see. Cazort (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Belanger

AfDs for this article:

Procedural AfD. Listed per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 10. My own view will be Keep, which I will detail below. SilkTork *^YES! 07:15, 12 May 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}}.

Keep, appears to satisfy the general notability guideline (please no one suggest we need notability guidelines for psychic vampires). I really don't like the links to imageshack.us being used as references, though. I believe pictures can be references - I've used them as such myself - but they should be pictures published by reliable sources. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that album cover needs either a fair use rationale for its use in this particular article or it needs to be removed. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SilkTork *^YES!

Keep. Has a range of reliable sources, including media sources such as Fox News Channel, The Washington Post, and Bizarre magazine along with books The re-enchantment of the West: alternative spiritualities, sacralization, popular culture, and occulture by Christopher Hugh Partridge ISBN 0567041336, and Magickal Self Defense: A Quantum Approach to Warding by Kerr Cuhulain ISBN 0738712191. The subject is presented in the article as notable because she is a "prominent psychic vampire", and an "active figurehead and speaker for those interested in vampires and vampirism" - these statements come directly from the Washington Post - [48], written by "Monica Hesse Washington Post Staff Writer", and Bizarre Magazine - [49], written by Eleanor Goodman, Chief Sub Editor for Bizarre magazine [50]. The statement that she is a speaker on the campus circuit are supported by university newspapers. She has been published by the two leading publishers in her field - Red Wheel Weiser Conari and Llewellyn Worldwide. She has appeared in various documentaries, films, tv and radio shows, and in mentioned in several books about her field. These statements are also supported by sources, including a clip of Hannity's America in which she appears. The previous objection to the article, that it was written in a promotional manner, has now been addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 07:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not quite right.
  Partridge does not document Belanger at all, only the House Kheperu. The only mention of Belanger at all is as the author in a citation, given in a footnote, for a quotation. Nothing is said about her at all. Partridge does not even support the content in this article against which he is cited as a source. He nowhere says that Belanger founded Kheperu.
  Cuhulain has exactly three sentences on the subject of Belanger. The first mentions her as the author of a recommended book. The second and third state that in that book she included an updated version of the Black Veil. Cuhulain is actually discussing the Black Veil itself in that text.
  Hesse only mentions Belanger to give context for quoting her on the subject of psychic vampires (not Belanger), and says nothing that is actually about her except for the three words ("prominent psychic vampire") that you've quoted.
  Goodman similarly only mentions Belanger in order to quote her on the subject of psychic vampires (again, not Belanger), and again says nothing except that she authored a book and is an "active vampire scene figurehead".
  Belanger is an author who has written on other subjects, and whose writings and views on those subjects are quoted by others. But the above are not themselves evidence that other people have actually written about Belanger herself. Uncle G (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep In the first DrV I wrote "I'm finding a news article mostly about her [51], news articles that quote her in the Washington Post [52] and Chicago Tribune, books by a real (though specialized) publisher, apparently been on Hanity's show [53]. The enc. dramatica article certainly makes an interesting read ED/Michelle_Belanger. Ignoring the ED article for a second, I have to imagine this person is notable. Scary maybe, but notable." Hobit (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article was previously deleted by AfD because it was considered promotional in a clear violation of the NPOV policy and failing the notability guidelines in Wikipedia standards. After its closure by a general consensus, it was again endorsed for deletion at a previous DRV for the exact same reason, in a once again very clear attempt at relaunching the promotional activity for this individual by herself or her agent. That DRV was requested by an user who's single edit was to open that deletion review, using an account with the name of Belanger's vampire cult. That same account Kheperu (talk · contribs) was blocked as a role account. [54] [55]. Now on this new trend of continuous attempts at bringing back this article in consecutive AfD/DRV requests, I want to mention that not all of the issues with NPOV were addressed, and that the articles' language does not fully comply with a scholarly accepted encyclopedic style. Stating that an individual is a psychic vampire is not appropriate in an encyclopedia, since it is subject to personal belief. It would be like stating that someone is an alien from Mars, if that was his belief or the belief of his personal cult. An encyclopedia must present well researched and established facts, not personal opinions or beliefs. This points to a conflict with NPOV on the proposed new version of the article. Adding to that, most of the new sources that were provided do not really comply with the RS policy, which clearly should not be user-uploaded images on imageshack or articles that just refer the subject or interview him, but do not review his work or discuss him in detail. There is not one single in depth reference addressing this individual from a single reliable source. This is not an indicator of notability.

The provided sources and help in rebuilding the new article were made by accounts that clearly point to an SPA behaviour, including an user that has been blocked in the past for disruptive editing precisely because of adding promotional material from Belanger in several articles across Wikipedia and reverting other editor's actions in the removal of such content. [56] This SPA indicator alone undermines the whole efforts to reopen an article already far too entwined in drama.

This author has several books published, from which the vast majority are self-published, and the rest are released by publishing houses that do not really comply with the RS policy for reliable sources. I am sorry to most Wiccans and New Agers alike, but Llewellyn and Weiser are not exactly what falls under the RS category. (Also, as a side note, please keep in mind that there are Wicca books published by University presses, as well as professional publishing houses that do comply with RS. So don't take my example on Wicca as pejorative of the cultus.) On the top of that, none of her works was ever target of peer reviews or even documented under professional scrutiny and debate, except the online opinions found in several websites and people that bought her book. There may be a few references to her name in some more reliable articles, but still they do not present true reviews on her published work. This is a clear indicator on the lack of notability, from someone who does not meet most of the WP:BIO guidelines. Bottom line is that this individual, wether as an author or as a singer, is not worthy of an article in an encyclopedia.

For such a borderline-notable article that has been used as a platform for promotional content and a series of disruptive edits in other articles related with this same individual, I believe the benefits of maintaining such an entry in the system are clearly diminished by the red flags it raises, not to mention that it would conflict directly with the COI policy that Wikipedia editors so strive to enforce.

Everyone, please forgive my extensive entry on this particular DRV, but this is the sort of trend that an online encyclopedia must try to avoid. Diana LeCrois : 23:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you feel this is a single purpose account, that I am violating the policies surrounding promotion, or that I am engaging in disruptive editing by supplying references to published articles to editors interesting in working on an entry, then please take your accusations to the appropriate administrators. A deletion discussion is a place to discuss the merits or deficiencies of the existing article in question. Not bring up past historic issues of an article which have been dealt with. Nor is it a place to throwing about accusations against other editors that you appear to have, to this editor, a completely unfounded and unreasonable grudge against.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Diana. The issues related to style and formatting of cites are being adressed, though these are not usually reasons for deleting an article - if a cite is incorrectly formatted or a sentence is poorly phrased or a word is spelled wrong, we tend to feel that these are matters that editing will improve in time. It is not expected that an article will land on Wikipedia fully formed. As regards the academic response to the subject's books, that is a side issue, and is not related to the prime reasons given in the article for the subject's nobility which is that she is "a prominent member of the psychic vampire community, and an active figurehead and speaker for those interested in vampires and vampirism." This claim to notability is supported by various cites throughout the article. The mention of the publishers Llewellyn and Weiser is entirely appropriate, as they are the main publishers of the field in which the subject is prominent. In a claim that a person is prominent in a field, it is appropriate that mention is made that the person is published by the main publishers in that field. That the field is in itself a cult is acceptable to Wikipedian notability standards, as we do accept that people may be prominent in a limited field of interest, as long as the cult in itself is notable enough for an article. We have such an article, Vampire lifestyle, which is supported by scholarly works: [57]. The matter of people's past behaviour is for a different forum, and has no bearing on the notability of the subject. This is not a vote, and what matters is the content of what is said, not who says it nor how many people say it. SilkTork *^YES! 09:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the first five words, "Michelle Belanger is a psychic vampire...", checked that this isn't even a fiction category, and stopped reading. Delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Michelle Belanger is is a prominent psychic vampire..." is easily edited to "Michelle Belanger is a is a prominent member of the psychic vampire community...".--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional reasons: Only trivial mentions in reliable sources, all the rest are self-published or trivial AND unreliable, i.e. "Authors Katherine Ramsland and Michelle Belanger are interviewed along with several other experts on the modern vampire culture" being the only mention in of her in a review of a straight to dvd "documentary" at "Dvdtown." The review goes on to say "Vampire Secrets" is intermittently interesting, but is pretty much disposable fluff." Those last 4 words sum this article up.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - notability is extremely marginal, but having read through all the sources (in particular [58], [59], [60] and [61]), I think there is just about enough significant coverage here to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's plenty here for notability and the npov is certainly acceptable. Perhaps if we were ONLY considering this person for an article on books, or only as a singer, she might not quite meet notability compared to others in the same narrow category, but Belanger is an author, entertainer, public speaker and expert on cult or occult subjects, and as such fulfills several categories, the combined material making her a notable person. Others above have already listed the sources so I won't belabor it, except to suggest a print ref for the Bizarre Magazine article. I emailed the publsiher for the mag and am awaiting a reply. I cleaned up a few external links that appeared as links within the article and moved them to the references area. Ebonyskye (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feature magazine article located I think someone argued not having had any articles written solely on Belanger... Well, I found one. It was posted here [62] and is in Dark Realms issue 24, Oct 2006. I added the ref under music/Blood of Angels, but the magazine article also supports several other statements in the wiki article. Feel free to ref it elsewhere if you think it could be of use. Cheers. Ebonyskye (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Montenegro relations

a random combination with no resident embassies. All google news search comes up with is relations on the football field [63]. I couldn't find anything meaningful on the Irish Foreign Affairs website (especially since they don't have a resident embassy). All I could find is what the Irishaid website says which is very little and it seems like Ireland deals with relations in an Ireland-Balkans context. not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sports competitions do not bilateral relations make. No notability here (big surprise). Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant relations between the two- generally, it would be unlikely for significant relations to exist if the two don;t even have resident embassies. HJMitchell You rang? 10:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google news search turns up mostly stories about "ireland+and+montenegro"&cf=all sports and "montenegro+and+ireland"&btnG=Search+Archives&ned=us&hl=en more sports. Mandsford (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the one salient fact, recognition, is already noted at Foreign relations of Montenegro. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party coverage of the article topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign relations of Montenegro which contains the main info. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Martinez

One more of the many memorial biographies for victims of crime. Neither the person nor the crime are not even barely notable. The article pushes the POV that it was a hate crime. Also, I had to remove passages accusing some people of murder that has gone without sources at least since February 2007. We need to get ride of these memorials. Not every crime is a hate crime, not every crime is notable, not every crime-victim is notable... Damiens.rf 07:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I minored in queer studies at college not that long ago and I've never heard of this case. No sources (though the BLP tag that was being used to denote that was a bit puzzling) and external links to a memorial? WP:NOTMEMORIAL. List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, referring an infinitely more notable event, wound up being redirected to the article on the crime. If the crime were notable, I'd suggest doing that (or renaming this article), but it doesn't seem that it is. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per documentary film, and repeated mention / use of case. WP:BLP1E; WP:1E "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." pohick (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pohick2, please use edit preview when making your edits rather than making so many consecutive edits in so short a time. It prevents edit conflicts, and clogging up recent changes, and page history. And I must say, the sources you've presented don't really establish notability:

  1. ^ "Obituaries Fred C. Martinez Jr.". Cortez Journal. July - August 2001.

