Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 10: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:13, 15 March 2009

< 9 March	11 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of most populous nations by 2025

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL because no one knows what the population will be 16 years from now, much less if the countries will be the same. For example, 20 years ago, the USSR was one of the most populous countries and now it doesn't even exist. It is nice for the United Nations to put together a list like this, but it is purely speculation based on current trends. Tavix (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with World population or World population estimates since it is sourced material and the topic of world (over)population is indeed notable. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't talking at all about overpopulation, it is just a list saying what the population should be in 16 years... Tavix (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nobody knows but these are projections, estimates and quite informative. --Muhammad(talk) 04:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with World population estimates. The article by itself violates WP:CRYSTAL and does not indicate any reason as to why there is any significance to population in 2025. Eauhomme (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. In 1989, who'd have thought that the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and FR Yugoslavia wouldn't exist in 2009? Not to mention the reunifications experienced by both Germany and Yemen? So what's to say that the countries that exist now will be around in 2025? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to speculation from notable, reliable sources: "Of course, we do and should have articles about [...] credible research that embody predictions" -- which is clearly a description of this article. JulesH (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:CRYSTAL, point 3 says: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." Even though it is from a reliable source, the article is purely speculation and therefore fails WP:CRYSTAL. Tavix (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good rule for distinguishing between real crystal balls from articles that might be kept is to ask, "can sources agree on anything about the future events, or is essentially subjective from source to source?" This article fails that test. WillOakland (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a test based in any policy or guideline. WP:NPOV says when sources disagree, we report all significant views. DHowell (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on point 3 under WP:CRYSTAL. Your interpretation would essentially nullify WP:CRYSTAL and require coverage of anything about which speculation has been published. WillOakland (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a crystal ball. There is no basis for agreement of sources here. WillOakland (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL. These are reliably sourced predictions, not unverifiable speculation. Speculation and extrapolation are original research when it is done by Wikipedia editors, not when it is done by reliable sources. The arguments given to delete would also easily apply to Ultimate fate of the universe, an article which is clearly encyclopedic, but which is also certainly documenting speculation, and there is clearly not agreement among all sources. But to demonstrate disagreement with these population figures, you need another reliable source giving conflicting information, which if found should be included in the article, per WP:NPOV. The figures given here are taken seriously by other reliable sources. DHowell (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fate of the universe is a subject about which entire scientific theories have been developed and to which careers have been devoted. It is not expected to resolve itself any time soon. To compare that to a ranking produced by one UN agency is, I think, misguided. WillOakland (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 2025 seems an an arbitrary date. Maybe merge some of the information into one of the more general articles. Aubergine (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This list is not viable as a general topic, for several reasons. (1) It presents a single estimate (the UNFPA estimate) as the estimate. (2) It limits itself to being a list of "most populous" countries and thereby forces itself to use an arbitrary cutoff; there is no reason to choose the "top 20" instead of the "top 10", "top 25", or "top 42". (3) It uses the term "nation" interchangeably with "country", which is definitely a mistake. (4) The choice of 2025 seems, at first glance, to be entirely arbitrary; in reality, it is dictated by the source, but it is something we should avoid for a general topic list. While all of these problems could be fixed by renaming to List of United Nations Population Fund estimates of country populations in 2025 and expanding the list to include estimates for all countries, such a list would go against the principle that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Quite useful.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
- Could you please indicate why you think this is useful and, more importantly, how it meets Wikipedia's inclusion policies? As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia excludes much information that is useful in certain contexts for certain people. Thank you, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we find some old list of theirs, predicting the population in the then distant year 2000, and see if they were anywhere near right? I don't think their predictions mean anything, unless they've gotten something right in past predictions. Its like the people who kept saying that by 1970 we'd have another ice age, still saying its going to happen soon, or that the rain forests will finally be wiped out like they said it'd be decades ago. If predictions never come even close to being true, then there is no reason to have them. Dream Focus 05:01, 16 March 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. Original author has requested deletion. So has someone who says they're the article's subject. Though the article had more than one editor, given the living person issue and the limited notability of the subject, there seems to be no reason for further process. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM

Verifiability, Self Published Sources, Poorly Written, Orphaned by Author Nefariousski (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Brother Ignatius is a well known figure in deliverance ministry and has been guests on and can be heard on shows. His Spiritual Warfare Forum is well known and been online since the 1990s. People of all faiths and beliefs have posted on it including atheists Nefariousski. Definate keep! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friuli (talk • contribs) 03:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Your opinion of his notability and importance is rightfully yours but it still doesn't pass Wikipedia's muster. He's not notable just because he says he is on his own radio show or his websites. The author of the page even wants it deleted (check the talk page). It is poorly written, doesn't show him being any more notable than any average member of the clergy nor are the sources considered reliable or even very much valid for that matter considering all the self publishing. I still say a Strong Delete is in order —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefariousski (talk • contribs) 06:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I'm sure it's all true, he's not notable and there is no evidence that he's notable. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, and without prejudice. Article is about a Catholic convert and self-appointed exorcist, a brother in a religious society he apparently founded himself. The references seem to be entirely self-published demonology sites and Internet radio shoes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Someone claiming to be the subject of the article has left a note on the talk page requesting deletion. I do not know if he has attempted to contact Wikimedia Foundation to make a formal request or verified his identity, but given his questioned personal notability, I'd say this would be speedily deletable under the biographies of living people policies. I will leave him a note with the contact information on his talk page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 13 March 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 G4. If you disagree with the previous recent AFD; use deletion review instead. So Why 09:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraviolet Sound

Does this fail Wikipedia:Notability (music)? If so, OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Dancing) needs to be deleted also. -- IRP ☎ 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged as {{db-repost}} by User:Roux, however, I believe that there was a lack of discussion the first time it was nominated for deletion. -- IRP ☎ 23:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've retagged it for speedy, the discussion was open long enough and a neutral admin judged it needed to be deleted. The album can then be speedied as A9. //roux 23:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, and, if you must, take it to DRV over the first AfD if you feel it was improperly closed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:18, 11 March 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) 16:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orkut Büyükkökten

Famous for making Orkut, and being sued for making Orkut. As he has not notability except for his relation to Orkut, either delete or merge with Orkut. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not feel a valid reason for deletion has been given. The nominator seems to by applying WP:BLP1E, which does not apply. Creating Orkut, being sued for creating Orkut, and continued media presence due to having created Orkut is not one event. ~~Would you propose deleting Barak Obama since his only claim to notablity is in relation to the office of the President?~~ — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking unneeded and poorly thought out metaphor. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The inventor of a notable web service like this is notable. It's enough of an accomplishment. DGG (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and LinguistAtLarge, nothing more I can say! Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His work with Orkut is plenty significant. Eauhomme (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - but I would like to see the article fleshed out a bit, if it is to stay. But for the moment, keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tris2000 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 11 March 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) 23:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Schultz

BLP with no known sources showing notability; no known secondary sources. Several news reports show notoriety (high-priced call girl; married an interesting person; pleaded guilty to tax evasion; divorce proceedings). There have been attempts to sanitize the article, and there was a legal threat. However, actions by misguided editors are not a reason to keep an article. From WP:BLP1E: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appearances in the various magazines as a model would qualify as WP:N, hence warrants an article separate from the 'incident' Chzz ► 15:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Chzz, this is beyond WP:ONEEVENT at this point. §FreeRangeFrog 19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Far more notable than Patrick Syring, which has overwhelmingly failed two AFDs, but BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS applies to both articles. But it's absolutely not true that there are not "secondary sources": there is substantial independent coverage that is cited in the article. THF (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear notability. TJRC (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What does "notable" mean in a BLP? I agree that sex + folly == interesting, but what policy says it is notable? WP:BIO requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". WP:SECONDARY suggests we need a source with an analysis of the affair to show Schultz is notable. Does a high degree of salaciousness overcome non-notability? Also, Chzz implies that Schultz is appearing in magazines as a model. Presumably we could find a source confirming that, but when is a model notable? Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of secondary sources including taxation websites and also news articles on several legal aid websites supporting her career choice for paying off the student loans. I know the media prefer to focus on the salacious in reporting on her but the tax issue and confiscation of the earnings both appear to have more notability than her career on serious websites so editors (and the article) should not focus only on that with regards to WP:N. Wayne (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. That two LA newspapers published stories relating to this person seems to imply some small amount of notability. The articles needs more secondary sourcing though. Aubergine (talk) 20:14, 14 March 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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total Access Statistics

Contested prod. Non-notable software. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This product is the leading statistical analysis product for the world's leading desktop database product (Microsoft Access). It's been reviewed in numerous publications (a few referenced in the article) and is used by many government, medical, and commercial organizations. It's in its 9th version and has been around for almost 15 years. At the bottom of this page are links to a variety of published scientific studies referencing the product: http://www.fmsinc.com/Products/statistics/awards.html

Why would this be considered non-notable?

It also compares favorably to the many other statistical packages listed here Comparison of statistical packages with much shorter histories. DataAnalyzer (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N not established, breaks WP:SELFPUB Chzz ► 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references that show Total Access Statistics is relevant and in use for many years. These peer-reviewed, published scientific papers are available online for you to verify:

National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/101/25/9309.full
Oxford Journals, Journal of Epidemiology: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/29/5/813
Neoplasia: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1635162

There are probably more online and certainly many papers which are not online. If there's wording that should be changed, please make suggestions. Thanks. DataAnalyzer (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable non-consumer software. None of the cited journal articles are about this software. They are reports of medical data mining and analysis that happened to mention it in passing because they used it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If published scientific journals mention and used the product in their research, that should confirm the product is notable. These are significant publications, and there are many more.

In the External Links section of the article, there are references to online reviews of the software from magazines and books. More could be added if desired, and there are more which are not online. What is necessary to show this is a real product that's used in a wide range of environments? DataAnalyzer (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional releasing

Article claims a bloke or group invented a technique/cliche which is well known in new age/therapy circles, but the supposed creator never wrote any publications which are available in the mainstream, nor has he been discussed anywhere much. One book mentions him in a list of several people [1] and his followers have released two press releases [2] and that's all their mentions in the press. There's one book (?) written in German about them, but it's by a press associated with their movement and dedicated solely to their subject. [3] . I suppose an article could be written about the concept in therapies based on WP:RS but it would be nigh impossible as 'emotional releasing' is such a diffuse phrase and concept employed in different ways. Sticky Parkin 02:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Sticky Parkin 02:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn - Can't find any workable refs Chzz ► 16:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ptiche (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback. About workable references: I have been checking the sources of the books about releasing. There are 5 books about releasing. It's true 3 books are from Sheema Medien Verlag (www.sheema.de). The creation of Sheema was inspired by the Releasing work, but it now has several other titles. More importantly, the fourth and fifth book are published by regular publishers:[reply]

Ich lasse los . . . Innere Heilung und spirituelles Wachstum. Die Releasingmethode für Laien und Therapeuten. C. Langholf - 3. überarbeitete Auflage, Sich Verlag Magdeburg 2008 - ISBN 978-39511692-5-6

Aufbruch nach Hause - Frauen unterwegs zu sich selbst. Ein spirituelles Praxisbuch für die Reise der inneren Heldin (Taschenbuch) von Sabine Treeß (Autor) - Taschenbuch: 352 Seiten - Verlag: Via Nova; Auflage: 1 (März 2004) - ISBN-10: 3936486468 - ISBN-13: 978-3936486469

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 15 March 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. Clear hoax seicer | talk | contribs 18:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frozfruno

Deprodded new page. This is a neologism with no reliable sources for it. Inappropriate tone and of questionable encyclopeadic value. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a great word. Yes, it is a partial creation of a word, but isn't that the purpose of a source like Wikipedia, to be able to create new words that derived from other words and meanings to make a point? How does a new word come to pass if not for that same idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansasnoodle (talk • contribs) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, that isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. See WP:NEO, WP:NFT, and WP:NAD. You should try Urban Dictionary instead. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NawlinWiki. Kansasnoodle, you have all the right intentions and ideas about language, but Wikipedia is completely the wrong forum for doing so. DMacks (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Agree with NawlinWiki. It was speedy deleted earlier as a CSD G3. It was also created by a blocked user.[4].—Sandahl (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IAR and Speedy Delete. This is a hoax. If you look at the previous deleted version it was about some facebook group that hates frozen food. NB only sources are a blog and said facebook group--DFS454 (talk) 13:55, 11 March 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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Kingdoms (band)

PROD removed twice, so adding here. Note I didn't place nor remove either of the prods. Below is prod rationale

Not even an attempt here at demonstrating compliance with WP:BAND - just announcements of endorsements on the members' individual Web pages. This veers dangerously close to speedy delete territory (CSD A7). --Ged UK 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - No label, no reliable sources and equipment endorsements aren't notable but would best be used as sources on band member pages but the individual members are far from notable. Doesn't pass WP:BAND in the least. FireCrystal (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - fails WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:54, 12 March 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. Delete, but permit recreation AFTER the primary in May clarification: should she win or otherwise become notable DGG (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clarification--can be userified, but not kept after that unless there's additional good material.DGG (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen L. Robinson

An individual who is running in a mayoral primary fails to pass notability guidelines. Sources given are focused on other individuals with only brief, trivial mentions of the subject. Grsz¹¹ 19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is not "considering" running for mayor. She has announced her candidacy, and will be partcipating in televised debates. This article was already deleted once, and I was told I could recreate it after she announced her candidacy. So that's what I did. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So she's running in a primary. Still not notable. See Mark DeSantis. Grsz¹¹ 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you were not told you could put it in the mainspace simply because she announces. You were explicitly told the exact opposite. Grsz¹¹ 21:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to userspace with prejudice to not allow re-creation without deletion review and a prohibition of using __INDEX__. The alternative is that the editor will store the code on her personal computer and re-upload it when notability is established enough to pass deletion review, erasing the edit history. By keeping it in user space not only are the edit history and talk pages preserved but she can ask other editors to review it for notability before requesting a formal deletion review. In any case, unless she either 1) wins the election, 2) comes in a close second, or 3) does something really notable during the campaign that gets her non-trivial media attention, she will not become notable any time soon. Only #3 or a strong, long-lasting lead in the polls will allow her to reach notability before the election. Also, I recommend that if this is userfied, the article should not be allowed to use the__INDEX__ magic word. Using __INDEX__ would make the article spammy and would be grounds for Miscellany for Deletion with extreme prejudice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Call for speedy-close/userfy - If all contributors to this AfD and User:Fvasconcellos, the only other major editor, consent, we can non-administratively speedy-close this as "restore to userspace." I don't think there is a rule to allow this but if there isn't, WP:IAR would apply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The AfD's running now, and a non-admin closure would not be appropriate where there's disagreement, as there is in this case.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made absolutely no contributions to the content of this article—I only userfied it the first time around, and would have no objection to its being "restored to userspace" if the outcome is delete. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that it would not be good to do an early closure as long as there is an objection. I believe you and possibly the original author are the only objections. If both of you consent to userfication before another person objects, then it would be okay. However, I'll understand if you stick to your guns. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw my objection if and only if the original author does so explicitly. Otherwise, I feel s/he should have the full five days to make his/her case.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:POLITICIAN being a candidate for political office does not confer notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an election billboard. If she becomes mayor, then she will rate an article. As a matter of mechanics, I don't care if, per davidwr, instead of deletion it is re-userfied until the election. JohnCD (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This is a pretty clear case of someone using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. But Wikipedia works the other way round: first you become important, then you get an article. There are good reasons for that rule — if we didn't have it, the servers would be flooded with promotional material.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about the order of things, which is why this article got userfied in the first place. As there is a realistic chance this person may become notable in the future, it would be a waste to delete the article and have someone re-upload it sans history when the person is notable. Userspace pages are not indexed and have almost zero promotional value. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, you said, "This is a pretty clear case of someone using Wikipedia as a promotional tool." You are wrong. I don't know this person. I have never met this person. I just happen to live in the same city, and have read quite a few articles about her, and thought the subject was interesting. I'm not even in the same political party as her. She's a Democrat and I'm a Liberetarian. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few reasons why userfication would be denied (only for things like attack pages), but it should be on the original author's request.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Grundle2600#AfD nomination of Carmen L. Robinson, where the attempted attempted to undo the move. I left Carmen a message requesting explicit consent to re-userfy here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin that this be closed with prejudice to recreation, requiring deletion review before being placed in the mainspace again. Grsz¹¹ 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with not allowing this in article space without a review. We've been throught his twice, once at PROD, once here. Let's not go through this again. If she wins, it'll be a no-brainer. If she leads in the polls after the primary for a significant period of time, she will likely receive enough coverage to pass deletion review. If she wins the primary but trails or is neck-and-neck in the polls for the main election, she may receive enough significant coverage to be Wiki-notable. If she does not win the primary, it is unlikely she will reach Wiki-notability unless something else happens that generates significant press coverage. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:43, 11 March 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 WP:CSD#G3 by Malcolmxl5. Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zarland

WP:HOAX, probably WP:MADEUP. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax/misinformation, so tagged. Not even funny, we don't need to let it linger on for five days. JohnCD (talk) 22:34, 10 March 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. Hoax (as others) seicer | talk | contribs 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Spring II

Lacks multiple reliable sources. Not notable. Probable hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 20:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spring family. Thomas is verifiable in Burke's, but probably not independently notable. Choess (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I trust Choess's assertion that there is evidence that the man existed, but there is no evidence of his notability nor of the facts of his career. Merger retains the edit history, ready for restoration by any editor: why would we want to do that, when all the text is the work of a demonstrable hoaxer? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 11 March 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Rank

A WP:HOAX, I'm quite sure. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I accidentally put this in "fiction and the arts" rather than "biography". I don't know how to fix it, though. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:24, 10 March 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. Hoax (as others) seicer | talk | contribs 19:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Spring III

Lacks multiple reliable sources. Not notable. Probable hoax. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have a bunch of articles on the Springs being proposed for deletion, to wit:

In every reason given for deletion, and in some cases the only reason, is hoax. I believe it is extremely important to remove this as a rationale - sources have been found that clearly indicate the existence of these people. Should the articles be deleted, any attempt to recreate them would be candidates for speedy, citing these discussions, which would be incorrect. Also, some of the rationales indicate "not enough" reliable sources. How many are enough? Again, for the most part, these articles are referenced, though some of them only have one.

Please understand, I am not advocating that all these articles be kept, but I believe it imperative that if they are deleted, they are deleted for the right reasons. Sorry about the soapboxing....

Vulture19 (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spring family. Thomas' existence is verifiable in Burke's, but when you cut away the puffery, I don't think there's really enough to warrant a separate article. Choess (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as possible hoax, and delete all articles created by this editor, per the evidence of clear falsification of sources presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham. There may (as Choess suggests) be elements of truth in this article, but an article created by a demonstrable hoaxer is no place to start building a coherent and reliable article. Vulture19 suggests that there is evidence for the existence of these people -- but the problem is that nearly every case, other central elements of the articles are demonstrably false. We have, for example, an article on Baron Lavenham and on 8 alleged holders of that title, when that title exists in none of the standard reference books. in Sir William Spring II, we have a claim that the subject was the father of a man only three years younger than himself. What more evidence do we need that the creator of these articles is unable or unwilling to hold to the standards of reliability that we require?
Per WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" ... but the evidence presented by this creator of these articles repeatedly falls apart when examined. For example, many of the articles cite "the genealogy of the people of Lavenham, Suffolk"; no publication date or place, no publisher, no author, no weblink, absolutely nothing to verify that this work even exists, let alone that it is a reliable source. I am very concerned that Vulture19 is trying to invert the burden of proof set out clearly in a core policy, by asking that editors ignore the fact that the creator of these articles and supplier of references is a demonstrable hoaxer.
It may well be that any attempt to recreate these articles will meet with speedy deletion, but the speedy can be challenged, and may be successfully challenged if an editor without a track record of massive hoaxing can demonstrate that there are reliable sources to support both the central claims in the article and the assertion of notability. But to suggest that we retain large swathes of he work of a hoaxer just because other sources confirm the mere existence of the people (though not their notability or the details of their lives), well that's driving a coach-and-horses through WP:V.
Merger (as suggested by Choess) retains the edit history of this article in a form restorable by any editor. Why would we want to retain the work of a hoaxer, in an obscure area of the encyclopedia which may not be on sufficient watchlists for a restoration of the hoax to be promptly detected? If we actually mean WP:V, the only responsible thing to do is to delete this whole edifice and allow recreation of any genuinely verifiable individual components at a future date if supported by reliable sources supllied by an editor who isn't a hoaxer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 11 March 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. Hoax (as others) seicer | talk | contribs 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Spring

Not notable. Not properly referenced. Probable hoax. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spring family. He's verifiable in Burke's, but probably not independently notable. Choess (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as possible hoax, and delete all articles created by this editor, per the evidence of clear falsification of sources presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham. There may (as Choess suggests) be elements of truth in this article, but an article created by a demonstrable hoaxer is no place to start building a coherent and reliable article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 11 March 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. Clear hoax with no queries producing results seicer | talk | contribs 18:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeggs: The Angry Hobos (book)

Appears to be hoax. Google search turns up nothing, and search for the awards turns up nothing on those purported awards. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the alternative, as those searches indicate, if it is real it fails WP:NOTE and Wikipedia:Notability (books). Aboutmovies (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a hoax. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant hoax, searches find no trace of the book nor of any of the "awards" it is supposed to have won. JohnCD (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BOLLOCKS -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 11 March 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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resources Global Professionals

The creator of the article doesn't understand what we need, but the company is probably notable and it would be nice to salvage the article. Taking to AfD out of respect for the tagger, User:ttonyb1. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notable company, but article is pure spam. Delete if nobody is prepared to rewrite it as NPOV with independent references etc. . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of whether the business is notable or not, this text is purely promotional in tone, as well as vague to the point of evasiveness: Resources Global Professional provides international professional services that helps business leaders execute internal initiatives. Partnering with business leaders, they drive internal change across all parts of a global enterprise . . . - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged it earlier for non-notability and for spam. A lot of the spam has been removed, but some still remains. I am at a bit of a loss to discover from the article what they actually do. "Partnering with business leaders, they drive internal change across all parts of a global enterprise"? Are they buzz-word consultants or hatchet-men? (Or women, of course...) I can't tell. There again, perhaps the people that hire them don't know what they (and other similar companies) do either. (Before someone decides to reinstate the article as was, I couldn't work it out then either. Peridon (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pacific Northwest Corridor. merge to Pacific Northwest Corridor; there is not yet sufficiently advanced planning for an article. DGG (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cascadia high-speed rail (proposition)