An obituary merely tells that someone died. It does not comment on the notability of the death of the individual. This particular obituary does not even give the details of the subject's death.

  2. ^ "Navajo Teen Death May Be Hate Crime". The Associated Press. July 12, 2001.

A reliable source. WP:GNG requires significant mention in multiple, though.

  3. ^ Death in Cortez, CO, Hate Crime Killings

This is a letter written by someone who has a clear agenda in the situation. Not even a source, let alone a reliable one.

  4. ^ Jon Barrett (09-OCT-01). "Getting along in Cortez: in the aftermath of the matter of transgendered Navajo Fred Martinez Jr., a Colorado town faces its dark side, and Martinez's mother faces life without her bestfriend". The Advocate.

I don't know if The Advocate is considered a reliable source, but I don't think it should be. It can't be considered neutral in a lot of what it writes.

  5. ^ JEREMY QUITTNER (August 28, 2001). "Death of a Two Spirit". The Advocate.

The Advocate, again.

  6. ^ http://www.coavp.org/content/view/34/44/

Trivial mention. The article is not about Martinez.

  7. ^ http://www.tampabaycoalition.com/files/604ShaunMurphyGets40Years.htm

This is a reprint of a number of articles from local (to the area of the crime) newspapers. I don't think local newspapers can lend notability to a subject.

  8. ^ "Case closed in Colorado.". The Advocate. 09-JUL-02.

The Advocate, again.

  9. ^ http://www.coavp.org/content/view/34/44/

Exact duplicate of source 6. Trivial mention.

 10. ^ SARA CORBETT (October 14, 2001). "Does a Sex Change Mean the End of the Relationship?".

Trivial mention, which is pretty clear by the title of the article.

 11. ^ http://nhts.net/media/Addressing%20Two-Spirits%20-%20Participant's%20Manual%20(25).pdf

This appears to be a workbook of some sort. Mention of Martinez, but only in questions to be filled out which follow. This is only used to source the statement it is used as study materials, but that doesn't make the subject notable.

 12. ^ David Campos (2002). Sex, youth, and sex education. ABC-CLIO. p. 142. ISBN 9781576077764.

One-paragraph mention in a 300-page book.

 13. ^ Robert B. Coates, Ph.D (March 2006). "Responding to Hate Crimes through Restorative Justice Dialogue". Contemporary Justice Review: 7 - 21.

The link does not mention Martinez; it's a link to a general page for the "Contemporary Justice Review." Likely a trivial mention, though of course I can't say for certain.

 14. ^ http://www.gpac.org/archive/news/notitle.html?cmd=view&archive=news&msgnum=0387

This is an interview with Martinez's mother by the "Gender Public Advocacy Coalition." Not likely a neutral outlet.

 15. ^ http://www.gpac.org/youth/news.html?cmd=view&archive=news&msgnum=0353

Same group as above, and a trivial mention at that.

 16. ^ http://polis.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=124494

Trivial mention of the case in a larger article about a hate crimes bill.

 17. ^ http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8111909

Looks to be a transcript of a speech by Ted Kennedy on the floor of the United States Senate, for much the same purposes as source 16. Martinez is one of numerous cases Kennedy mentions.

 18. ^ http://glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/booklink/record/1697.html

Links to a tribute film, almost certainly non-notable.

 19. ^ http://www.breckfilmfest.com/home/movie.php?film_ID=835

Another link to the same film.

 20. ^ http://www.twospirits.org/

Another film about Martinez, but again, not notable.

 21. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1296906/

Fun fact: A guy in my Drama 101 class at college had an IMDb page, and he was a 19-year-old pothead at the time. (OK, serious wording: IMDb has long been held to be an unreliable source for anything other than airing and screening dates).

It all adds up to non-notability of the case and the subject. Listen, it's a tragedy that this kid was killed for being who he was. But that doesn't mean he or his case automatically satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 - establishes dob

2 - establishes 'who says' "hate crime", the AP

3 - verifiable source, with a POV not mine

If you have a problem with neutrality then flag don't delete, and to be consistent go AfD Brandon Teena, Gwen Araujo as well.

Thank you, I'll look at those articles. If their subjects are non-notable, then I certainly will AFD them. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Araujo's notability is a bit questionable to me, but it seems to be lent from the TV movie about her case, which aired on cable. As that article is plainly an atrocity, something needs to be done to it. As far as Teena, call me when the film on Martinez wins an Academy Award, then I'll gladly change my vote to keep. In any case, notability or lack of notability of separate subjects has no bearing an a particular article's claim of notability. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6 - it supports the quote "beat up a fag"

9 - it supports the statement rising trend of anti-LGBT violence.

10 - it supports the connection to Brandon Teena, which is not OR.

11 - workbook when you go to Human male sexuality#Reaction to westernization of male identities you see the transgender elaborated on (of course flagged as POV)

13 - you speculate about the content of a journal article, that says in the abstract he is 1 of 3 case studies

14 - again neutrality of verifiable source is not relevant to notability.

16 - goes to show continuing remembrance by members of congress, when they propose their hate crime legislation annually (on the point of notability)

17 - ditto

18 - tribute? subject of a film

19 - film shown at film festival in 2009 years after event (i.e. not a home movie)

20 - what evidence do you have that the documentary film is not notable?

21 - funny, did he have a documentary film about him as a subject?

the citations go directly to the point: "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." in fact there is continuing coverage in films, on Capitol Hill, in study materials. this is not a memorial article, but a LGBT one, do you have a problem with that? pohick (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. Yes, I have a "problem" with this article because it's "a LGBT one." You might want to reread my vote statement. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many of these sources accurately reference statements made in the article. What none of them do is show the notability of the subject or the crime (as I said above, if the crime were notable, this could be moved to "Murder of Fred Martinez" or something sufficiently NPOV, but it doesn't seem that that is, either). Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Noms motivations may be noble however this is at least the fifth article on transgneder murder victims they have tried to recast generally blaming the victims and reducing them in various nihilistic ways. I find this quite troubling. There is a difference between NPOV and mythologizing murders. Every other article, BTW is still intact as well although they seem terribly interested in stubbing them down in any way possible. -- Banjeboi 03:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I was the only person noticing this about the nom. So are you saying keep or delete? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Blaming the victim? Are you seriously accusing me of that? --Damiens.rf 12:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i for one am also dismayed by the pattern of behavior by some, to flag and AfD rather than improve. it meets the 'persistent coverage' exception to the one event: how about "trivializing the victim". i really am NPOV about LGBT, but i find the offhand dismissals galling and risible. pohick (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per sources, properly sourced. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nosleep. The sources establish what the person did, but not whether he is notable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one-event. Coatrack to bring more attention to violence against LGBT people. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 00:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neenyo

AfDs for this article:

This article was previously deleted at Afd. A new version was created, which was then deleted under the speedy deletion criteria as being too similar to the previously deleted version. This was challenged at a deletion review, which determined that the article was sufficiently different enough to warrant a new evaluation at Articles for deletion. I am personally neutral on this deletion. Aervanath (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:COMPOSER. The cited sources fail to establish notability of the subject, only that The Last Kiss charted and that the subject has a credit on a CD-R mixtape. dissolve ^talk 08:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to fail WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything beyond whats in the article and that doesn't meet WP:N or any of the relevant subject guidelines. Hobit (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain–Greece relations

another random combination, non resident embassies. google news search turns up next to nothing except one minor tourism agreement. [64] otherwise they've competed in football competitions. not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to see here, move along. No notability. One of the 37,000+ poteential bilateral relations articles the subject of which is not notable in any way. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In looking at the infoboxes that adorn these and other articles, it seems some notability guidelines should be spelled out (if they haven't been already), because there's a LOT of seemingly random matching of two nations that's been done, but a lot that hasn't yet. Lot of redlinks. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 06:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

almost all of these articles were created by now banned user Groubani (talk · contribs) without applying WP:BEFORE. I agree that many that were created seem very random. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, it seems this is a bigger issue than I first realized. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 06:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a shame, the notable and worthy articles among this lot have been completely overshadowed by these steaming piles of crap (excuse my frustration) passing themselves off as "articles". OK, they have formal relations, but so do just about every pair of countries on Earth- a point the creator seems keen to make. They don't have resident embassies and there's no evidence of any significant agreements here. Also, "both countries established relations"- it would be rather odd if one established relations and t'other didn't! HJMitchell You rang? 10:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with HJ-- some of these do have merit, and most are random creations by an editor who cranked out one article after another. I feel the same way about people who post the exact same comment on each discussion-- we've seen "keep them all until a committee meeting is over", "delete them all", "merge a bunch of them into another article". There are others, like HJ, Birutorul, Wily, LibStar, etc., who take the time to weigh the merits of each individual article, and others who take the time to consider the arguments in favor or against an article. In this case, a Google search didn't turn up much -- there was mention of a "transport agreement", and even that was buried inside a press release from the Bahrain News Agency. Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as I can tell, no independent, in-depth coverage has been given to this topic, which thus fails WP:N. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party coverage of the article topic itself. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign relations of Greece, which now holds this content. But please hang on until the content has also been added to Foreign relations of Bahrain. Aymatth2 (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 00:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico–North Korea relations

although North Korea has an embassy in Mexico, there appears no significant coverage of any relations except this one article [65]. other than that coverage seems to be of Hillary Clinton making comments about North Korea whilst in Mexico. [66] LibStar (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another of these articles which have, essentially, a big empty at their core. The article fails to show in what way relations between Mexico and North Korea are notable. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole lot of these relations articles. JBsupreme (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, just as it's fallacious to argue that every bilateral relations article is inherently notable, it's also wrong to delete them en masse. Unfortunately, just as with every other article, they have to be seperately and individually evaluated for their notability. The problem here is not with the existence of these kinds of article, it's that the editor who created them obviously took no interest at all to insure that only those which were notable and interesting were put up. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment - No, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater: some of them actually have a point. Would you call Canada - United States relations, British-Irish relations or Japan-Korea relations non-notable? (Granted, a lot of them are pointless, but not all of them… DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one's interesting- there's a lot of chatter on the web about something but, when you dig down, there's nothing even resembling a WP:RS- the odd conspiracy theory and a few passing references to meetings between ambassadors and such like, but nothing tangible. HJMitchell You rang? 11:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there was much of a relationship, there would certainly be a reaction from the United States; for obvious reasons, Washington does not want a North Korean presence on the Rio Grande. Mandsford (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - relations with NK are more likely than not to be notable, given that country's pariah status, but significant coverage is lacking here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party coverage of the actual article topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION Does anyone speak Korean or Spanish? I doubt there would be any news in English. And I'm curious if Mexico has an embargo against North Korea like the rest of the world does. That is a relationship the article should have mentioned in it. Dream Focus 23:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since i find no articles in either english or spanish in reliable sources that discuss this relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Williamson Creek Greenbelt