At the moment this is still just a proposal - the only article about it says " The Eugene to Vancouver, B.C., corridor is one of 11 corridors designated for possible high-speed rail development. There is much to be done regionally before LaHood assigns priority funding for the engineering and development of the Cascadia high-speed rail line." Thus it lacks notability and, as the saying goes, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. dougweller (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge with Pacific Northwest Corridor - The rail line has not been built, but the proposal has been discussed for years, has been documented and has sources, so the proposal to build the rail is notable.Rlendog (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to merge, as this information should be incorporated with Pacific Northwest Corridor. Much of the information could be deleted in the merge, but the appropriate, sourced information should be retained. Rlendog (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one source is an opinion piece, the other from what appears to be some sort of advocacy website, neither is particularly a reliable source, thus fails WP:NOTE until there are more sources. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are you suggesting that the sources that happen to be in an article started a few hours ago are the only ones available (which is the criteria for notability)? A quick Google search turned up references to Cascadia hig-speed rail proposals and activity in published books [5] [6], an apparent US government document [7], a transportation study by an Oregon city [8], another opinion piece, this time from the Seattle Times [9], a resolution from another Oregon city [10], a Canadian opinion piece [11] and other sources of varying reliability.Rlendog (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not suggesting that those are the only sources available, but those are the only ones provided. Thus "until there are more sources" the article in its current state fails notability. If there are more sources, as is likely, feel free to add those that are reliable, third party sources to establish notability. But primary sources (e.g. city resolutions, government documents) and opinion pieces have limited weight towards establishing notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability attaches to the topic, not the article. Per WP:FAILN, "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be." Primary sources and opinion pieces have limited weight towards establishing notability, but the topic is also covered in published books and magazines, of which I just provided two links that were readlity available from a Google search. Rlendog (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the book (don't see a mag that isn't an opinion piece) is not about the rail line, thus it is not exclusive coverage. Its not trivial either, its somewhat substantial (or significant as NOTE uses), but the amount of coverage is limited. Thus multiple sources are needed. As to WP:FAILN, keep reading it. "Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface." One source, the book, exists and is usable. Throw a couple more up and you are there. It's not like I haven't heard of this (not for a decade or so now), I just question whether it meets the notability guidelines. As of now, its borderline. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added references from a couple of books. Not sure it was necessary, since I didn't merely assert that additional sources exist, but provided links to some. But given that this is a new article by a new editor who may not know better yet, it was worth just incorporating a couple of the references into the article on his/her behalf. Rlendog (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that sources must be exclusively about a topic to establish notability, just that they be non-trivial like a "passing mention" or a "directory listing". The coverage of this topic is far beyond the scope of either. --Oakshade (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, that's why the discussion about exclusive coverage was followed by "THUS". But, exclusive in a large book would usually do it alone, as indicated by footnote one at WP:NOTE. That is to say, if it is not exclusive if a large book (or other well recognized media), then you need multiple of the significant coverage, which is all covered at WP:NOTE, see "General notability guideline" and the first part of that. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "large book" clause anywhere in WP:NOTE. Coverage demonstrating notability could be an article or even non-trivial coverage within an article about a different topic. It does not have to be a "large book".--Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And no one said there was. Please read what I have said (word such as then have specific meanings). If there is coverage in a large book (see the footnote in NOTE where the number of pages of a book on IBM is detailed), then you don't need to go further. But if there is not that type of coverage, then you need multiple sources that detail the topic in less depth/exclusivity than a book all about IBM would afford to the notability to IBM. Got it. That is, there is no book requirement, there is no exclusivity requirement. BUT if an EXCLUSIVE book did exist about a topic, then you do not need anything else to demonstrate notability. Much like a single, trivial source can actually be enough for notability in situations where you have the what I like to call the "automatic inclusion criteria" such as a Senator, where a single line in a newspaper article saying someone was a Senator is enough for notability, as it establishes one of the specific inclusion criteria of BIO. But no, there is no large book requirement, and nobody said there was. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(indent for readability) You're completely missing the point. The coverage of this topic is independent, significant and non-trivial. All of your talk about a "large book" is irrelevant. --Oakshade (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not missing the point (you are the one who wants to keep mis-reading about "large books"). The point about the books is that the coverage in either of the books (the Al Sayyad has little more than a page of coverage and the other one paragraph) listed above ALONE (all by itself, is in if it were the only source given) is not enough to confer notability. That's it, period, end of story as to the exclusive coverage in a large book argument. Period. End of story on large book. Period. If there are a handful of other sources that also provide significant coverage that are independent and meet RS, then the coverage in the books listed above and those additional sources taken in the aggregate are enough for notability. But the other sources given are either primary sources (no notability conferred) or opinion pieces, which do little for notability. In fact the Seattle opinion piece does not discuss this topic at all, it discusses in one whole sentence the expansion of existing Amtrak/rail service (nothing about a high speed rail from Eugene to BC) and in another one whole sentence discusses high speed rail, but it is ambiguous as to if they mean between Seattle burbs or a BC to Eugene system (taken in context of improving Seattle transit I think they mean Renton to Lynnwood type of service). As to the other opinion piece, at most three whole sentences could be considered coverage of this proposal. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Is a notable proposal as indicated in the sources provided by Rlendog. Even an opinion piece, provided it is secondary and independent of the topic, is considered a reliable source to demonstrate notability. There is no requirement that such sources be unbiased. --Oakshade (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Changed to Redirect to Pacific Northwest Corridor as suggested by Matjamoe below. That seems more appropriate for now.--Oakshade (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or completely rewrite The concept may be notable, but the information given in the article is scarcely encyclopedic. (a) We are told that a proposal exists, but almost nothing about the circumstances of the proposal, such as who has made the proposal, or by whom it is being considered. (b) We are told that "American citizens think that ...", but not what American citizens, or how many of them, or how it has been ascertained what they think, or what other opinions other American citizens hold. (c) We are told "Proponents of the Cascadia high-speed rail also believe ..." but not what opponents think. (d) We are given a long quote exhorting us to "Imagine boarding a high-speed rail train in downtown Portland [etc etc]": the quoted passage is designed to encourage us to have a particular feeling about the proposal, to take a particular view of it, not to provide us with information about it. All in all the article lacks factual information, lacks objectivity, lacks evidence, and attempts to support a particular point of view. It is more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pacific Northwest Corridor, as that is the official federal name for the designated corridor. If this project happens, it will be because the feds fund it. -Matjamoe (talk) 14:48, 12 March 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. It is admitted there are no sources yet; deleted but permit recreation when there are. Userification optional. DGG (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metel el Helm

Per WP:NF, unless the production is notable in itself, WP:CRYSTAL applies and this unreleased movie is not notable for Wikipedia yet. It may be once it is released, so rather than deletion, I actually propose moving this to userspace so it can be moved back when released and notability can be established. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:19, 10 March 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}}.

Delete or userfy. There are no reliable sources covering this film. - Whpq (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete I really think that the article mustn't be removed for the following reasons:

1-The movie is already very known locally (In Lebanon).

2-The movie is record-breaking ,the production team broke a world-wide record and is considered to enter the Guinness world Records(Still awaiting a reply)

3-As the movie isn't released yet,the media coverage is very minor (a couple of interviews). A press conference will be held before the movie is released and links to the interviews will be posted on the page.

4-The Wikipedia page is being consulted daily by visitors who have heard of the movie and want to know more about it and it's record-breaking fact.As Wikipedia's goal is to spread knowledge and information,I respectfully believe that the article must remain accessible to the public.I know some of the people who worked in this production so I can always add new categories to this article and already people are asking questions about the movie ,I will speak with the production team so we can redirect them to this Wikipedia article (along with the official movie site.)

Although the article lacks a (or some) picture(s),there are some posted on the movie's website and on the movie's fan group on Facebook.I will try to get one from the production and I will add it to the article.

Thank you for your understanding and support,

sincerely

Georges Halim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Lebnan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Given the information above, can you substantiate item #1 with reliable sources documenting this popularity? With respect to #2, the fact that you submitted something to Guiness does nto establish ntoability. With respect to #3, that is a reason in favour of deletion. As for item #4, wikipedia is not a web host. That's what your web site is for. -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The movie is notableI appreciate your reply but I have some clarifications ,concerning Item #1:I can't add reliable sources now documenting the movie's popularity because there is no press coverage yet ,the popularity resides in mouth to mouth advertisement. The post-production has ended and the movie will be soon published.ABout Item #2:I am sure that Wikipedia must have articles about world records in the movie domains as it covers various other branches ,[Item #3 ]:As I have mentioned earlier, I will provide you with links to reliable sources as soon as possible.Concerning item #4 WIkipedia is an encyclopedia and one of an encyclopedia's goals is to provide readers with information ,I don't mean it being a web host but a source of knowledge.

I want to thank you again for your fast reply. Sincerely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid that 'word of mouth' notability doesn't count for much at Wikipedia. Movies not yet released are only classed as notable when they are are by Spielberg or someone like that. Christopher Karkafi - I can only find here and Facebook. Metel el Helm - once again Facebook and a forum in Arabic which gives a mention in a list of Lebanese films (and possibly on a rather odd 'search' site that I haven't worked out yet). Not yet notable, sorry. When the film is released and getting audiences, try again. Wikipedia is for recording, not promoting. We can't help you onto the ladder. We can record you when you've gone up a few rungs. Peridon (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I respect your opinion for deletion and I am sure that the movie will have an article very soon that won't be deleted .As I noticed,you need enough proof that the movie is being made.

I wish you could move the article or something so it wouldn't have to be rewritten.--Lebnan (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can. It can be moved to userspace, or simply copy-pasted by yourself. Moving maintains the edit history and is thus preferable. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting the article?? what does the notabilty have to do with the movie.Everything on wikipedia is notable???--Joe abiabed (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the movie does not meet the inclusion criteria for a wikipedia article. In particular, please read WP:NFF. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you track the number of visitors per day and judge then whether you delete the article or not.Then you can judge the notability,if you don't have an administrator living in Lebanon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the same as popularity. General notability is established by coverage in independent, reliable sources. Per the analysis of the links in the article, there are currently no reliable sources cited in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if they can or can't, but can't you see the potential for error? (To put it politely...) The number of clicks a site on the net gets can affect revenue from advertising - there are people sitting there ckicking sites to boost this. I'm not saying you would do this, but some well-meaning person might decide to boost the figures without asking you. An admin living in the Lebanon? Could be. But admins have to be neutral wherever they live. We judge notability by what we can find out. And once again, we are NOT here to help promote something or someone and we have policies that have been agreed. Everything on Wikipedia is notable? No. You may find an article consisting of "Shane is the MOST AWWWWWWSSSSSSOOOOMMMESTTTT person EVAHHHHH!". Normally these get deleted very quickly, but some clever ones get through - for a time. If you spot one - tag it, please. Peridon (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that if you had an admin in Lebanon he would be not neutral ,I just meant that he would affirm that the movie is known locally , if not ,you must wait for the future references . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and allow return when sources toward notability can be shown. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion ,wait for a couple of weeks(3 weeks maximum),if some references were posted,leave the article ,if not userfy .We will give the article a chance till mid-april. It wouldn't do any harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, only one !vote per customer. As for waiting, please see WP:CRYSTAL. As for not doing any harm, please see WP:NOHARM. -- Whpq (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am for not deleting the post. Lebnan,if they decided to delete it, they will surely be an article for the movie after a couple of weeks because I was told that it will be released soon and I guess Wikipedia keeps the article if the movie is genuine and notable.Several audio-visual students in the university worked for it and I asked jad about the movie yesterday ,he said that the post-production is in it's final stages so a bit of patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim malan (talk • contribs) 12:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Karim malan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete but allow userfication. The article fails to present any independent evidence that this unreleased film is notable. We can reconsider after the film is released. —C.Fred (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Whpq ,I was on an edge,I just deleted my earlier post.Thanks for your understanding —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative comment. The deleted comment and related reply from User:Whpq were not discussing the merits of the article, and in my opinion, removal has no bearing on the outcome of this discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article it's 100% notable,I don't know why nobody added references,I will try to find some .--TheGodMothers (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— TheGodMothers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please find references...and indicate which notability (film) criteria it meets, since it doesn't appear to meet any of them. —C.Fred (talk) 13:06, 14 March 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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of country songs

Prod removed without explanation. This list can never be complete, and the statement for inclusion notable country songs is purely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It is WP:LISTCRUFT and redundant to Category:Country songs. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The intentions were good, but this is someone's 57 favorite songs out of thousands. I'm afraid that this list could go on forever and ever, forever and ever, forever and ever. Amen. Mandsford (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OlYeller^Talktome 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per all above. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if we attempted to make this list complete it would begin to resemble a directory rather than have any encyclopaedic value. Also you are bound to have awkward corner cases - is song xxx a country song or something else? CrispMuncher (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as {{prod}}er Toddst1 (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What possible encyclopedic value can such a list bring? It's not as if we don't have a search capability. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list does not need to contain encyclopedic content, it is valuable as a navigational and organizational tool. Browsing a list and searching for a specific item are almost diametrically opposed, so the fact that you can search Wikipedia is not germane to the issue. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Normally for these things someone always comes along and says "if it gets too big it can be split per 'WP:Lists can be split when they get too big"' or something like that. In this case I think it would be best to split it by decade (and actually sort it by year instead of alphabetically). I've made a start on adding dates. Nerfari (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit to include only those with a Wikipedia article--the usual standard for what gets included on a list like this. Most lists will never be complete. Neither will Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to say the exact same thing as DGG. (1) The requirement for inclusion in the list is Wikipedia's general notablility guideline-- in other words, if an article already exists or an article needs to be created for a song, then it gets included. (2) The list may never be complete, but that is not a problem in the least. (3) This list can be useful for redlinks to needed articles. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point out that even if you limited this to blue links, there are 377 subcategories for the category of country songs, broken down by artist, and that even if you make a conservative estimate of only five songs per each artist with a category, it would be an unmanageable list. As far as current artists go, guys like Kenny Chesney have 34 blue-link songs so far, and there will be more. Once a list reaches thousands of entries, it's no longer useful, because it has to be broken down into "List of country songs that start with A", "List of country songs that start with B", etc. Maintaining such lists would not necessarily be impossible, but it would be pointless. Mandsford (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more of them there are, the greater the need for organizational devices. Even clumsy ones are a start. DGG (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I don't see the problem with splitting a list into multiple lists if it gets too long. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Articles in Category:Years in country music already include lists of the top country songs of the year with links to existing articles. Eric444 (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no need for lists when the category system fulfills the same purpose. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and lists serve different purposes. With a list you can link to non-existent, but needed articles, and you can include additional information, in this case the artist for each song. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Eric444. Category:Country songs and Category:Years in country music already serve as sufficient navigational hubs. There have been hundreds of Top 40 hits in the past 5 years alone, do you really expect this list to ever be complete? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG et al. Like the joke about the second man on death row, I'll go first if I have to listen to Achy Breaky Heart one more time. I'm not sure what's the problem with a list and a category; WP:LIST allows for both. WP needs more, not fewer, pop culture navigation tools. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to all the folks saying this list is redundant to the category. (1) Lists make it possible to have redlinks to needed, but not yet written, articles. (2) Lists make it possible to have additional information, for example linking to each song's Artist. To those of you saying the list will never be complete-- Can you give a reason why that is a problem? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm coming round to the POV that this alphabetical list is, while not pointless, not worth the effort required to maintain it. For me, the best thing about the current list that I can find songs I've heard of but wouldn't remember the name of, but if the list contains too many barely-notable songs it would be too bothersome to go through it. Perhaps the inclusion criteria could be tighter than WP:SONG and the others could be left to the category system. Nerfari (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top 20 hits by year are already listed on the years in country music pages, which I think serve as a decent enough hub. Does any other genre have a list of songs by genre? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey, TPH, that's a good idea--to do them for the others. There seem to be enough people interested in popular music around here--well, do them at least for those genes where there are enough people to do the work. DGG (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have people work on the country music articles first (hint, hint). Almost all of them are in lousy condition. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, it's not up to you to decide what other people should be working on. If you think the country music articles need improving, then do it. Let other people work on improving this list if they so prefer. DHowell (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and appropriately trim and split. Somewhere between a hopelessly unnavigable category with hundreds of sub-categories to wade through, and an unmaintainable list of potentially thousands, if not tens of thousands of songs purely in alphabetical order, there lies a happy medium. A series of 10-30 lists, perhaps categorized by decade, or maybe even half-decade for some periods, of notable country songs, would be far more useful and maintainable than either a plain alphabetical list, or a category of subcategories of subcategories of subcategories. It'll be a lot of work, but it's not impossible, and this list can be a start towards that end. Perfection is not required. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. DHowell (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a firm believer in the saying "It takes a village to raise a child." This list will most likely never be completed and there will always be a question about the notability of the songs on the list but since Wikipedia is a community-based project, everyone has the option of refining it to make it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic 8 ball 1982 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's not let the perfect be an enemy of the good WP:IMPERFECT -- 7triton7 (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much too general a topic. Aubergine (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – When it is impractical to objectively and non-arbitrarily define and identify a complete set (i.e. a specific set of items that is generally recognized as constituting a single, defined grouping, such as Sultans of Zanzibar, Miss Universe titleholders and Spooks episodes; in the case of this article, the "complete set" would be "all country songs"), I think that categories are superior to lists for purposes of navigation. However, the fact is that many editors and readers prefer lists to categories for purposes of navigation and browsing, and current consensus is that categories and lists complement one another. While this alphabetical list is currently not very much better than a category, it has the potential to be improved (in appearance, content, and organization) and to serve as a useful tool for navigation. I agree with the various suggestions offered by others to split the list by genre, time period, or something else. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What I'd really like is something short enough that I could browse through the whole thing. I think the Years in Country Music articles are great, and I wish I knew about them before I started editing this, but it's inconvenient to hop from one to another. Maybe a more restrictive alphabetical list would complement the category and the Years articles. But I think it's important to know where we are going before we invest too much time in this thing. Nerfari (talk) 22:06, 14 March 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 00:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make-buy

These 3 articles created by the same editor are all essays about generally the same topic. One is currently tagged with a prod template, however I felt it would be easier to group all 3 together than to tag each individually with prod templates. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:OR. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all violates WP:NOR --Mhking (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above --Muhammad(talk) 04:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above -- the articles also make no sense without any introduction on what the articles are about. -- azumanga (talk) 16:59, 11 March 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. WP:SNOW –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madslashers

Delete: No sources at all. Subject is the unofficial nickname of a platoon. Questionable whether the unit should even have a seperate article of its own. Entire article consists of legends and assertions about undocumented conversations between unknown people at unspecified times. A merger discussion has been in place for a couple of months and there has been little interest in supporting the merger. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up one da in school nor for things made up at basic. Mystache (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article currently stands. If sources can be found that establish some sort of notability for the nickname, merge and redirect to 75th Ranger Regiment (United States). --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with NickW557, delete or, if established, merge+redirect. WP:MADEUP. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Detele per nom. OlYeller^Talktome 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. -Signaleer (talk) 13:53, 11 March 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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadbodhini boys high school

Delete another school, this one a high school with virtually no context again. There is no Sadbodhini to redirect to; no verifiability Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. THF (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above or just as patent nonsense. Mystache (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently, a school in the town of Chitgoppa in the Karnataka state of India. Even if more content is added, or verifiability is shown, a school that goes to the 10th year doesn't fall under the inherent notability exception; the equivalent would be a "degree college". I think it's mentioned in the article about the town. Mandsford (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say to the tenth year, but to the tenth standard. See Education in India.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough-- I looked at that and at Matriculation in India and I understand that there's an 11th and 12th standard, but that one has to pass an exam after completing the 10th standard in order to go on. I can see that the same reasons that we assign notability to 12th grade high schools-- i.e., that they are the highest level of education within the school district -- might apply if a certificate is conferred on persons who complete the 10th standard. Mandsford (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detele per WP:V. OlYeller^Talktome 18:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/redirect to Chitgoppa~~ if it can be verified that this school exists; if no sources can be found, then weak delete. I've done some searches, but I can't find anything to verify this school's existence. Cunard (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since this school's existence has been verified by Mgm. All high schools are notable. Cunard (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it can be verified that this school exists; high schools are notable on Wikipedia. That includes Indian high schools as well as ones in Western democracies. See also WP:CSB.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As sources don't exist it doesn't meet WP:V or WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By googling I was able to find a directory listing to prove it exists, but existence isn't enough. Articles on Wikipedia need content. There are not enough sources to pull content from. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can verify the existence of this school, this article should be kept because all high schools are notable. At the very least, what is the harm of merging/redirecting this school to its geographic location? The article has a little context: "class rooms from 8th Standard to 10th Standard" which can be merged. Cunard (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm unable to repeat the search query that got me my previous result. It wouldn't have been a good source anyway, since it only gave an address, the actual article content we have couldn't be verified with it. -- Mgm|^(talk) 23:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We can't verify if this school exists, let alone what city/country it is in. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (and variations) draws a blank; for all we know, this is a hoax. Abecedare (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP & improve/expand. the existence of the school has been verified apparently, if you read thru this whole debate. it's not very good as is, i admit, and needs work, but if we have a policy that high schools are noteworthy enough to have individual articles, per se, then this qualifies. did anyone think to look & see if the school has a website.

also, why are the "decision was delete, archived, etc" notes already on the text of this page? the debate is NOT closed, & the article has not already been deleted. it's very confusing to see that, when you go to write a comment. Lx 121 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, in the very brief time it has taken me to write the above comment, the debate has been closed & the article deleted. that seems to be jumping the gun a bit. this was not a CSD Lx 121 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last word, i wouldn't normally do this, but i want it on the record. after extensive searching: it is almost certainly "Sad Bodhini". two words, not one, at least in roman scriptLx 121 (talk) 03:33, 15 March 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 00:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadbodhini primary school

Delete speedy deletion of schools is frowned upon but this is almost A3. In any case there is no indication of notability here, and we have no article Sadbodhini to redirect to, assuming that the name is of the place where this is located. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. THF (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above or just as patent nonsense. Mystache (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Detele per WP:V. OlYeller^Talktome 18:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom.Rlendog (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Chitgoppa if it can be verified that this school exists; if no sources can be found, then weak delete. I've done some searches, but I can't find anything to verify this school's existence. Cunard (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't verify if this school exists, let alone what city/country it is in. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (and variations) draws a blank; for all we know, this is a hoax. Abecedare (talk) 02:36, 14 March 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. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalia Harir

Ms. Harir was a teenager murdered in 2004. Her death received the typical amount of news coverage for a murder -- a couple of stories in local media. Otherwise, there appears to be nothing that makes her more noteworthy than the hundreds or thousands of other murder victims each year. I realize that this went through an AFD in 2007 and the result was keep, but I'd like to see what people think about it today. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. A search of Lexis-Nexis Academic over the last 20 years only turns up those articles cited and no more. She was the 142nd murder victim in Prince George's County at the time, and I suspect most of the preceding 141 victims do not have, nor merit, a wikipedia entry. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Wildly out of date, too, which is why we shouldn't have articles like this in the first place. THF (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT unless further notability can be established. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Detele per WP:ONEEVENT. OlYeller^Talktome 18:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although tragic, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Most of the previous Keep endorsements were for news coverage outside the US. DarkAudit (talk) 20:58, 11 March 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 00:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Barbwires