Non-notable park. Fails WP:N and WP:RS (not third party). Originally this started as a non-NPOV article to raise (negative) awareness for an event which took place April 25th. User has not come back to since original posting, and what's left has been improved, but is still not exactly NPOV and is definitely NN. Ghits for "Williamson Creek Greenbelt" = 144, and only a few additional for the park by its correct name of "Williamson Creek Central Greenbelt". 7 ^| talk | 04:44, 12 May 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 00:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is another document: [67] which documents, among other things, fairly detailed environment issues relating to this park. Yes, the source is hosted on a local government site but so what? Government sources, especially as relating to uncontroversial topics such as parks, tend to be highly reliable. I think it is a stretch to exclude them as sources on the basis of not being independent, unless there is good reason to believe there is some sort of conflict of interest with promoting a narrow agenda. And if you're still concerned, there is good coverage in the Austin-American Statesman: [68] which I think is a very solid source. Those articles discuss, among other things, a bit of the history of the land, expansion of the park from donated land, and trash/crime problems in the park. Enough for a pretty comprehensive article. And, if it counts for anything, I find this topic interesting and think it would enrich wikipedia! Cazort (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient notability once Cazort finishes adding the sources he or she found. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm sure more work could be done based just on those sources but the meat of it is up on the page. Cazort (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Early close, speedy keep by discussion. AGF, folks. Keegan^talk 07:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furcadia

AfDs for this article:

<<Courtesy admin blanking of nomination statement as negative unsourced BLP attack content. Dloh cierekim 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)>>[reply]

— Aa45955 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I disagree with the nominator, and think that they are going for a straw man argument; I find no evidence that they're pro pedophilia or anything, nor do I think they're trying to mislead people into being a "safe" site. Aren't adult sites usually plastered with warnings out the wazoo? The article makes it pretty clear that it's an adult MMO as well, and obviously it can't say what the users believe because that'd run afoul of WP:NPOV. With that in mind, though, do they really meet notability? Every freaking source is primary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 04:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that I'm a little confused as to where to leave. I have to say, I didn't see one guideline or policy brought up in that entire nomination. At a glance, the article looks okay, but if it's missing notable information that can be verified by reliable sources, add it. If the subject is non-notable, perhaps that should have been mentioned somewhere in the nomination. Even if everything the nominator said is true, I'm inclined to say, assuming the subject is notable, keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 04:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and Warn nominator; this is disruption to prove a point. No comment on the sources; let someone who obviously doesn't have a bone to pick against the thing nominate it or even fix it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Speedy Close AfD; nominator seems to be doing everything in his/her power to scare people just coming upon this nomination. There is zero doubt in my mind that this is a bad-faith nomination. Everything I said about WP:SOFIXIT above still stands. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no guideline or policy rationale given for deletion. I also agree with warning the nominator regarding a single-purpose account used for edit warring as evidenced by the related talk pages. Also, User:Kotra is to be commended for patience and explaining things and remaining civil to the nominator. Drawn Some (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Incidentally, I don't see anything in those little pics that a child with a pet dog or cat or other mammal doesn't see everyday, except that the animals walk on two legs not four which is common on cartoons like Bugs Bunny and the ones with Tweety Bird. But maybe I'm just not looking hard enough. Drawn Some (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 05:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 05:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 05:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – obvious bad-faith nomination. I call bullshit on the image links. I also sense sock puppetry, as the user's 10th edit is the AFD nom. MuZemike 06:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 06:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – WP:DUCK Tothwolf (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 02:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Who Tasted Shapes

Book whose author is also an article nominated for deletion. This "article" has not expanded beyond a single sentence in the four years it has existed. More generally, I don't believe the subject satisfies WP:BK. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and expand. An updated edition of the book appeared in 2003 [69], and in the course of the AFD discussion on the author Richard Cytowic, DGG noted this review in the Times Higher Education Supplement [70]. There may be other reviews, which would satisfy WP:BK. However, even if this eventually passes WP:BK, this article clearly needs substantial expansion. A one sentence stub is essentially useless. Edhubbard (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you expand the article and show that it satisfies WP:BK, I will gladly withdraw this AFD. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Google News search found dozens of sources all of which could be used to expand the article and demonstrate the book satisfies the notability standards. Alansohn (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good expansion. Hopefully better sourcing is also coming. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 04:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Book is significant, as is author. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Increased content and sourcing has been added following this nomination. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expanded version looks very good. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. One (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BEFORE, anyone?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn before a SNOWball fight breaks out. Please understand, the article looked like this when I nominated it. "This is a book by some guy" doesn't exactly scream notability, and all I found in web searches were links to the book being for sale. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 02:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Avera

I'm having trouble finding the "'significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent" required by WP:BIO. Most coverage is only trivial, mentioning fight results etc. Subject is a professional athlete, but not in the sense WP:ATHLETE assumes (he's not fighting at the equivalent level to say pros in the NFL; next to all mixed martial arts competition is professional since most state athletic commision does not have an amateur level). His fights are all in lower-level regional promotions, something acknowledged in the prose when mentioning fights to UFC (a top-level promotion) rejects as particularly notable fights. --aktsu ^(t / c) 03:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —--aktsu ^(t / c) 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same here (agree with nom). Absence of appearances in sufficiently high-level matches, and total absense of news articles suggests to me he fails WP:ATHLETE. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's fought former high level opponents. It doesn't matter if he's not in top level organizations. He's going to keep his page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordvader2009 (talk • contribs)
Delete Non-notable in the area of MMA and its fighters. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Good rewrite by American Eagle. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeton House (Lib326)

Non-notable, either as a historic building or as a corporation. Unreferenced (except for the link to the commercial site). No updates in a month (this was at the very back of the unpatrolled backlog). Feels like stealthy advertising. 7 ^| talk | 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not especially notable. American Eagle (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Keep – Completely rewritten, source added with more available on Google News (see below). American Eagle (talk) 03:34, 19 May 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 00:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage in reliavle sources on Google News [71]. Historic.ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I dont see what is notable about this building, it may have history, but sadly thats not WP:Notability. The Cites given in the Article dont give much either. Bykofsky Cite = a directory. Brown Cite = another directory. The New York Times Cite = less than trivial mention. Is it NRHP registered? Sorry, its just not Notable in my eyes. BTW a better GSearch would be [72] (with Bridgeton House in "quotes") Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 00:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cannon

The article is in pretty bad shape, but the subject has won a number of "titles" and such. Not being a wrestling fan, I can't tell if they are important or not so I am bringing this to AfD with the hopes that someone knowledgeable can opine (and hopefully fix the article if worth saving). I remain neutral at this time. ThaddeusB (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Web search for "Brian Cannon wrestling" gives predominantly links to Brian Pillman, known by the nickname "loose cannon," and Brian Mailhot, who portrayed a character in WWE called "Palmer Cannon." Hideous article. Most of the pictures it uses are also pretty clearly publicity images that I very much doubt are free. The wrestling companies mentioned in the article are not notable - the only one I actually recognize is Osaka Pro Wrestling, a company that's basically famous for being a joke. Cannon has on occasion appeared for the much-more notable Ring of Honor, but not on a regular basis. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the same search with quotes around "Brian Cannon" return a whopping 352 hits. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 04:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~User:Ohconfucius has nominated the article for speedy deletion under G11. This process may be moot. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 06:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)~~ Not speedied. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 06:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not myspace nor a webhosting service for people's resumes. This totally unsourced, self-promotional article is full of WP:NPOV problems so bad we might as well start from scratch if it is found that he is notable. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE whoppingly not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not notable. Why are we wasting our time with an AFD - this is clear CSD stuff. Half of the page also looks like a copyvio. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per Nom. Afkatk (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Interesting does not mean notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Political Simpleton

Does not appear to meet WP:WEB criteria. Has been speedily deleted for CSD A7 in the past, but has been improved. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, no third party sources. Doesn't even raise a ripple on Alexa Ohconfucius (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7 web. A search for "Political Simpleton" on Google returns only 187 unique hits. Many of those are to the website or its press releases, and the only ones I can see from reliable sources are using the term without reference to the website. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable site. Yintaɳ 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow We feel this is a perfect compliment to the subject news aggregator. Our site may not have top rankings on Alexa or a lack of unique hits as stated above but Wiki users now have a clear example of what a manual news aggregator is. Someguy1221 has given us some great advice and we have made some substantial changes since. NickW557 has viewed the original and now has seen the newly updated version. From his comments, he seems to agree that this has been an improvement. It would seem that when a person looks on Wikipedia for news aggregator, he or she has an example to go by.

Please take this into consideration and I thank all the Wiki editors for their helpfull comments. 167.75.254.253 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALLOW In the notablilty guidelines it says that popularity is not a guarantee of notability, so it follows that lack of poularity (as shown by a poor position in a search engine) is not an indicator of LACK of notability. The Political Simpleton does not show up on the first page of any searches other than those asking for the sitename specifically. Is that the basis for it being judged un-noteworthy by those who feel it should be deleted? If so, that reason does not follow the guidelines. I am left asking if popularity is not a basis for notability, then that leaves the criteria as subjective and stacks the deck for very worthy sites that may not fit another person's idea of worthiness. This leads to abuse, which I know is not the intent here. Wiki is trying its best to have some kind of standard, which is appreciated. If the original content on the site is of dubious quality or consists of rants, then the tag of un-noteworthy may be more valid. If the original content on the site is intelligent and insightful, then those contributions are noteworthy and so is the site by association.Laurabramble (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC) — Laurabramble (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Plea It might be that "Wiki users now have a clear cut example of what a manual news aggregator is", but, while fairly sure that the article is in English, this one isn't really sure what the heck it's about. This is unusual for him in matters outside the incomprehensible worlds of sport and hiphop. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable website, unsourced; retention arguments seem to be WP:ILIKEIT with a side order of blatant conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Alexa may not be an accurate gauge of site usage as it counts only those who sign up for Alexa. I would suggest that taking such stats seriously does not work. Please advise. Everyone who looks at traffic knows that Alexa cannot be used to assess low traffic sites which this site falls. All set aside, this is not about SERPS, ratings or political views but about legitimacy of submission. This article is more of an extension of the definition of "news aggregator" than a so called "plug" for a website. Ray Wilkinson Newportbreakers (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)— Newportbreakers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- response - That still doesn't mean that this website is notable, which is the standard under discussion. What is your connection with the website? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Going from the current content in the article, if Newportbreakers is indeed Ray Wilkinson as he asserts, that would make him the founder of Political Simpleton. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AllowQuestion to the board before final decision is made: How can an editor request a “speedy delete” when that editor has not thoroughly reviewed an article? The views of “Orange Mike” should hold no water in the fact that he has not reviewed this article in full. Clearly, editor Mendeliv has taken the time to review the article and informed “Orange Mike” what my affiliation is with the article in question. My name, Ray Wilkinson, is visible THREE times in the article. Editors, please do not bash me WP:ILIKEIT for going "against the grain". Ray Wilkinson Newportbreakers (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response - Of course I've read the article in full; I just wanted to get you to admit that you are in fact Ray Wilkinson; in which I have obviously succeeded. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response - Orange Mike, are you trying to imply that I am hiding behind an iron curtain? I have signed every post and comment, “Ray Wilkinson”. I wish you would be more professional and not turn this into a confrontation to avoid the blatant incompetence which you have shown not only to me but to your fellow qualified editors. Thank you, Ray Wilkinson Newportbreakers (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of students at South Park Elementary

Overly indiscriminate characters list, listing every single one-shot in the series. I'm fine with listing the four main boys along with other semi-majors like Butters, but there's just way too much information on this list, most of which is in-universe/fancrufty expansion on List of characters in South Park. The main character list is fine. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question once the list is trimmed down to <10 or whatever how do you propose to prevent future additions of minor characters? Drawn Some (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You delete the list so we don't keep playing whack-a-mole with the minor characters. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about on the other list. There are literally millions of South Park fans, they are going to add these characters somewhere somehow. It's similar to the xxxx in popular culture articlists that are springing up. I 'm not implying that means it ought to be kept, I'm just saying it's something to consider. Drawn Some (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main list of characters, but keep all of the info. It's well sourced and written just fine. 02:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)TJ Spyke
Delete as trivia. Everything only here is only here because it couldn't responsibly be included in any of the other articles, so they got around that with yet another list. ThuranX (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we were to delete this list as trivia, everything on it would have to be, well, trivia, which it isn't. And there's nothing wrong with creating several articles when one would have been too long. 96T (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That which isn't trivia is covered elsewhere already, and that redundancy serves to mask the triviality of the 'unique' instances. ThuranX (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it isn't. I'm not saying that all the characters are notable (they aren't), but some of them are. Check out the sections on Timmy and Token Black - both contain real-world information and multiple non-trivial secondary sources that establish notability. Most of the information on characters such as these (and other notable characters whose notability isn't fully established by secondary sources yet) can't be found in any other article. 96T (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say ~~delete~~, though a model for a list of this scope that I would consider reasonable appears at List of one-time characters in The Simpsons. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 02:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 11:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - or the "list" at Springfield Elementary School. Nergaal (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that many characters in this list can be summed up in a sentence or two, like the Simpsons minor characters there, but the more notable ones, like Token and Timmy, need more coverage. 96T (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a fork-for-length. JJL (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a strong keep actually, as the right sort of article. Need I mention the once-popular alternative of having individual articles? This is the way to present material and still avoid that trap. TPH, I propose a simple solution: we KEEP the list, and agree not to make articles on the minor characters. I can't promise what other people will do, but I certainly will use whatever suggestive power I have to join you (and everyone else who like us wants a reasonable solution) in preventing this. In return, you try your best jointly with me (and the other reasonable people here) to prevent the deletion of combination articles.. We can then discuss the proper amount of content for each of the characters. And, even more important, get the descriptions written in a more encyclopedic way. Deleting an acceptable article to prevent people making bad articles out of it does not make sense--its like saying, we cant do this perfectly so lets not do it at all. If we had waited for articles to be done right, the encyclopedia would not have gotten very far. DGG (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main character list if necessary. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A rather well-defined list, backed up with dozens of reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More suited for a fansite, not needed on Wikipedia. However, if you wanted to keep the content, you could always add it as a section to the South Park article. If you were going to keep this article, you would then have to create a more notable article of the "List Of Students At Springfield Elementary School" for the far more notable The Simpsons. Enough said. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - That list ACTUALLY exists, but it is simply not named as a list; it is called Springfield Elementary School. Nergaal (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other stuff doesn't exist isn't a valid reason for deletion. Neither is "not needed". There are way too many South Park characters to include all notable information about all of them in the main article. And I'm not that familiar with The Simpsons, but keep in mind that South Park Elementary is one of the main settings, and probably the main setting, of South Park, and I don't think Springfield Elementary plays the same role on The Simpsons. 96T (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sky Attacker this is trivia to the max. JBsupreme (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of notability. We don't delete articles becuase they might be written poorly or because they might have too much information. If there are problems with the article, fix them. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Although I've been working on this article for some time, and in all modesty noticeably improved it, I completely agree that it's too long, full of trivia, and in-universe, but the current state of an article is not a valid reason for deletion. The article cites many sources, including enough third party sources to establish notability for individual characters (this one, for example). There are many characters on this list that aren't particularly notable, true, but that could be sorted out by trimming the list (perhaps by turning the "Background characters in the fourth grade" section into a simple point list), not by deleting the entire list and letting all the notable characters (Craig, Jimmy, Timmy, Token, the Goth Kids et al) go with the non-notable ones. The reason there are several lists of South Park minor characters and not a single one is that one such list would be too long. 96T (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to convince me to keep the article, you could start by gutting it, removing the non-notable ones and stripping it down to ones for which third-party sources exist. I'm suggesting to delete because the article seems so bad that this seems unrealistic. Prove me wrong! Cazort (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AFAICT, This was split off from the main character list due to WP:SIZE concerns. If merged, the article text would be over 87KB. Furthermore, I think this is at least as notable as List of one-time characters in The Simpsons, which recently survived AFD and also survived several previous AFDs. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These articles grow to unmanageable sizes because people do not police them against people adding material that cannot be referenced in independent sources. The pages are being treated like a fan wiki and this is inappropriate. Cazort (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems there are multiple problems with this article. Many of the editors above have asserted that this article is well-sourced. I would like to raise the concern that the "http://www.southparkstudios.com/" site, and references to the episodes themselves, are not independent sources. This is highly problematic--it can't establish the notability of any of the material here. Such sources are only appropriate to fill in small details once the overall notability of the material has been established by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. This whole page looks a lot like a fan wiki, not an encyclopedia. The page is so heavily reliant on episodes and the studio site that I think it's basically unsalvageable. Cazort (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I'd like to point out that there are also many secondary sources in the article: [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], and [81]. These are from different media and include both articles dealing exclusively with single characters and articles that aren't about South Park at all, but refer to individual characters. Google News searches show that there is much out there: Searches for Timmy, Token, Jimmy, and Goth Kids, for example, all return dozens to thousands of hits, many of which seem to be relevant. I'll add as many secondary sources as I can into the article and probably (I haven't got that much time these days, exams coming up) trim/remove all the stuff about the non-notable characters in the next days or the near future, and hopefully other people will do the same. 96T (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I change my recommendation to Keep. Still needs cleanup, yes. And I am still very bothered by how much it relies on the episodes themselves as sources, yes, but I think you've convinced me the content here is notable. Cazort (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this debate is ridiculous. The school in south park plays the same role as 742 Evergreen Terrace for The Simpsons. Nevertheless, while the school is FAAAR less important for Simpsons than it is for South Park, there is AN IDENTICAL article to this one at Springfield Elementary School which simply lacks the "List of" part in the title (one should look carefully at that article and then see the obcious similarity b/w this article and that hidden list). Furthermore, The Simpsons has multiple, much less notable/relevant/wikipediable lists such as List of fictional characters within The Simpsons, List of one-time characters in The Simpsons, List of animals in The Simpsons, List of recurring characters in The Simpsons, Rainier Wolfcastle, Radioactive Man (The Simpsons character). Until these get deleted, arguing that the present list should be deleted is a clear lack of impartiallity. Nevertheless, List of staff at South Park Elementary should/may/could be merged with this list. Nergaal (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its something people would find interesting, and if you don't, you wouldn't be likely to find it at all. It is as valid as any other list of information. Keep it as it is, don't erase all the one time characters or anything lame and bitter like that, or try to delete it with a merge/redirect(this isn't directed at anyone in particular, but I have seen these sorts of horrible things happen before, so wanted to clarify that keep means keep all of it). Dream Focus 01:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed all the characters that only appear in one episode, compressed the "Background characters in the fourth grade" section into a brief list, rewritten some sections, added more secondary sources, and removed some of the more dubious claims. I'll keep working on the article in the near future, but not today and not tomorrow as I simply haven't got time. But the article is now much shorter and less trivial, and in my humble opinion it clearly establishes the notability of Craig Tucker, Timmy, and Token Black through secondary sources. Searches on Google News show that there are enough secondary sources to establish notability for the other characters who now have their own sections as well (I found this, this and this article dealing with Pip, for example). Unless someone else does, I'll get to all of them as soon as I have the time, as well as improving the sections on the characters for whom notability has been established. 96T (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The series and the major characters are certainly notable and a summary character list is certainly acceptable. The main character list provides very little information and serves as an acceptable overview while this list presents a more nuanced description without belabouring the issues. An acceptable list article that can show the way forward as each character develops on their own. We saw this happen with Pip and Butters each getting more full treatment and story development. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One-offs can be removed, but for the sake of the moderately notable classmates, the article should be kept. Its potential for improvement is reason enough. If it is deleted, create a redirect destination for Timmy, Token, Pip, etc. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, on second thought...Merge. All of the info on the more notable students can be merged into the "students" section of List of characters in South Park. Just get rid of the wikitable format for that particular section. Come to think of it, this would probably be best for the "families", "townsfolk", "faculty", and "minor characters" sections as well. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we are two merge all these lists into the main character list, there's no reason to delete. Merging and redirecting will be fine. 96T (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I changed my mind back to Keep, but only for the time being (and for the reasons I gave on my initial "keep" vote). Merging it right away into List of characters in South Park would throw that article out of whack, seeing as how it's a list-class article consisting entirely of wikitables. I've opened a discussion on the South Park WikiProject discussion page about the possibility of merging this and the other character lists into one article. So, yeah, keep the article so that a merger can be discussed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has relevant and interesting information about characters in SP that don't fit neatly into the SP article itself without making that article massive. It seems reasonable enough to keep it with so many editors pledging to improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noosentaal (talk • contribs) 11:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a thorough cleanup of this article, and also opened a discussion on its talk page. I know I had voted for "delete" earlier (before changing it back to "keep"), but in essence I was suggesting a merger of primary and seconday characters and the deletion of insignificant background character descriptions. This nomination isn't really justified considering that a cleanup would resolve the issues addressed by the proponents of a deletion. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There were several strong and weak arguments on both sides, so consensus in this discussion was far less clear than in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Longjohn Flap or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Dad...Again. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5 O’Clock Charlie