Delete no indication that this group meets WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only self-released work and no sources establishing WP:BAND. Also note my co-nomination of their album below: -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detele per nom. OlYeller^Talktome 18:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:55, 12 March 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. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Spring I

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless there is more information that this is a hoax, disagree. Information is verified by at least this. Vulture19 (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Didn't see that the whole line was being considered. Need to compare sources to articles.Vulture19 (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What Vulture has cited is imaged on Google Books, which seem to call into doubt Kitty's accusations of a hoax. Still, what did Bill Spring (or any of the others) do that was notable? Even the royalty-fans don't insist on inherent notability for inherited nobility. Mandsford (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment. A gBooks search on "William Spring" yields a whole lot of information that I just don't have time to digest or write into the article right now. The problem is that there are a few different "William Springs" from the same lineage. Is it possible that the entire discussion be consolidated to a single discussion? Vulture19 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, what appears to have happened here is that someone's conjoined the (verifiable, true) information regarding the Spring family pre-1641 with an imagined title of "Baron Lavenham". So there is a hoax, but the articles on earlier members of the family do appear to be accurate. Choess (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"William Spring" Lavenham is a bit more salient to the discussion. The same search on gScholar.Vulture19 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for genuine higher nobility, I think precedent is we do include every holder of the title, for, at least until very recently, they do play significant roles (and English barons used to be always in Parliament.) Not inherited then applies to children without the title & , probably spouses. For baronets, like these, and equivalent lower nobility elsewhere, we do not include unless individually notable for something. DGG (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not peers or nobility. Possibly Lords of the Manor. I have no problem with Spring Baronets and (proven) MPs. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spring family. He's verifiable in Burke's, but probably not independently notable. Choess (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as possible hoax, and delete all articles created by this editor, per the evidence of clear falsification of sources presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham. There may (as Choess suggests) be elements of truth in this article, but an article created by a demonstrable hoaxer is no place to start building a coherent and reliable article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 11 March 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. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Spring I

Not notable. Hoax. Not properly referenced. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Baron_Lavenham
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spring family. Thomas is verifiable in Burke's, but probably not independently notable. Choess (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as possible hoax, and delete all articles created by this editor, per the evidence of clear falsification of sources presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham. There may (as Choess suggests) be elements of truth in this article, but an article created by a demonstrable hoaxer is no place to start building a coherent and reliable article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 11 March 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 copyvio. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dakete

Not covered in reputable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I cannot find WP:RS sources either. Smacks of WP:MADEUP, as all I can find are either Wikipedia mirrors, translations, or the one page linked from the article. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyright violation taken from this site. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 11 March 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. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Spring II

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Baron_Lavenham
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename probably to William Spring and Tidy Up the fantasies.
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 11:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable as an MP, see e.g. [12]. Choess (talk)

No. Rayment says that is Sir William Spring, 1st Baronet. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different people: in 1625, Sir William Spring, 1st Baronet was only 12 years old, so the MP, mentioned in Choess' source has to be another one.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 11:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was asked to comment here in a note from Kittybrewster on my talk page. My first thought is that MPs from before the late 19th century need a lot of caution, because of the proliferation in many areas of identically-named members of the same extended families. In this case, the two sources we have are:

Choess's link to the table in the 1856 paper by Rev lord Arthur Hervey which lists a "Sir William Spring" as MP for Bury St Edmunds from 1640 to some point before 1654.
Kittybrewster's pointer to Leigh Rayment's page listing Sir William Spring, 1st Baronet as MP for Bury St Edmunds from 1646 until his death in 1654.

So those two sources are in broad agreement that a "Sir William Spring" was MP for Bury in the Long Parliament, differing only on whether a William Spring was returned to the start of the Long Parliament or later. Matters get somewhat tangled here, because of the complex parliamentary history of the civil war era: dates alone may be an inadequate indicator, because of the overlap between the Long Parliament and the First Protectorate Parliament and its successors. I can see that a bare listing of MPs by date in that period might get tangled by different perspectives on the legitimacy or otherwise of the three Protectorate Parliaments, the third of which was replaced by the Long Parliament in the prelude to the restoration in 1660. On that basis, I'd be inclined to proceed with a lot of caution and seek further sources, but it's important to note that the article on Sir William Spring II does not claim that Spring II was the Bury MP. Instead it claims that he was the republican father of the royalist Sir William Spring, 1st Baronet, and that does seems possible.

The least plausible possibility so far seems to me to be Choess's suggestion that the Sir William Spring II was the Bury St Edmunds MP. Neither of the sources unambiguously supports that, nor is it claimed in the alleged hoax article.

As to the rest of the article, I think that the essence of its claim is possible: republican father of a royalist son.

However, I am very suspicious of the article's apparent reliance solely on local history sources, which can be of highly variable quality. All too often, the authors fascination with their subjects outweighs their scholarly rigour; their selection and interpretation of the primary sources can be flawed, and in some cases closeness to the subject can bring severe bias.

In this case, the article on Sir William Spring II refers to the arrest of "his royalist son" in 1656. Rayment lists the first son as having died in 1654, so either this is simply wrong, or the father had two royalist sons; possible, but less likely.

As to the reliability of Rayment as a source, I have at times queried Rayment's accuracy wrt to MPs from Baronet families, but 9 times out of 10 I have been persuaded that I have misread things. However, the scanty nature of Rayment's bare listings makes it difficult to check in ambiguous cases.

So my best suggestion is to delete both Sir William Spring II and Sir William Spring, 1st Baronet. So far I don't think that we have enough unambiguous reliable sources to support the central claims of either article with anything near enough certainty to justify publication. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. For the reasons outlined in my comment above, and because the creator of the article on Sir William Spring II (and supplier of its sources) is 00vis (talk · contribs), who has demonstrably used false references in the article on Baron Lavenham: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Note a further inconsistency in Sir William Spring II. It claims that Spring II was born in 1610, and was father of the 1st Baronet; but Rayment's baronets page lists the first baronet as having been born in 1613. Spring II may indeed have been a precociously virile lad, but if he was a father at age 3 he'd be a celebrated case in medical histories. This thing has hoax written all over it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Spring, 1st Baron Lavenham

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Baron_Lavenham
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be part of a series of hoax articles. Choess (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as part of a series of hoaxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 11 March 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. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Spring, 2nd Baron Lavenham

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Baron_Lavenham
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be part of a series of hoax articles. Choess (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as part of a series of hoaxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 11 March 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. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Spring, 3rd Baron Lavenham

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Baron_Lavenham
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be part of a series of hoax articles. Choess (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as part of a series of hoaxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Spring, 7th Baron Lavenham

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Baron_Lavenham
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be part of a series of hoax articles. Choess (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as hoax, and delete all articles created by this editor, per the evidence of clear falsification of sources presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 11 March 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. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bidenly Hall

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Baron_Lavenham
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be part of a series of hoax articles. Content not supported by references. Choess (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as probable hoax, and delete all articles created by this editor, per the evidence of clear falsification of sources presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham. In this case, the two references supplied are to a claimed book, and to a village website http://www.pakenham-village.co.uk/Main/history.htm ... but google searches of that website produce no hits for "Bidenly Hall" and even none for "Bidenly". A wider search for "bidenly hall" -wikipedia produces only wikipedia mirrors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to be a hoax.--Oakshade (talk) 15:53, 11 March 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 00:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason LaRay Keener

The subject of this article barely claims notability with their films made. After searching for info on these films to see if they're notable, I found only one news articles about any of the films. The article was written by Jason Keener. Here's my other searches for news on the film: [13][14][15][16][17][18]. Here's my searches for Jason LaRay Keener that show no articles: [19][20]. I see no proof of notability and obviously haven't found any on my own. OlYeller^Talktome 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CREATIVE. THF (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even remotely notable, he's made student videos, per IMdB, and this review in his own words, not really films or movies, or at least anything commercially released. A Google search that I did revealed lots of "stuff" but nothing really reliable. I also looked over the nom's links, and have to agree. There's no there there. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 11 March 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. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Spring, 8th Baron Lavenham

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Baron_Lavenham
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be part of a series of hoax articles. Choess (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as hoax, and delete all articles created by this editor, per the evidence of clear falsification of sources presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 11 March 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. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Spring, 9th Baron Lavenham

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Baron_Lavenham
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be part of a series of hoax articles. Choess (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as hoax, and delete all articles created by this editor, per the evidence of clear falsification of sources presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 11 March 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. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Spring, 10th Baron Lavenham

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Baron_Lavenham
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be part of a series of hoax articles. Choess (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as hoax, and delete all articles created by this editor, per the evidence of clear falsification of sources presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 11 March 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. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Spring, 11th Baron Lavenham

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Baron_Lavenham
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be part of a series of hoax articles. Choess (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as hoax, and delete all articles created by this editor, per the evidence of clear falsification of sources presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 11 March 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. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Lavenham

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google searches make this seem legit. What evidence do you have that it is hoax? Mystache (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I get nothing on Google apart from endless Wikipedia mirrors. No obvious reliable sources, no Google books results apart from one which is clearly fiction. According to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the Springs of Lavenham did exist but were simply a wealthy line of merchants, there is no record of any of them holding a barony. I have to concur that this is a wide-ranging hoax so delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googe search finds only results linking to either this hoax article (and its subsidiaries) or to the fictional character of this book The Talisman Ring.
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. It's neither existing in the relevant standard books (Burke's, Debrett's, Cracroft's) nor referenced in the web at the usual sites (Rayment). See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Baron_Lavenham
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all related articles (see above) as hoaxes. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The supposed citation to Burke's appears to be deliberately misleading. Choess (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as hoax, and delete all articles created by this editor. If it's not listed in the std reference work son peerages, this article is a hoax, and so are the articles on the other alleged peers in this family. The only article in this massive compendium of rubbish that I have examined in detail is Sir William Spring II, which has some elements of plausiblity but falls apart on close examination: it claims that Spring II was the father of a man only 3 years younger than himself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 11 March 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. There was only one keep !vote here versus at least three for deltion including nominator. If she satisfies notablilty in the near future, by all means, recreate. But for now it has not proven notability and has been defeated in AfD Valley2city^‽ 03:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simona McIntyre

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER; non-notable. The Fashion Model Directory shows a very brief, minor career. A Google search turns up the usual forums and directory listings, and Google News turns up nothing. Prod removed w/o comment. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she has significant roles in multiple productions according to the very link the nominator posted. Gaultier, Marc Jacobs etc. would be multiple productions, and in themselves so large that her role must be significant. The length of her career is irrelevant to notability, and is indeed probably caused by her being new on the big scene. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A significant role in a runway show would be opening or closing that show, as these are often spots of privilege in the line-up, and there is nothing to suggest McIntyre did so for either Gaultier or Jacobs, her two notable runway credits. Furthermore, magazine covers and fashion contracts are the bread and butter of notable models, and McIntyre has only managed one ad and no covers, which are huge red NN flags. As OlYeller21 said, she might be notable in the future, but she certainly isn't right now. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't consider being in a fashion show as a "significat" role. Saying that the two shows she was in are "multiple" is grabbing at straws as well. The litmus test for all notability is if the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A bio isn't significant coverage and a Fashion Model directory isn't independent of the subject (especially since anyone can submit model bios there). Perhaps she will be notable but just not now. OlYeller^Talktome 19:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not fulfill the requirements of our notability guidelines. ₳dam Zel 20:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding my keep. A user pointed out the need for reliable sources; while I disagree that appearing in fashion shows doesn't convey notability (how else would a model be notable?), I agree that those appearances should be backed up with reliable sources. So as it stands, I find it hard to think that people would disagree that the article should be deleted if its contents can be verified by WP:V WP:RS. According to WP:ATD, we should probably try that first - according to WP:DEL, Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed are supposed to be deleted. Well, this isn't the case here. Here are a few non-trivial mentions of this person, appearing in what I would consider reliable sources: [21] from New York Magazine, establishes her runway appearances and already cited in the article, though not as an inline reference; [22], also from New York Magazine; I've also found a bunch of articles from a website called papermag.com, but it doesn't have a Wikipedia article where I can investigate it to see if it's reliable - but it does seem independent of the subject. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 06:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Runway work is the entry point for most models into the industry. They don't become notable until magazine editors and designers dub them as so by investing in them - by giving them mag covers and signing them to contracts. Without these, a model is just another of the hundreds that hit the runway for a season or two and are never seen again, and I see no reason to believe McIntyre is not another of them, especially since many of the 2009 Fashion Weeks are over and she wasn't in any of them. As for the sources you provide, one is little more than a directory entry and the other only proves she's the new girl on the block, meaning she has yet to become noteworthy, and w/o appearances in 2009 Fashion Weeks, it already seems the industry has left her behind. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azeri genocide

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}}.

Delete Poorly sourced, virulently anti-Armenian in tone article with absolutely no historical basis to it and one which is not even recognized by a single genocide scholar (the PACE source is inadequate and highly misleading as it is a non-binding resolution and one which the Council of Europe doesn't officially recognize in any capacity). --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article again ,historical basis is well explaned.85.105.157.122 (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Marshall. VartanM (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where to start? No real references. Croissant's book was never referenced, simply placed under references. The bibliography, which appeared to be what someone found after a 3 minute google search, had books not referenced in the article. My 17yr old son does a better job of historical research than this! --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No real references?You should check the article ,too.If you have time except deleting the citations or a section.85.105.157.122 (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read? You should learn how REAL historical research is done. Typing something doesn't make it a fact! --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. politically motivated POV propagand. no reliable sources. Gazifikator (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. Sardur (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia has a very low threshold on what genocide is. If there are articles like Greek genocide, Assyrian Genocide, or Dersim genocide, then why the article about Azeri genocide cannot exist? Grandmaster 08:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose the deletion of the Dersim genocide article, then I would support that proposal as long as its contents, with the genocide allegation, were to be merged into the Dersim rebellion article. Meowy 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't bother. The word genocide has already lost any meaning, as it is used in wiki to describe any massacre. If that's the way they want it, so be it. To me, genocide is an extremely politicized term, and the existence of the above articles is a good demonstration of this fact. Grandmaster 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe at some future date I will propose its deletion. It is precisely to stop the word "genocide" loosing its correct meaning that articles like this "Azeri genocide" article (or the deleted "Kurdish genocide" one) should not be allowed to remain. Meowy 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried prodding this article but that didn't work. I'm glad others noticed it's violation of NPOV. Themfromspace (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Double Standards. What is your obsession with Turks? Greek genocide, Assyrian Genocide, and Dersim genocide already exist on Wikipedia even though Dersim genocide has no document or recognition.However Azeri Genocide was recognized by Council of Europe and Azerbaijani Government.It is ironic, Armenians allways complain about denial of Armenian Genocide by Turkey but they deny Azeri Genocide.Abbatai (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is by no means "recognized by the Council of Europe", but only by 30 representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (that is less than 5% from the total of 636 representatives), and that on a personal basis only: the declaration states that "[it] commits only the members who have signed it". Of those 30 individuals, 20 happen to be either from Azerbaijan or Turkey. - Ev (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article does warrant inclusion. The all references given is reliable source in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice34 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all material that doesn't come from reliable sources per WP:V. The "double-standards" thing is a fair comment, but see WP:OCE for Wikipedia's view on that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced, no scholarly source agrees with the article claims.--St. Hubert (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article, together with its talk page, is a piece of propaganda. This article should go the same way as the late, unlamented, "Kurdish Genocide" article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish genocide (WWI)) (though even it had one source, unlike this particular article). Meowy 15:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one also has a source, the decree of Azerbaijani president, referring to the massacre in Khojaly as a genocide. Also a declaration of some members of PACE, who also believe that Khojaly was an act of genocide. It is exactly as many sources as the articles about other genocides have, but no one cares about those other articles, and this one is proposed for deletion. I understand that the existence of other poorly sourced articles does not justify the existence of another poorly sourced article, but a fair treatment would be nice. Otherwise this place turns into the mouthpiece of anti-Turkish propaganda. It is no good that some well organized ethnic communities managed to impose their POVs into wikiarticles. Something needs to be done to maintain objectivity. Grandmaster 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone those with a half a brain cell know that the claimed PACE document is trash which was an answer to this draft tabled on 24 April 2001 by Jirousova (Czech Republic) on the day of the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. That PACE document which you are referring to was tabled on 26 April 2001 by Mehmet Ali Irtemçelik (Turkey), who is known apologist and the voice of the Turkish government in Germany. 2/3 (20 out of 30) of those who have signed that draft were either from Turkey or Azerbaijan. Several of the remaining are also known propagandists pushing the inclusion of Turkey in the EU (and who oppose the recognition of the Armenian genocide). For example, Tadeusz Iwinski or Younal Said Loutfi. The content of that draft is so ridiculous (not to say, the surprise of the majority of PACE members when they saw anyone even supporting such a draft) that even Azeri lobbyist in the US only refer to the draft and don't dare raising it's content. (for instance that On 26 February 1992, Armenians massacred the whole population of Khodjaly and fully destroyed the city.) As for well organized community if I were you I would not bring up the word well organized anywhere. If you want to oppose it's deletion, go ahead, otherwise stop WP:SOAPboxing. VartanM (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, you do have a point about double standards and the virtues of "fair treatment", and I appreciate that you raise awareness of those issues here. You're right: something needs to be done.

Deleting this particular entry is a step in the right direction, by both removing sub-standard content (to say the least) and helping to raise the threshold for inclusion in this type of topics: such precedents can simplify the deletion of other similar entries.

I would really, but really love to delete a substantial part of the entries on genocides, massacres, ethnic cleansings, attrocities, minor battles & skirmishes... all those "look how bad [radom ethnic group] are !!!" type of entries that plague Wikipedia. In my opinion, the tiny encyclopedic significance of a substantial portion of those claims of victimhood does not justify the amount of time they demand from non-partisan editors to make them compliant with our content policies.

However, actually deleting those entries involves an unpaid volunteer willing to check all kind of sources and websites dealing with the worst of human nature... willing to read often depressing & exhasperating talk page discussions (and rants)... and willing to iniciate a discussion whose quality is much too often marked by the already standard accusations of [Ethnic-group]phobia.

My apologies, but right now I really don't want to do those things to propose other similar entries for deletion. However, when someone actually starts the process, I will try to do my little part in eliminating a small portion of this poison from what is supposed to be a simple encyclopedia (not a free megaphone from which to claim victimhood). - Best, Ev (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that a lot of the articles on that genocide list do not deserve to be there and some serious pruning is required. But I don't think it would be that difficult to remove most of the unsubstantiated ones - there will be editors around who will know enough about each specific subject to distinguish the fake from the real. I've already mentioned to Grandmaster that if he wants to propose the deletion of the Dersim genocide article, I would support him. But I wonder why he is taking part in this discussion. He is neither supporting the retention of the Azeri genocide article, or supporting its deletion. And when given support for the deletion of an article he does objects to, he rejects that support. Meowy 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree: if someone does the necessary checking of / search for sources, and the subsequent corroborations, it won't be so difficult to remove those entries. I just tried to explain why, according to my perception, few people are actually doing that work.

As for Grandmaster's participation in this discussion, I think that by merely raising those issues his imput was productive & helpful, as a reminder of the bigger picture. :-) - Best, Ev (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the genocide didn't happen where is the Azeri population of Yerevan and Karabakh.Please keep the article.As some said denying is killing twice!193.140.194.148 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for that rambling trip to nowhere. And your comments on... anything relevant would be? Personal opinions and beliefs are not a valid rationale for deletion. If you believe it notable, improve the article yourself (mainly through neutral sourcing - which, no offence, I'd love to see you attempt). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And where is the Armenian population of Baku and Nakhichevan? Are you able to discern ethnic cleansing from genocide? --Vacio (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to discern a relevant topic from an irrelevant one? This is a deletion discussion for a badly written POV article. Not the Hague tribunals. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a no-brainer. Hideously POV, and unsourced. Completely unsalvageable. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the double standard Wikipedia has when it comes to Armenians. Is it because of turcophobia, racism, religion or because considerable amount of moderators in this site are Armenians? Has any international court recognized Armenian Genocide? Not to my recollection. Yet, it is stated in this site as if the events of 1915 were indeed genocide when there is still a considerable amount of debate going on over the topic and many world renowned historians reject the thesis, I repeat it is merely a thesis at this stage. I would like to see some objectivity in this site with regards to history and historians and if you are going to be deleting Azeri Genocide then you should also be deleting Armenian Genocide and all other made up genocides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.115.14.179 (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, purely for fairness and NPOV. It's interesting to see Armenian editors nominating or overwhelming voting to remove articles on other nation's genocides, or simply trying to remove facts, photos or references from articles like Khojaly massacre in past. Why? If not for POV pushing and OR, then for what? Atabəy (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Armenian?? Amazing! My apologies to Vartan for interrupting, but I couldn't resist.... --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX doesn't mean we get to keep pages because other (inapropriate) pages exist, it means we should go ahead and delete any particular page if it doesn't fit in with the policies and guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much evidence is needed anymore to understand your true purpose here, but sometimes it helps when you reiterate your purpose for others to witness. VartanM (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, you should have asked that question to yourself, and perhaps, this ArbCom based on your false accusations against an editor, only due to his ethnic background, would help refresh the mind. The only thing that does not make sense to truly neutral mind is when someone extensively advocates recognition of genocides suddenly tries to hide, fight off, remove, rename some factual evidence from encyclopedic articles. Isn't that part of nationalistic battleground editing? Ask yourself, why would Armenian editors get involved in nominating every Azeri massacre articles or images for deletion or removal, but we would rarely ever see a reverse trend? Atabəy (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by reverse trend do you mean when you were denying the Armenian Genocide [23] and have now voted to keep this trash? VartanM (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion, perhaps you might want to translate this article to az.wiki before it gets deleted from here. VartanM (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:OR. --Vacio (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, then go ahead delete the socalled genocides why the only matter is Azeri Genocide for those people?Abbatai (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to nominate other genocide articles for deletion. Otherwise you were already told about WP:WAX VartanM (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this one did happen and has sources and recognition.Abbatai (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you think it happened, doesn't mean it did. It has no valid sources or recognition and is a fabrication. Meowy 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last phase of a genocide is denial as some of you are doing now.85.105.157.122 (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable and Keep worthy to me.--Judo112 (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As currently framed, the entry is a propaganda pamphlet infringing virtually every content policy we have. Maintainability issues make me skeptical of other possible alternatives: some entries are simply not worth the vast amounts of time they demand from non-partisan editors to assure compliance with our policies. – To avoid future problems, I recommend protecting both capitalizations from re-creation, to ensure re-creation through deletion review only. - Ev (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Atabay has a very good point up there about the Armenian editors here but noone including VartanM dares answer him other than indicating that what is provided here is trash or propaganda. It is really very sad and disturbing to see that this Turcophobia of some small minds is taking over Wikipedia.
So called Armenian Genocide is just a thesis but Wikipedia is reflecting it as a real and committed genocide through brainwashing young minds just because Armenian editors want it that way. Political acception because some countries have hidden agendas against Turkey does not mean international recognition. Historians decide that. Oh sorry according to some, it is just how things are done, I just forgot, my apologies. There are many world renowned historians disagreeing with the thesis and then accused or labelled of being pro-Turk and that is not propaganda? So sad. Just because the editors are Christians or Armenians allow them to reflect debateable issues as happened but when it comes to indicating a massacre with proof, it is propaganda. Go on then, make new genocides up like Greek or Assyrian and continue to publish them. Show to world how credible wikipedia information is.
Two wrongs do not add up to one right some say up there. Azeri Turks in certain regions did not vanish from earth's space just in one night. Whether that makes it a genocide, that I can not decide. Historians are here to do that, not Armenian editors. Therefore I urge from those who think that just because there are other articles in this site in similar positions to be deleted does not mean that this one should be kept, to be that sensitive to those debateable articles as well. If there are other articles in similar positions about genocide thesis that you agree up there, then where is your critism to those articles. Please guys try to be a little bit objective at least. That is the least you can do.ECDS (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC) — ECDS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. I forgot to add one thing. Even the picture used in armenian genocide section in the site is not related to Armenians. It is a picture of Russian soldiers taken in Russian Civil War after WW1. Go ahead and delete my comments. That is just going to prove how right I am.ECDS (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC) — ECDS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And your thoughts on the WP:OR nature of the article in question are? You know, that is why we're here... no-one cares about your nationalistic rant. Whether we agree or disagree is utterly irrelevant. All you're doing is hindering the process of finding out whether this article complies with policy or not and stirring idiotic nationalism. It's not the "other nation" that stirs nationalistic hatred when you post your opinions on irrelevant high-traffic pages, it's you. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* These boringly standard allegations of "[Ethnic-group-prefix]phobia", "racism", religious sympathies and "brainwashing" say more about the mind-set of those making them than about anything else. - Ev (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i support a Keep of the article as it is supported by numerous sources. Just because it is about an issue some people perhaps doesnt recognize,doesnt mean it shouldnt have its own article. End of story.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But i however agree on that the article needs to be rewritten into a more neutral article. Just as the one of the Armenian genocide and sutch.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with this discussion is that nobody has yet done a paragraph-by-paragraph dissection of the article to demonstrate that every allegation within it is falsified to the extent that they are nothing more that propaganda, and the article's existence is a gross misuse of the very serious word "genocide". I am not going to do this time-consuming thing, mostly because I hope it will be clear to every well-informed good-faith editor who just reads the article that the article is indeed propaganda and a misuse of the word genocide. I think the way the discussion is going will result in the article's deletion - but if it is retained it needs to be re-nominated for deletion, this time with a proper dissection of its contents. Meowy 20:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MarkusBJoke, your comparaison with the Armenian Genocide disqualifies your comment. I can create an article about bicycles and source my claims with notes about potatoes and individuals like you will claim it is well sourced and keep-worthy. Here is a section by section analysis of the article.