Article consists of nothing but a shot for shot PLOT, and had been prodded for almost two years. Nowhere is any assertion of notability or any real-world information of any sort. ThuranX (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate information, no hope of being sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep unless you plan to delete all the other Mash episode articles. The article is atrocious, but potential exists for it to be improved and there are thousands of articles on TV show episodes. Now, if you think they're all a hopeless case, then that's a different argument. This is not an article of any quality right now, but neither are any of the other articles in the same series. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Delete per emerging consensus and subsequent discussion, but I still consider this procedure fundamentally flawed. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 05:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Does that make anything I said untrue? If articles about this TV show aren't suitable for Wikipedia, then delete them all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. You'll have to really convince me that just one or two are suitable for deletion, though, when they're all in pretty much the same shape. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

same gaming as always. Nom all, it's a bad faith nom, do it one by one, it's not enough. OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I will do a few a night till it's done. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a procedure in place to nominate numerous articles at the same? And are you saying you do intend to nominate the~~m all~~ overwhelming majority of them? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 04:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying I intend to review all of them. Certainly not all are worth nom'ing. The premiere, finale, and the one where Henry Blake dies already have enough real world coverage; I have little doubt at least a few others will be similarly notable.ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout now? :P Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 04:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not what WP is all about. As it appears to include description of every move and every shot, I'd say the article reads of WP:FANCRUFT. It should be redirected to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 2) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to parent article. No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add more real world context and criticism, this one needs to be expanded not deleted. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. We also need to move the images to the seasonal outlines. And if your going to cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please keep in mind the newer WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no real world context and criticism. No reliable sources establish this as an independently notable episode. Then redirect it to the episode list.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable series, split for length. The various episode guides provide plenty of reliable coverage. JJL (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No, they provide sources for a PLOT summary, and nothing else. They do not demonstrate any notability for this episode. ThuranX (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. Would be suitable for a redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the, specially when that parent has such tremendous notability itself. Discussions about a merge or sourcing belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. And so what if its been prodded for 2 years? Wiki has no WP:DEADLINE that something be done within some arbitrary length of time (except when the issue is forced through AfD). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In this case, the parent article is the LoE, wherein none of my nominated articles, as 'split', though I do not see their writings as splittings, made any credible assertion of notability to justify the plot lengths which would, under your thinking, be used as the reason for a split. So with no notability for almost all of these (I did withdraw my nomination of one), all of these should go back to the LoE. A given episode can then be split out properly if there exists proof that that episode has independent, not inherited, notability, since WP doesn't do Inherited Notability. ThuranX (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Notability on Wikipedia is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It doesn't say "except episode guides". WP:PLOT is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The episode itself provides a source of some information, for example the title credits give the name of the director, as well as the plot. None of the sources cited appear to give much information beyond what is available by watching the episode. In this context, I don't necessarily agree they provide significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is excellent commentary and criticism for each episode in the guides, retyping the quotes is slow and tedious. If your clever you can get Google to spit up the text for a quote to cut and paste, and won't have to retype it. The DVD set has commentary too and are at my library, but even more work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep will add references later, as I have with the other 25+ MASH AfDs, including the pilot show. Ikip (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes, and Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 2) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep and expand per Ikip. This was overly hasty and misguided. Clearly, these articles need improvement rather than deletion. It's a shame the nominator did not try to improve this article and others like it by fixing it instead of trying to delete it. There is no time limit. And this mass listing of long standing article for deletion has in no way made it easy for the rescuers to meet the artificial time limit imposed by taking them to AFD. Kudos to the rescuers. Dloh cierekim 14:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are independent sources available for the article, so meets notability. Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate information. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Longjohn Flap

Prodded almost two years ago; no independent assertions of notability. ThuranX (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D*E*L*E*T*E Individual episodes of a TV series are by no means inherently notable, not even for a TV series as notable as M*A*S*H. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment for 5 O'Clock Charlie. Adds little; it seems to be an article for the sake of having an article. Redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This particular episode makes a very mild claim to importance in that it supposedly was the first episode written by Alan Alda. Of course there is no reference given and it is unlikely that this was written about in sufficient depth and breadth to satisfy requirements for notability. I'll hold off on my "delete" though in case someone has references that discuss this episode. Drawn Some (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply that's minor, even if substantiated, and can easily be included in thsi episode's 'list of episodes' summary with citation. ThuranX (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles do not need to make claims of importance - that's why we have numerous articles about obscurities such as Hydnum rufescens. I have added two citations to the article which wasn't difficult - just a matter of looking - and so the comments are now obsolete. See WP:NOEFFORT and WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ReplyDon't insult every other editor who commented. As said before, that level of material can easily be handled at the list of episodes. And yes, articles do need to substantiate the notability of the topic. The article you reference has three sources, so I suppose that met the burden of NOTE for the botany, or mycology, group. ThuranX (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand plot summary and add more real world context and criticism, this one needs to be expanded not deleted. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. We also need to move the images to the seasonal outlines. And prophylacticly if your going to cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please keep in mind the newer WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- commentNiteshift36 has made this same small, unsupported statement at many, if not all, of these MASH AfDs, and not provided any sort of 'proof' of notability assertion within any such article. ThuranX (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since all M*A*S*H episodes have the same reason to stay, and apparently all were nominated separately at the same time, I'll just copy and paste my response. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 08:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is already moving on to season two of MASH: please see 5 O’Clock Charlie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again, I am forced to follow behin ThuranX and source these notable articles, when this all could have been avoided by discussing this at List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) and gaining a consensus first. Why was WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE ignored? Why the unnecessary drama? What reaction did you expect?Ikip (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah. I've explained myself over and over and over and over. I'm not interested in Merge/Redirects of non-notable episodes with improbable (to be kind) titles which won't ever be searched on. I do not believe that the vast majority of my nominated pages describe ANYTHING Notable. Episode Guides are proof of SERIES notability, NOT of each episode. ThuranX (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. I see no evidence, however, that it's supported by Wikipedia policy or guidelines. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites, which I will add here shortly. This should have been discussed on the Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) instead of a mass deletion spree of 24 articles, per WP:PRESERVE. In reagrds to guidelines about this, WP:FICT, a proposed guideline to address episodes failed for the third time. WP:PLOT is being seriously attacked, so much so the page is protected for 2 weeks. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), and Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep and improve. Sources added establish notability, as defined at WP:GNG. More real-world content is needed, but that's an editorial issue, not a deletion rationale. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They do not meet the GNG definition of Notability - the coverage does not address the subject in detail, nor is it in most of these cases more than trivial. The sources are episode guides. They recount the plot, which is already present without sources and without real world context. Citing a plot summary by fans to other plot summaries published by fans doesn't make for the real world notability needed. ThuranX (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether it's trivial or not is a matter of individual judgment. You think it is, I think it's not. We'll have to agree to disagree, and see which side the community comes down on. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close per ENOUGH ALREADY! Mass nominations of multiple articles about an award-winning series does not realistically allow time for the improvements the nominator suggests are needed. Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement if the presumption of notability is reasonable and commonsense. Wikipedia does not expect nor demand every article be perfect, even through various interpretations of ever-changing guideline. Mass nominations act to be disruptive of the project in forcing a ticking clock where none is supposed to exist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Dloh cierekim 14:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Singles Chart

No notability asserted. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 01:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried looking around for something to prove the chart's credibility and legitimacy, but all I get is just that it's a radio station network chart. There doesn't seem to be anything that says otherwise. :T SKS (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Galgalatz is the most popular music station in Israel, I'd assume their charts would be notable, although admittedly the article is in a bad state now. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:24, 15 May 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 00:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to the station. There's simply not enough material to warrant a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawing... my bad. See... this is why it's good to list on AfD. :P slakr^\ talk / 03:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cytowic

Fails notability requirements for inclusion; Pulitzer prize nomination claims appears to be falsified. Publications are internal to his university, as is the alleged documentary; appears to have no significant field contributions per WP:BIO.

Also, self-promotional article (borderline G11) created using several socks, which also edited other pages on the subject to create backlinks to the biography. --slakr^\ talk / 01:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the article clearly has COI issues, I would argue that the subject is notable. He is the author of several books published by the MIT Press on synesthesia. As both his self-written bio article and the synesthesia article that I have substantially contributed to state, he played a critical role in helping to bring this neurological phenomenon back to popular awareness, and is widely recognized as one of the leaders in the field. Thus, the subject of the article satisfies WP:Notability (academics) "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." As for the Pulitzer nomination, if you check carefully, the website only lists finalists and winners, not all nominees. Thus, the failure to find the nomination listed on the website does not mean that he has falsified the fact that he was nominated; it merely means that he was not a finalist or winner, which is not claimed. On the other hand, the article is still available online if you log in to the New York Times website here [82]. It is a major, nine page article, in a major newspaper magazine. In all, multiple books published by reputable publishing house (MIT Press), a generally acknowledged foundational role in a scientific field, and other such things are all notable. The COI issues should be dealt with separately. At a more general level, this is bad practice. First, the editor was blocked for suspected sock-puppetry without any time for discussion, and then his bio article, to which he has been the main contributor, is nominated for deletion when he cannot even respond to the nom since he has an indef. block. Edhubbard (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should stand on its own merits, not the arguments of its creator, but it's a moot point since the block was reduced from indef to 72 hours. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that the article should stand on its own merits. This is why I've first and foremost focused on the substantive issue of notability. I hadn't seen that the block was changed, but the main point for me is that main contributors would normally be expected to know the most about why they think the subject is notable, etc, etc, and as the main contributor is blocked we will not be getting many comments beyond mine for now. When does the AFD close? Edhubbard (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs now run a full seven days. The sockpuppetry was blatant, and after being told about the COI guidelines, the editor proceeded to use a sockpuppet to create a second version of an article about one of his books (the first was deleted as copyvio). I believe WP:AGF has been stretched to reduce the block in this case, but had that not been done they were still able to ask for an unblock just as any other blocked editor could. What do you suggest should happen in cases where editors are legitimately blocked and unable to participate in deletion discussions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to allow blocked editors to edit specific pages, like project pages? I would guess that it might be, since I know that blocked editors can edit their own talk pages. In this case, it may be less of an issue, as it appears that the growing consensus is that this article should be kept, cleaned up, and edited by some non-involved editors, including your own vote to keep. Given that his block is now 72 hours, User:Cytowic will have a chance to help contribute to the discussion and to providing evidence, and so my complaint is somewhat (happily) moot. Additionally, I think that, had User:Cytowic really understood the rules and been trying to circumvent them, he simply would have signed up with a different username from the start, or simply not created an account to begin with. He edited his own bio page in plain sight, yes, but based on his comments on my talk page, I don't think he has entirely understood how wikipedia works. I agree that WP:AGF has been generously applied here after the initial very quick block and initial AFD nomination, but perhaps a little more time before moving to these escalating to blocks and so on would have achieved similar outcomes. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Comment Found mention of the subject on a site independent to it here. Most the first results to a web search give Cytowic's own site or links to his book The Man Who Tasted Shapes, which does not appear notable per WP:BK. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, independent verification of the MIT Press books on the MIT Press website [83]. The book that has had the most impact on the scientific community (as opposed to popular audience books) is Synesthesia A Union of the Senses. Although this is an academic review for academics, Noam Sagiv (now at Brunel University) provides some context in which to evaluate Cytowic's role in the renaissance in synesthesia research in his review [84].