Russian Expansion of Caucasus. This section has nothing to do with the Armenians or the Azeri?

Massacres in 1905-1907, he copied the entire text from the Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907. See the beginning of the second paragraph. He did not even bother to place a link on the lead of that section to the main article. THe wording doesn't give anyone the chance to understand that it was a both sided clash.

March Days, this has nothing to do with the prior events which was over a decade ago. Months later even a higher number of Armenians were killed. See September Days. Does this gives me the right to engage in OR and selectively take every massacres at the hands of the Azeri and create another Armenian genocide article?

Khojaly Massacre, what is it's relation with events having happemed ¾ of a century ago?

International Recognition, which one, the Council of Europe never recognized such a thing.

Political, he copied that section word for word from here.

The intro of the article does not even coincide with its content, it starts with: The Azeri Genocide refers the mass killing of Azeri people by Armenians during World War 1 and The Nagorno-Karabakh War. None of the events described in the text have happened in WWI. Obviously this inaccurate info was placed there as an apologetics rhetoric to claim that Armenians massacred too in WWI and paralleling it with the Armenian Genocide. As for NK war, only one event described here happened during the course of the NK war.

Now go back to the Armenian Genocide article with its 181 notes and take a look at it and then come back with such a comparaison. VartanM (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vartan M, the Armenian Genocide section of this website is so biased that I do not even know where to start with. First of all as I indicated before the picture used in the site has not any relation whatsoever to Armenians or Turks but was taken in Russian Civil War after WW1. The many commnunities of the Armenian Diaspora had been founded long before the events of 1915 in late 19th century to make Armenians seperate land from Ottoman Empire which indeed led to events of 1915. SD Hunchakian Party and ARF(Dashnaktsutiun) were founded late 19th century with differing ideologies but similar goals. They sided with Russians in WW1 to achieve their goal of Great Armenia and backstabbed Ottoman Army but they started their massacrings of Muslims and Turks long before that. A quick look at the Niles-Sutherland report is enough to prove the situation of Turks and Armenians after WW1. They were never suppressed under Ottoman ruling and they even had seats in the Parliament. Many were dealing with trade and they were managing silk factories (sourced from Jean Louis Mattei). The Malta Tribunals of the British proved Turks innocent as stated in many telegraphs sent at that time. Here are some of them:

The letter sent by Craigie, the British Ambassador in Washington to Lord Curzon:

July 13th, 1921

‘I am sorry to say that nothing to be used against the Turks prosecuted in Malta as proof could be found.’

Foreign Office Archives F.O. 371/6504/E. 8519

The letter sent by British Attorney Generalship in Malta to British Foreign Office:

July 29th, 1921

‘No proof against Turks prosecuted has been found.’

Foreign Office Archives F.O. 371/6504/E. 8745

Here is an extract from the report given to II. Socialist International by Mikael Varangian to specify some of those goals of Dashnaks:

'We organized in most parts of Anatolia.

Our organizations are comprised of mobile and stationary units, groups responsible for funding and logistics, groups of women responsible for communication and dispatching and groups of intellectuals responsible for making propaganda.

Our guerillas killed the Mayor of Van.

We attempted to assassinate Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamit.

Our bomb store was captured by Ottoman Security Forces.'

The site does not even make reference to Manifesto of First Prime Minister of Armenia Katchaznouni where he technically admits that they killed many Muslims and Turks in the region to gain freedom from the Empire and that they sided with Russia and then when Russia failed them they lost everything.

The section talks about international recognition where indeed it is no more than political recognition by 21 countries and indeed no international court has made any decision related to the dispute so far which they can not when there are so many contradicting views and opinions over the topic.

There are not any references made to historians with counter-claims who spent their entire lives studying the subject matter on hand like Erich Feigl, Justin Mcarthy, Bernard Lewis, Stanford Shaw other than labelling them agents of the Turkish goverment. Should I continue?

If that is your sytle of objectivity and basis of critism of other articles, I rest my case.ECDS (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not remember anywhere in my comment above I suggested that the article should be kept as it stands. It definitely needs modification and the use of word genocide should not be that easy. Am I repeating myself here or is it just me? Historians who spent their entire lives on history should not be overlooked and you can not just label an event genocide because your 'nationalistic rant' requires that way and unfortunately it works both ways. But you also can not ignore any massacre or wrongdoings done to any nation because they are not genocides. There is a historical fact here with proof. For objectivity's sake, the critisms should be on that basis and through out all other articles in Wikipedia not just this one. If that disturbs some people who indeed have real nationalistic rants but accuse others of having, that I can not do anything about. I repeat it for the last time, Azeri Turks did not vanish from Earth's space just in one night, whether that makes it a genocide, that I can not decide. It is historians call. Just show some objectivity to other historical incidents or events as well and critise on that basis, that is all I ask. ECDS (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) — ECDS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete – This article consists of little more than blatantly biased (statements such as "outrageous facts", "tragic history", and "clear sign of Armenian nationalism" speak for themselves) original research; though efforts have been made to improve it slightly, the very premise of the article is unsalvageable. It attempts to present a number of atrocities and repressions perpetrated over a period of more than a century and, indeed, separated by a period of more than 70 years, as "genocide". A genocide is a "deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", and three distinct events in 1905, 1918, and 1992 do not a genocide make. And how is the Russian expansion into the Caucasus related to a claim of genocide by Armenians against Azeris? Perhaps a decent article could be written about the Azerbaijani day of observance ("day of genocide of Azerbaijanis", March 31), but this article is flawed at its core. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:22, 15 March 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 WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boot house

The Article contains little to no content and there are no citations, references, or sources. Veraladeramanera (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this term exists outside this entry. Mystache (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:SNOW. AltecLansing12 (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OlYeller^Talktome 19:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and of dubious accuracy - precisely why would concrete walls mean the buildings fall foul of the building regulations? Perhaps due to condition but that does not apply equally to all of a set of properties. No evidence for "Mr Boot" or who he was either - when an article is this vague it is impossible to verify the buildings actually exist. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: article has already improved beyond all recognition, now well worth keeping. References have added credibility and aforementioned dubious statement clarified to something meaningful. CrispMuncher (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep. We have stub articles for a reason. But fine, a Google Books search returned 50+ reasonable sources, so I've now supported all 5 sentences of the stub article with a source. Maybe next time you could look before stating "it is impossible to verify", "no evidence", or "WP:SNOW". – 74 07:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's reason no longer applies because it's referenced (please check WP:BEFORE, articles should only be nominated when they can't be sourced, not when they simply aren't at the moment) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the article will probably remain a stub-quality article for quite some time, I agree that it's substantial enough to keep. Matt (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep = Much improved. Now verifiable and verified. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. lots of good references. Aubergine (talk) 20:22, 14 March 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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fawlty Language

PROD removed without comment, no notability asserted, only ref is primary. Black Kite 15:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of google hits, but I am unable to find any reliable sources in those search results. Lots of directory entries, blogs, and forum posts though. -- Whpq (talk) 18:44, 6 March 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) 00:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the top hits appear to return either weak advertising for the said article or unacceptable references. Suggest further delving. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I have delved quite deeply. I can't find the sources and have put forth the effort. If somebody can produce such sources, I'll quite happily change my opinion. -- Whpq (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not assert its notability. There are hundreds of compilers/languages out there. You need to show some kind of notability since simply existing is not sufficient given the nature of the field. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I guess I'd have to say Delete, since this article doesn't tell me anything that the line "Fawlty Language (FL) - another IDL clone (closed source, but freely usable)" (which I took from the IDL (programming language) article) doesn't tell me. It's also very hard to find anything on Google about it other than announcements of its release, people asking questions about it on mailing lists, etc. Matt (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a feature list. IDL is a $$$ software and I think users should know about free alternatives. Also, there are two IDL clone articles: FL and GDL. Delete both or keep both. (flwiki) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flwiki (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to keep in my view. This is not a software directory, free or otherwise. Indeed, the fact that it is simply a free alternative to something else makes it less notable in my view since it is not covering new ground. CrispMuncher (talk) 13:31, 13 March 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. Issues are largely cleanup - consensus here is to keep - if you disagree, I suggest going straight to deletion review since I've read this several times already in my evaluation Fritzpoll (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Klein

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}}.