Strong Keep Highly notable as an author: His major books, published by first rate academic publishers like MIT Press, are held in a great number of libraries: , Synesthesia a union of the senses in over 1000 libraries according to WorldCat, and translated into German and Japanese, The man who tasted shapes by almost as many & translated into German, the more technical The neurological side of neuropsychology in over 300. [85] His 2009 book, Wednesday is indigo blue : discovering the brain of synesthesia is likely to be just as important. Google News Archive shows reviews of the books in dozens of reliable sources , including THES , NYTimes [86] , etc. etc. Nominations like this can be avoided by following the practice recommended in WP:BEFORE, and by not making assumptions about editor behavior. Not everyone who writes their own bio articles is actually non-notable. Some are even famous. DGG (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some cleanup, but the claims of notability and the sources provided more than justify retention. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stong keep - The subject is undoubtedly notable, the article just needs punching up. The COI issues aren't relevant in this instance. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - COI issues notwithstanding, meets notability guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blues Pioneer

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability per WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as hoax. This is related to the AFD for Bent Banana Harper. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - copyright violation - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative investment landscape

Contested prod. Analysis. Largely duplicates Alternative investment. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spammy phrases like "‘Invest-for-the-future’ type theme investing" are frequently an indication of copyright violation, as in this case. http://www.opalesque.com/files/ASQUARE19Sep2008.pdf Drawn Some (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely an essay, feels spammy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. A clear case, and I've blanked the article accordingly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Copyvio. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butcher & Bolt

This appears to be a non-notable band. The article's creator flicked away an A7 tag, so I decided to bring it here for a full discussion of its merits. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've tried to find sources or references, but researching has been difficult as there's an unrelated book (ISBN 978-0099522638) with the same name. Given that, though, it doesn't appear that the band meets WP:MUSIC. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. No assertion of notability. When an article creator removes a speedy deletion tag, you may reinsert it and put a {{uw-speedy1}} on that person's talk page. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. Another garage band?. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bent Banana Harper

I can't any reliable sources that show notability per WP:MUSIC. Also, this article has a lot of original research. Iowateen (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a hoax. The music exists, but it's new(er), and the story is made-up; as a later editor has remarked, this is probably a publicity stunt. (Anyone else wonder if Ben Harper is in on it?) Chubbles (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete A7, or G3, take your pick. The article implies he's not notable. Assuming hoax, then we can go with that. Tagged A7. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. The article, as it started, implied notability (there's no serious case for A7'ing blues musicians from the 1920s). Then, a later anon, who smelled a rat, fuddied up the language to make the article look ridiculous and call out the hoax. I think he's right, but using a notability argument based on the current revision isn't healthy. That said, hoaxes aren't really speediable; per WP:HOAX, "Suspected hoaxes should be investigated thoroughly, and only in extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes should articles be speedy deleted as vandalism." I may be wrong about the hoax, though I don't think I am, and it's reasonable to allow for five days for someone to try and prove me wrong. Chubbles (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. "Virtually unknown (and apparently not in existence) for about seventy years, he "came to light" in 2008, when a collection purporting to be rare recordings of him, named Blues Pioneer, was torrented and placed on such websites as Youtube and Last.FM. The recordings, however, are of songs dating from much later than his active dates, and were obviously recorded on modern (post-1940s) equipment." was enough to convince me that this is bunk. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me. You're reading the current version, which has been rearranged by an anon to look silly. The initial version doesn't sound so ridiculous. But again, I do think it's a fake - but the speedying is all happening way too fast. No one, but me, has investigated thoroughly the hoax, and I haven't really investigated it that thoroughly, either. Take five, everybody. Chubbles (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. Everyone's way, way, way, way too freaking cautious here. I think we err far too much on the side of caution. 0.0001% chance that it's not a hoax? Let's let it wade through AFD for a week or longer! We're in no damn hurry. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't want to get personal here, but I spent a hell of a lot of time on this website re-writing articles for bands that had been A7'ed in great haste. Cuts both ways, Ten. Chubbles (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If someone effs up and deletes something that shouldn't be, we can re-create it. I'm not saying we should get deletion-happy, but this total hoax job has been sitting around way too long, and we're forced to keep it around a while longer than it should be, only because one person refutes a speedy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point, Chubbles. I've done some cleanup. It needs work, clearly, but still needs some more data methinks. Altered my !vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It appears to be a circular hoax, and not a notable hoax at that. Total lack of reliable sources meants WP:V is in doubt. Plenty of Youtube and other hits, some of which cite WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Cupito

Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Article topics need to be notable. This article is not notable and contains little to no information. RocketPride (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC) — RocketPride (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Not seeing the issue here that the nominator brought up. There's no advertising or vanity within the article, and as the quarterback of a D1 team, the notability is there. Also seems like from the name of the nominator and the deletion of the subject from the subject's own high school article (the account's only contributions), there's a bit of SPAness going on here. Nate • (chatter) 01:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above, user seems to be an SPA. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is clearly notable. Article is sourced. Edward321 (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per improvements and WP:DEADLINE. AfD is not cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dad...Again

Prodded almost two years ago; no independent assertions of notability. ThuranX (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain for now. I like M*A*S*H, but this I think is a hair on that side. We aren't an episode guide necessarily. Not sure it should be deleted, though. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It's been prodded for two years with nothing but trivia, which I removed, an IB and one line of plot. Now it's one line of plot and the IB. What notability does it assert? ThuranX (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have stubs all the time, waiting to be filled out. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of these episodes seem to have entries, and deleting this one will break the scheme and the navigation in the sidebox. If these are to be deleted/pruned then a policy is needed to judge amongst them, and decide what is a reasonable fork-for-length and what isn't. JJL (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply My intent is to delete more, but mass deletions of such messy situations inevitably lead to accusations of bad faith and vendettas and so on. One at a time is the way to go. If I had nominated a mass of the episodes, I'd likewise be opposed for NOT nominating one at a time. As well, OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a reason to keep. Further, nothing says the navbox cannot send readers to a list of episodes. ThuranX (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well, this isn't so much a case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as it is a lengthy list of very similar articles from this and other TV shows. A single policy is the best way to handle it. I can view this one on its own as failing WP:N and in contest as passing WP:SPLITTING and deleting it as being unfortunate to delete just some of them in light of WP:Summary_style#Subarticle_navigation. In the context of M*A*S*H and all the attention it has garnered, and thinking of how so many TV shows are handled this way on WP, I don't think going piecemeal is the right approach. Some discussion on how TV shows like this should be handled would useful (cf. the recent success of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force for the raft of builtaeral relations articles). JJL (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system isn't appreciated. Had I nominated the dozens of bad MASH articles which all fail PLOT and have been prodded for years, then you'd be here complaining the same damn thing, instead you're complaining that I nominated one, and should instead formulate a policy single-handedly before nominating crap for deletion. This is far easier to resolve than you think. The South Park episodes have a different navigation system than MASH does; using that system would take readers to the notable articles directly, and to the list of episodes if not notable. And insisting that without a uniform policy this can't be nom'd is a form of OTHERCRAPEXISTS, it'st 'other crap will still exist and that's somehow unfair. ThuranX (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I encourage you to WP:AGF. JJL (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_3) shows that there are already breaks in the system you're so reluctant to see destroyed. Clearly this can be winnowed some more, with notable episodes being broken out, nad non-notables relegated to the episode list. No one's asking for a salting, so if truly WP:RS material occurs, they can be recreated as stronger articles. ThuranX (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way to deal with breaks in sequence is to write the missing partsDGG (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not if there's nothing notable to write about. The vast majority of MASH episodes demonstrate that there is not. ThuranX (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most episodes of TV series are not invidiually notable. I see nothing that makes this one notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to M*A*S*H (TV series). No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk)

Delete per my comment for 5 O'Clock Charlie. Adds little; it seems to be an article for the sake of having an article. Redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps the solution to to merge the articles properly with consensus obtained after discussing it on an appropriate page, instead of taking it here? thats merge , not redirect to a over-short list of teasers. Long or short, combined or separate, the material has to say what happens in the episode. Any episode summary that end in ... is almost certainly not encyclopedic content. Bad content is our problem, not whether or not we have the content in separate articles. I am a little interest by the announced decision ihere at an AfD to change the balance of articles about episodes. we've been discussing what to do about fiction without reaching a conclusion, but with some attempt at compromise. It seems decidedly unhelpful to try to start a campaign now. DGG (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply What notability does each demonstrate? NONE. NO assertions of notability. No real world content. And the bad faith accusation that I'm somehow circumventing a non-starter discussion on notability in fiction is ridiculous; I've been involved with it for over year, and was there when the community overwhelmingly rejected FICT. I've nominated just a few of the bad articles to avoid exactly that attack, and now that I'm getting the attacks anyways, it's at least clear that there's no way to nominate fiction without being attacked. ThuranX (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment the issue isn't individual notability of the episodes as much as organization/splitting: How best to keep the M*A*S*H article from being too big to be readable. I wouldn't object to each season having a single page, but there should be a discussion of a uniform way to handle this. We have many TV series covered here and deleting episodes here-and-there isn't a scalable way of addressing the issue. Also, there are plenty of reliable sources: See the episode guides listed here [87] for example. JJL (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fill in a better plot summary. There are several books out that have commentary on MASH episodes, pre 1990 TV is at a disadvantage for having the first run before the Internet age. Also when quoting WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, keep in mind: Wikipedia:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. So your vote is to fix a NOT#PLOT violation with another NOT#PLOT violation? ThuranX (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he thinks it's clever. Not the first time he's used it, either. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a misunderstanding. It has not been PRODDED for 2 years. Dloh cierekim 03:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand plot summary and add more real world context and criticism, this one needs to be expanded not deleted. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. We also need to move the images to the seasonal outlines. And prophylacticly if your going to cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please keep in mind the newer WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- commentNiteshift36 has made this same small, unsupported statement at many, if not all, of these MASH AfDs, and not provided any sort of 'proof' of notability assertion within any such article. ThuranX (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since all M*A*S*H episodes have the same reason to stay, and apparently all were nominated separately at the same time, I'll just copy and paste my response. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 08:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is already moving on to season two of MASH: please see 5 O’Clock Charlie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. Would be suitable as a redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites, which I will add here shortly. This should have been discussed on the Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) instead of a mass deletion spree of 24 articles, per WP:PRESERVE. In reagrds to guidelines about this, WP:FICT, a proposed guideline to address episodes failed for the third time. WP:PLOT is in an edit war, with a majority of editors supporting its removal, and editors removing the section, so much so the page has been protected for 2 weeks. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), and Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The sources provided by Ikip and others demonstrate notability, as defined on Wikipedia. This particular episode is a bit more dubious than some others, but in my judgment the notability criterion has been met. More real-world content is needed, but that's an editorial problem, not a deletion rationale. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources referred to only support the tiny blurb, yet make no assertions of individual notability for this article. This material could easily be moved to the LoE. ThuranX (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close per ENOUGH ALREADY! Mass nominations of multiple articles about an award-winning series does not realistically allow time for the improvements the nominator suggests are needed. Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement if the presumption of notability is reasonable and commonsense. Wikipedia does not expect nor demand every article be perfect, even through various interpretations of ever-changing guideline. Mass nominations act to be disruptive of the project in forcing a ticking clock where none is supposed to exist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, so meets notability. Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Level Plane Records

Non-notable record company who do not establish stand alone notability with significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. While the bands themselves maybe notable, I feel this doesn't automatically transfer to their label. Article was tagged, sources searched for, but noting of substance was found, so I'm putting it out to the community. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think anyone can properly judge so many unrelated articles in one AfD. Please relist as separate AfDs. Thanks Gigs (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
relist separately, too much to consider at one AFD, imho. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. Bloody silly idea once I looked back at it. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial feature from Stylus magazine here, plus there's this, and this, which are not in-depth, but don't hurt.--Michig (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator seems to be asking for a referendum on the notability of record labels, having nominated a dozen or so, nearly all of which I believe are worth keeping. WP:CORP is a silly straitjacket to be judging independent record labels by. Let's think about what makes record labels noteworthy (in the real world). Well, what they do is put out records; people know and care about them because of the music they put out into the world. The story, then, is the artists much more often than the label, and news agencies know this, which is why they very rarely write full articles about labels; in fact, they almost never do this in comparison with how much they write about musicians. They generally do this only for major labels (whose business is large enough to make the financial papers) and labels which become so venerable and storied as to be iconic (Blue Note, Sun, etc.) such that they begin to acquire book-length treatments.

What is really needed is for WP:MUSIC to come up with a standard of worth for labels which have a clear cultural importance based upon the music they release. Which it actually does, buried in the artists' section - a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians. This is not circular and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED, as is often claimed; the notability of the artist is not based upon whether or not the label has an article, although this is sometimes used as a lazy shorthand. There are many labels without articles that fit these criteria. Much as we do with artists who are members of more than one clearly notable band but who are not themselves the subject of extensive news coverage, I think it is sensible to do the same with labels. Maybe not for one or two notable bands, but if a label has or had a roster of half a dozen or a dozen notable acts, this is evidence of cultural importance. The actual number and length of time to "pass muster" can be decided on case-by-case bases, but it's thoroughly destructive to go about deleting plainly important things based upon a Procrustean yardstick. Chubbles (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need separate criteria for independent record labels rather than applying WP:CORP, but not all labels are notable enough for an encyclopedia article, and until we have some agreed criteria, we can only judge each label on its merits. It would be helpful if you could address the label in question in this and the other AFD's as I don't feel your comments will otherwise carry much weight with whoever closes the discussion. --Michig (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The fact that Level Plane released albums by City of Caterpillar, Envy, Hot Cross, Melt-Banana, The One AM Radio, Saetia, and Racebannon makes this one of the premier hardcore punk labels of the 1990s/2000s. Chubbles (talk) 14:54, 4 May 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 00:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above. Iowateen (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In generaL, a record label such as this one should be significant enough to keep. AyaK (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD G11). It seems evident that this is thinly-veiled spam. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raw marketing

The article might be a little too raw -- it reads like a half-baked essay, with no references to back up its argument. It certainly is not encyclopedic. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone with a trademark imitating viral marketing. No notability to be found unless you count news releases. Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete promotional neologism created by single purpose account. Tagged db-spam Ohconfucius (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NLT (band)

this article fails to in notability. Most of it is unsourced although where it is source Myspace and other fan pages have been used. There has been no official references to single releases and there is much controvery/speculation surrounding the band's future. Much of the article's style is also incorrect for wikipedia. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - two notable members. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 15:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 10:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of sources and suitable proof. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see two notable members. Question are Pop 100 and Top 40 Mainstream good enough charts? They were on them [88] [89] (the charting source in the article is not for them). Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanding on my comment of not seeing two notable members, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Joseph Thorne and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Michael McHale. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C2 for the chartage. Esradekan Gibb (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there are no sources for the information about the band. If you want to make and keep pages for their charted songs that is fine but do we really need a page about the band that has no factual sources/references? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, but what are these [90] [91] from Duffbeerforme???? Scotch mist???? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the soundtracks listed meet another MUSIC criterion. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:26, 5 May 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 00:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charting singles pass WP:MUSIC. It would be harebrained to write articles for the singles and delete the band's page, rather than the other way around. Chubbles (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Asserts notability with a charted single. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Chubbles —Preceding unsigned comment added by DunkinDonutBoy (talk • contribs) 03:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The members are not on their own notable. Kevin Michael McHale wound up being deleted (though it could easily redirect to the band, which is what I suggested for Justin Joseph Thorne). Charting in the Top 40, though, definitely should satisfy WP:BAND. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles and others who made the same point. The article needs a lot of cleanup though. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because other than the singles section the rest of the article is poorly sourced. It appears to be a waste of space to keep an unreferenced article to solely for the purpose of one charted song especially now since the band is defunct. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy to User:Imnotafan/Sean Needham. The article may be moved back once notability is established with reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Needham

Non-notable actor, if actor at all. No trace of him on google under the name "Sean William Needham" Passportguy (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Even the website for Buddy the Musical doesn't mention him under the role he claims to have played. Drawn Some (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Sean Needham is an actor. This link provides proof of involvment with The Buddy Holly Story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_-_The_Buddy_Holly_Story#Cast_list

Also his managements webite provides proof of his credits and more. http://www.cdm-ltd.com/client-cv.php?client=25 This is the link to his spotlight page where you can see clips of television appearances http://www.spotlight.com/interactive/cv/9095-7833-7542 The Wicked website is proof of his involvement with the Musical http://www.wickedthemusical.co.uk/readnews.asp?id=29wkd (Croxteth)

You can't use Wikipedia as a reference. That he is an actor doesn't make him a notable actor. There are specific criteria at WP:ENTERTAINER. Drawn Some (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nonnotable actor. Iowateen (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"""KEEP""" An 'Extensive fan base' for an actor is relative to the current job they are in. Wicked has a world wide fan base for any actor that is involved with it. With his Uk tv appearances this makes him of interest. Below are more links confirming his involvement with Buddy - The Buddy Holly story

http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/buddy-rev.htm http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/london_shows/show/item75343/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnotafan (talk • contribs) 07:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Non-notable? WIth a significant role in West End play and multiple soaps I doubt that's true. Give the author a chance to improve on the references. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to keep: per Mac. Iowateen (talk) 16:02, 5 May 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 00:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the bar. He exists, all right, but is not notable. I've added a ref - review of the Buddy Holy Story - in which he is trivially mentioned. Article created by a single-purpose account. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Six

Article has had notability template since August 2008 but notability not established. Pontificalibus (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with First Hit For Free. Vaguely asserts notability with a tour but is unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:54, 5 May 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 00:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Voodoo 5. The successor to V5 is described in the 5 article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Krug

Football player who was never officially on a roster. He was on the Patriots' practice squad for a bit but that was it, and that doesn't pass notability. Wizardman 18:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 6 May 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 00:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Former college footballer who never played a single NFL game. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kessler's

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kessler's

Unreferenced for nearly three years, fails verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with hits from the Atlanta paper, I found nothing that constituted non-trivial coverage of the chain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Childofmidnight's sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:52, 19 May 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 00:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Here's an integration related story from 1971 [92]. There's a mention in New York Times from 1922 (not free to access). Worth including. Included in this story [93]. Unfortunately archives are generally not free. But anyone visiting a library in Georgia would certainly be able to come up with plenty. Also here [94]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:RS. South Bay (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by ChildofMidnight. This is clearly verifiable contrary to what Stifle suggested in the nom.- Mgm|^(talk) 08:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The integration story is four sentences total under "Georgia News Briefs". The second story it may be mentioned, we aren't sure, but the article is about something else. Number 3 is a court case where it looks like Kessler's was a creditor. There is nothing in any of these sources but trivial mentions, to establish notability requires significant in-depth coverage. Drawn Some (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find a 1922 story in the NYT archive about Kessler department store. The NYT story of 17 April 1962 that is linked, is about the joining of Unishops Inc. with Holly Stores Inc., Butler Shoe Corporation and Alterman Foods Inc. to form a company, Thrift City Southern Inc., to operate two discount stores to be known as Thrift City Stores in Georgia. Bernard Kessler was the president of Unishops. He has the same name as the family mentioned in the Wikipedia article but the NYT article says nothing about the Kessler department store chain. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are lots of other stories that discuss or mention Kessler's. Small-town downtowns becoming an endangered species. Sick, but how sick? Georgia's jobless figures are so unreliable it's hard to tell, officials say. A RIVAL OR A SAVIOR? The store has a long history. It's been notable for its employment history and a discrimination lawsuit, for its failure and redevelopment, and it's history as a major regional department store for decades. So it has historical importance even though the archival stories are not widely available on line and those that are aren't free. There's still plenty to have an article and perhaps someone from that area will avail themselves of a library to expand our coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Perhaps the Georgia (US) WikiProject could help? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Legion

Non-notable organization. Seems to piggy-back on 501st; GHits don't reflect any significant third-party coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Already has two independent sources cited. Ghits are not necessarily indicative of anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:12, 7 May 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 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A dead link and a link to a page that contains no mention of the Rebel Alliance are perhaps not the best references to "two independent sources" that one might desire. Deor (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fan group, unsourced accept to "starwars.com". In the real world, this organization simply doesn't even graze the notability bar.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources that point to notability. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Make a Deal broadcast history

Unencylopedic, contains original research and reads like a book report full of conjecture. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loaded with WP:OR and unverifiable content. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Let's Make a Deal. We don't need two versions of the same article. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:41, 6 May 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 00:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much SYNTH and WP:OR to separate the wheat from the chaff. ThuranX (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Brooklyn

Unencyclopedic list. Better as a category. BOARshevik (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not a Thomas Guide. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wholly agree with nom. Useless list Ohconfucius (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep and expand. What this was apparently intended to be was a list of namedstreets in brooklyn, the 5% or so that are not numbered or lettered streets. But its very incomplete, including some very minor streets and omitting some very major ones. Looking at the list, I think articles could be written about perhaps one-third of the ones here, and an equal number that are omitted. I'm not quite ssure how to deal with this. It might possibly be one place where a category might be better than a list, but then again it might be useful to have a checklist of which ones do have articles. Encyclopedias normally include atlases and gazeteers. We do not have a rule that WP is not a gazeteeer. DGG (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I notified the WikiProject New York City. DGG (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook or textbook):

Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not a place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel guides, culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet inclusion criteria, but Wikipedia does not list every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel, however. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this list is , in fact, none of these: is lists no tourist attractions, hotels, etc. It's a weak attempt at a gazetteer. a listing of geographic places. Gazetteers are appropriate parts of encyclopedias. The omission from the NOT paragraph is deliberate. WP can include an atlas & an index to it--a gazetteer. I have in fact argued, with considerable support, e that in historic places, like the City of London and the old parts of Dublin and Edinburgh, every street is notable, and could with a little work be proven to be so. DGG (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commment deleting this list does not prevent someone from writing an article about any of the streets. The vast majority would not meet criteria for notability or verifiability, however. There are streets in major cities that have been written about in-depth, even some in Brooklyn, but most of these would be never pass the bar to have an article. Drawn Some (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thus I think the nom's comment that this is better handled by a category. The nom's right, here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I'm normally for keeping lists this one has so few links to articles and I can't see any way it can be expanded beyond a simple (possibly very long) list. 11:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
comment. Looking at the index to an actual atlas, I see there are approximately 1500 named streets in brooklyn (and 500 numbered or lettered ones)--more than I thought. I agree the overwhelming majority of them are not notable. I'd guess that about 5 to 10% of them are, including a few of the numbered and lettered ones., let's say 150. For the present list there are 80, including most but not all of the best-known through streets, and a good many minor ones in historic districts, mostly Brooklyn Heights. I have in fact argued, with considerable support, that in historic places, like the City of London and the old parts of Dublin and Edinburgh, every street is notable, and could with a little work be proven to be so, as there is exhaustive coverage in print. . That obviously doesn't include all of the present day cities. Brooklyn is not as important, & only 350 years old, as those 3. For the older cities in the US, I think every street in their historic downtown core could be shown notable., and the major present day arterial streets. I'm not however about to do this, even my own borderline notable street, but they would make appropriate school projects. Redlinks of those for people who might want to do articles would be a good idea--it would save them from working on the truly non-notable. I note List of Streets in Manhattan , a much better conceived article, designed to cover the problem of the many notable numbered streets there, which is not quite the same problem. There are over 120 there with separate articles. DGG (talk)
Delete I live in brooklyn, a borough filled with notable streets (guessing? 50 at least, 100 at most). This list? Spare us.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! I should buy you a $beverage! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject U.S. Roads has been notified Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The vast majority of streets anywhere are non-notable. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a dangerous road to go down. The vast majority of people are not notable either. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have no articles on the vast majority of people. Or if we do, I haven't got mine yet. :P —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The majority of the streets on the list are not notable enough. In addition, the article is just a list with no lead or appropriate formatting. Dough4872 (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – for an example of how this information can be re-purposed and handled properly, see Category:Streets in Boston, Massachusetts. Sswonk (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skylar Astin

Fails WP:Entertainer

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Drawn Some (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One Broadway stageshow, one film. Point 1 on the list above is met. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you accept two roles as "multiple", his role in the film was so small it's not even mentioned in the lengthy article on the film and it doesn't qualify as "significant". Drawn Some (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the role is mentioned in reviews of said film. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:22, 6 May 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 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having a role mentioned doesn't make it significant unless you believe that anything mentioned anywhere is therefore significant. The question we need to answer is do reliable independent resources provide sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject to make it notable and verifiable. If not we can always redirect. Drawn Some (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He's actually received a fair amount of press coverage and therefore meets the general notability guideline. I've added a sampling just now, including non-trivial mentions in New York magazine and The Hollywood Reporter. And there are dozens of reviews that comment on his role in Hamlet 2. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about why people are so reluctant to follow the guidelines. Do you really believe that this reference from New York Magazine is non-trivial enough to establish notability? I sincerely disagree. There's nothing in it support an article except that he is from Rockland County and his character.

3. Skylar Astin

Plays Georg, who’s crushed out on his busty piano teacher.

Age 19. With the show for two years. From Rockland County. Dating Lauren Pritchard. On meeting a certain Long Islander: “When Billy Joel came, I freaked. He said, ‘I really love the way you play the piano.’ ” On days off: “I rest. I swear, I’ll join a gym soon.” Ideal night out: “Oh, my God. I don’t drink or smoke or anything like that. I’m kind of boring.” Favorite film: GoodFellas. Most difficult thing about dating a co-star: “Absolutely nothing.” [Lauren, below, concurs.]

And here's your "non-trivial" Hollywood Reporter stuff: [95]

Please review the guidelines at WP:NOTE especially regarding the quality of the references needed to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you disagree with my characterization of the coverage as non-trivial, and that's fair enough. I'll add, though, that "trivial" coverage in notability discussions typically has meant coverage that is akin to a directory listing. Coverage can be brief and non-trivial, but to justify an article there must be multiple sources. I believe that standard is met here. The sources I added allowed me to verify some content, and add some other verifiable content. Multiple sources have documented some aspect of development in his acting career. I'll also try to flesh out some of the film reviews that commented on his acting in Hamlet 2. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a lot of 'wishy-washy' quasi- celebrity trash out there but I think there's just enough in terms of WP:RS] to justify an article. HJMitchell You rang? 11:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to withdraw my nomination if someone can show such references. I looked for them prior to nominating and could not find them. Drawn Some (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was mentioned for his Broadway performance and whatnot. The references point to notable media sources, which wouldn't bother listing him at all if he wasn't notable. Dream Focus 01:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually does seem to meet entertainer guidelines. I've removed Jewish from the lede and categories as they have to be sourced to remain. -- Banjeboi 00:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme keep per WP:SNOWBALL and lack of diligent WP:BEFORE. I have just done a WP:CLEANUP (AfD is not for cleanup) to the article to show sources easily found that exceed the inclusion requirements of WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet notability and editor guidelines Fahrenheit 16:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Come Up

No source that is is actually a single. Has not charted on any notable charts. Fails WP:MUSIC, no assertion of notability. Holiday56 (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether or not it was actually released as a single, it is thoroughly non-notable. Fails WP:NSONGS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:17, 9 May 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 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Avenue, Manila

Non-notable subject, article title not even official name of thoroughfare User234 (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as stated in the article, it is the name of a neighborhood, not a street, and I categorized it with other "Gay villages". Drawn Some (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable gayborhood. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to be any terribly notable. Only resources given appear to be more tourist info than anything. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all citations are self-serving and non-neutral, no actual cites to support wider use of the term for the geographic area, non-notable and possibly NEOLOGISM nickname. ThuranX (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Malate, Manila. The information presented here does not make for a great stand-alone article but can be mentioned in the article about the district. Dough4872 (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article contains advertising of a non-notable place and promotes illegal gay acceptances. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 05:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? The last time my boyfriend returned home, homosexuality was not illegal there. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to suggest notability here. JBsupreme (talk)
Merge into Malate, Manila. --seav (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Column

No notability or coverage neon white talk 09:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Notability not asserted, poorly-disguised soapbox. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skeleteen

Appears to be a non-notable band who have only released one single, one EP, one mini-album and one self-released album. Although there are large number of sources used in the article, none of them appear to cover the band in any depth and are mainly blogs or non-independent sources. A google search has failed to turn up detailed coverage of the band in any reliable sources. Doesn't meet the criteria at WP:GNG or WP:BAND. JD554 (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Seems to have some coverage in non-mainstream press ([96] but not as much as it could have. --neon white talk 15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out coverage in Orlando Weekly (newspaper in Orlando, Florida). If it doesn't meet criteria, that's understandable. It needs a major clean up either way.– Godblessyrblackheart (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete A very weak delete because with a few more references, this article should be fine. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graham G. Alexander

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}}.

Minor local real-estate developer, with local--at best--notability. It has the distinct sense of self-promotion. CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there appears to be press in New York, Mexico, Vancouver, Chilliwack, and now there appears to be a US Federal Lawsuit before Judge Mahan in US District Court in Nevada involving fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.190.72 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 216.19.190.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Although well-sourced, I don't see that this gentleman is notable enough for his own article. I agree that this seems to be self-promotion, based on the article history and the review of other contributions from the editors. Mandsford (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article that just came out last week on April 22nd, 2009 about Mr. Alexander hijacking a Company. Its actual takes 1/4 of the Canadian Newspaper's Business Section written by the notoreous David Baines [97] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenamoran (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep read that latest Baines article on the hijacking last week and the US Lawsuit in Nevada. He really ripped him apart this time. hehe. I found the article quit amusing and that I could source it this way, wikipedia is pretty useful—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.237.19 (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 24.114.237.19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep google search for graham g alexander brings up one full page including Forbes, Business Week, and others, giving notability Elenamoran (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Elenamoran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
See this page. And what constitutes 'a full page', anyways? That number appears to be 55. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in your entry above, you put Graham G. Alexander not Graham G Alexander to arrive at that number? That number appears much higher? a USA News Today article yesterday about his US Federal Suit, is that not notable? how would that be local and minor? the wikipedia article is negative, talks about fraud, hijacking, is quit blunt and most importantly, informative. how is that self-promotion? you have me quite confused atm. Check my history. I have commented/edited on other wikipedia articles not just this one, such as Jeffery Skilling of Enron, which I believe where this man is headed; im certainly no fan of his nor Mr. Alexander, thank you--Elenamoran (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)— Elenamoran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep and expand. After reading all the newspaper articles from Vancouver Sun David Baines and the US Commercial Real Estate News Article, I think there will be plenty of more notability to come. Well sourced, the article writes about both the good and the bad of this gentleman. Shiekron (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Shiekron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Shiekron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I think there will be a lot more to come from alexander, I propose we wait and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.168.55 (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 76.28.168.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that if he wants to share this with the world, then we will be better off for it. Although I do not know why he would want to. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.182.116 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 70.68.182.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Additional participation from some experienced editors would be helpful here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well-referenced with reliable (even well-known) sources, many of which are in-depth coverage of Mr. Alexander so he is evidently notable and the information verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reliable resources seem to be from Vancouver Sun, and even those appear to be little more than op-ed pieces from Mr. Baines, in that they read kind of like blog entries. Certainly not promotional, given the nature of it that implies that he is likely not to be trusted. Quite the opposite - it seems vaguely attack flavored. In any event the only thing I could find on him were duplicate entries about him - basic business profiles as published in places like Forbes. There needs to be more about this guy before we can consider him for WP. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. Notability is lacking. Also it looks suspiciously like some sockpuppetry and vote-stuffing in this discussion.Capitalismojo (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meatpuppetry at the least. The problem is that the IP addresses all go to different places, so I'm not sure of socking. MuZemike 05:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially agree with Dennis The Tiger. nothing in the text makes me believe his is any more notable that the common garden burglar, whose reports/stories you read about in the local paper. I am slightly surprised that this entry has manages to stay 'undiscovered' for over a year. Much of the article about his career, especially the development history is pretty much a coatrack, and is not of encyclopaedic worth. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then WP:SALT, then fix the sock drawer. JBsupreme (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above, absolutely no RS coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not recommending salt, this article has not been deleted before. What say we cross the bridge if we come to it? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Najmuddin

Appears to be no significant coverage in reliable sources. See all-dates Google news archive search and Google web search. There are tons of other possible sources, but none is cited here. Most happy to be demonstrated wrong, and will withdraw nom if so. Bongo matic 14:35, 5 May 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) 23:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one article that goes on a discourse about a book of his. Sure he was a pretty cool guy, but this article also reads like an obituary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been established by sufficient secondary sources. Symplectic Map (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No clear assertion of significance. Notability not established via 3rd RS. Dloh cierekim 00:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Think Progress, 09 April 2009, Spontaneous Uprising? Corporate Lobbyists Helping To Orchestrate Radical Anti-Obama Tea Party Protests

[2] ttp://www.aoffest.com/about.html

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political Positions of Barack Obama}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiaffalo}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List Of Space Racing Games}}