This article fails our policies on verifiability and on biographies of living people because it does not have adequate sourcing. Although there are citations, they don't provide the level of information we require for BLPs. There are articles written by Klein, but none written about Klein. There are discussions of controversies Klein has been involved in, but nothing at all about the man himself. Many of the sources (e.g. the New York Post reference) only mention Klein in passing. Under some circumstances this might all be harmless, but this article has been a continuous battleground and has been used to host BLP-violating attacks on Barack Obama and others. Best to just nuke it. *** Crotalus *** 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ agree with nominator above. (S)he said it perfectly. TharsHammar (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep am going to recommend closing this discussion because it is slowly devolving into a bashing of Klein. TharsHammar (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just another bloviator, whose noteworthiness seems limited to having been thrown out of somebody's office (rather minor, I'd have thought). -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTO concerns also. Hipocrite (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ inadequately referenced, full of non notable information. Mfield (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this was nominated a week ago, this would surely have resulted in a delete. As it is now the guy has managed to cement his notability, even if by doing so he has undermined his credibility as a journalist. Mfield (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the Yeshiva University controversy as well as the later career. As for the later career, there's documentation from the Jerusalem Post [24] ,[25] & UPI, in addition to the incessant publicity from the places he works for.DGG (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both those articles you referenced are behind a paywall. Could you please provide some details as to how they discuss the subject? My cursory reading (including the Jerusalem Post abstract) is that there might be a case for a (marginal) article on Schmoozing With Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans - to a Jew! (which could include a discussion of the JP article from which it apparently derived) - but not enough info for an article on Aaron Klein as a person. *** Crotalus *** 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Weak Keep~~ per DGG, plus recent international publicity, plus a number of book cites. I agree that a lot of cites within the existing article are WP:LARD and it needs improvement. But this isn't a BLP1E. THF (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB that I've changed my !vote; upon further examination, many of the book cites are to Aaron J. Klein, who, confusingly enough, also writes about terrorism. THF (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I have now cleaned out the WP:PUFF mentions of individual appearances on radio shows and added a couple of cites. THF (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, back to a full-fledged Keep with the latest 24 hours of stories, plus an op-ed in The Nation that was about Klein. THF (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While it should be irrelevant to anyone's keep or delete suggestion, note that this deletion nomination is going to be perceived by and covered by the outside world as retaliation against a reporter who criticized Wikipedia. THF (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean an agitator who hoaxed his own Wikipedia entry and staged a phony scandal so he could write an article about it? Perhaps the world should see that we don't take that kind of abuse however... (see "keep" opinion below) Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of that going around. THF (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia controversy should be discussed in the Criticisms of Wikipedia article, not presented as a biography of a non-notable critic. *** Crotalus *** 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"[S]taged a phony scandal" - perhaps, but the same thing happened to me just recently, including on my talk page, and indeed I experienced the reported problem on the reported page many months back; it was so bad that I just quit editing that page -- so when I read Klein's article, I knew he nailed it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable given well-covered notoriety. Any BLP problems are of the subject's own making, and thus, not cognizable under BLP policy. We deal with problems here, rather than deleting them. There is enough encyclopedic material in the article to salvage, even if as a stub, and enough reliable coverage to write a proper article. Further, the lack of known details about the person's personal life is no reason he is not notable. Many articles about journalists, businesspeople, etc., cover only their professional lives. Wikidemon (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "keep to punish the article subject for hating on Wikipedia" has already been rejected with other subjects, such as Daniel Brandt. Secondly, the BLP problems are not limited to Klein - this page and its associated talk page have been used as a platform to launch BLP-violating attacks against Barack Obama. It's just not worth the trouble for a nn-bio. *** Crotalus *** 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My argument goes strictly to notability. BLP problems are dealt with as BLP problems, not by nuking the forum where they occur. If he is truly non notable then his article should be deleted. I don't think he is - plenty of reliable sources report on his professional accomplishments, such as they are.Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by DGG and THF. While the subject might have messed with Wikipedia entries like Barrack Obama, that is not a reason to delete the article of that person if they pass our guidelines. It's almost like editors are trying to "punish" the topic. Deal with the bothersome editor the standard ways like with warnings and blocks, not with an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Additionally, was also profiled and interviewed on Fox News The O'Reilly Factor. [26] --Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. to call the article's subject notable would be a stretch. as a side note, the fact that the article's subject might have written part of his own article, and another article, but then cried to fox news about wikipedia's bias, is just a testament to the fact that the editor in question should not be here. whether such speculation is true or false is irrelevant to this particular article, because the article's subject doesn't appear to be notable. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fascinating. What's your opinion of Dcourtneyjohnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a similarly self-promotional editor who had his autobiography deleted, and then wrote this? Or is it okay to cry to the Huffington Post? THF (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure, it's okay to cry to the huffington post, or fox news, or wherever. it's also equally ok to ban them from wikipedia forever for this exploitative and exponential degree of disruption. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no "stretch" to call someone notable when they're the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources. As a matter of fact, that's the core criteria of both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. The Fox News profile/interview referenced above had nothing to do with Wikipedia but about his journalist work in the Middle East .--Oakshade (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharsHammar (talk • contribs) [reply]

you mean the link to the youtube video[[27]]? i don't think that counts as a secondary source. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source isn't youtube but it's Fox News which is a reliable secondary source. It's linked here to demonstrate he was profiled and interviewed on Fox News. Just because the piece was uploaded to youtube doesn't magically mean the piece doesn't or never existed.--Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An auto-biography that is far from notable even if it were to be cleaned up. I don't see any independent verification that he is a journalist or media personality of any significance whatsoever. Writing for a single fringe publication does not mean you inherit its notability. If it wasn't for the wiki drama this person has stirred up, there would be no question about deleting this. Steven Walling (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being the subject of Fox News, the Jerusalem Post and UPI are indications of notability, even if we may have the opinion he's just some "fringe writer." --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important person because he is a controversial, publicly noted and critical reporter and Wikipedia editor. This means critical as in criticism and critical as in critical thinking. Don't delete people just because you have disagreements with their edits. If Wikipedia continues to censor unpopular views and persons in at the expense of objectivity then it will lose its credibility. 66.91.255.120 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Note: I had an issue recalling my username/login yesterday. This is my comment. Ithkuil (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have been notable for years until this controversy... Hill of Beans (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he's unethical, not non-notable. Much of the puffery has been removed (thanks to THF and others) and more can be done (I favor a good bit of trimming but have not the time to do it.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article now referenced by Wired. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/wikigate-1.html Seasoup^?!? 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.32.130 (talk) [reply]

Being mentioned in a blog is NO reason to keep. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the author of the article one of the Wired writers?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original author of the article on wikipedia is Jerusalem21, who is mentioned in the wired article as an employee of Klein, for more info see this article from gawker [28]. For more info on the history of Klein's socks / meats with this article please see the SPI TharsHammar (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing the writer of the Wikipedia article, but the writer of the "blog" at Wired.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you just joined this discussion I will point out who Aaron Klein is, he is a [World Net Daily] author who wrote an article yesterday about Obama's article on wikipedia being censored [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114] that got picked up by drudge. The wired article was a commentary on Klein's article, and the wired article contains an email from Klein about Jerusalem21, who created the article being discussed here, Aaron Klein. TharsHammar (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I might be confused, so if you are asking about the blog on wired, it was written by Kevin Poulsen a senior editor at Wired News. TharsHammar (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were confused but I think you now get my point. I'm sorry if I was unclear. My point was that if it was written by one of the Wired columnists (now we see that it was), the fact that it is a "blog" should not take away from contributing to Klien's notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is written by Kevin Poulsen, one of Wired's editors. Manys (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable conspiracy theorist/journalist. Merely having your articles published doesn't make you notable. Delete for failing WP:Note and WP:BIO.--Sloane (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and further source, as lack is no reason for deletion if they are available. Not liking a conspiracy theorist is no reason to delete. He passes WP:AUTHOR (Google Books) and WP:BIO (Jewish Press). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also, delete - David Gerard (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to main Worldnetdaily article - I did some searching and found some articles criticizing Klein, but I don't think they're enough to establish notability for him as a person. Instead we could cover that within the context of the WND website. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the idea to merge into WND. WND is, for whatever reason, considered an unreliable source. So the suggestion to move Aaron Klein to the WND page is a clever way to say Aaron Klein is an unreliable source. You can try to prove that, but it should be on his own merits, not by attaching him to WND. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The effort to delete this article appears to me to have more to do with politics/propaganda than with Wikipedia policy adherence. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By coincidence, Klein's story is being discussed THIS MINUTE on WOR 710 AM right now, the Michael Smerconish Show. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable before this Obama situation he orchestrated, moreso because of it. rootology (C)(T) 02:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and subject does not object to the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Not sure if Kos is considered a reliable source or not, but here's an article on him from them: [29]. With added bonus- it refers to the shenanigans he's pulled here. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or not. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per KillerChihuahua. A journalist for a well known publication isn't inherently notable, but the controversies he's been involved in tip the scale to notability. AniMate^talk 03:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIf he wasn't notable before, he certainly is now. Funny, the more some try to suppress information, the more I learn about the discussion than from the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and he seems to be getting increasingly notable, which might make the deletion premature.Manys (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Rename to something along the lines of Aaron Klein Wikipedia controversy, or failing that, just into the main WND article.. This person is not notable on his own, but rather has become (in)famous for this apparently concocted faux controversy. We're in one event territory here, IMO. Tarc (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the "Aaron Klein Wikipedia controversy"? The controversy created by his article? There's not enough for its own article, and besides, if that's the proposal, better it renamed to WorldNetDaily Obama whitewashing allegations controversy.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It helps to read what people actually write, y'know. Above, I said "failing that, just into the main WND article", meaning if this controversy is notable enough to stand on its own, and if it is not, then mention it in the article of the website that this person writes for, which was the source of this retarded mess. Tarc (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not many references. The only thing well referenced is his criticism of wikipedia and if we had an article for all critics... --Muhammad(talk) 04:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strip away the puffery and weak sources, and nothing is left. The blatant conflict of interest doesn't even need to be invoked here, but is icing on the cake. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. WorldNetDaily, The Jewish Press and Ynetnews are borderline notable (but at least 10% of all websites is more notable). To have articles accepted by them, isn't worth a lot more than having an edit at wikipedia which isn't immediately reverted as vandalism. Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Just because you're a conservative, and claim to be railroaded by the liberal "drive by" MSM call it what you will doesn't mean you're notable. If all it takes to be notable is to be thrown out of a politicians office and making controversial edits on wikipedia, give me a half hour and I'll be back, and we can make a page for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.189.4 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per KillerChihuahua. Subject seems like a bad person yes; and part of his notability is certainly his destructive efforts against Wikipedia. But as much as I don't like him, Klein seems to have received at least enough media attention (and written enough articles) to merit an article. LotLE×talk 17:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete selfpromoting puffery by a conservative nonentity. Rd232 ^talk 17:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While perhaps not an entirely unwarranted expression of opinion, let's please try to restrain ourselves to the highest standards of civil discourse in this matter. henrik•talk 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sources are pretty good. He is "the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources" and they are reliable, in particular The Jewish Daily, which is independent and professionally written and edited. I despise Fox News, but they have legitimated lots of idiots. My only concern is that we don't want to publicize a flat-earther. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Meets WP:BIO. That's what matters. DGG and others have provided more than enough sourcing. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability. X MarX the Spot (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete after much thought. There are no articles about him, any temporary interest in him seems to be his little wikipedia stunt (which has not achieved wide interest) and in the end he's just a columnist for for a fringe publication.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to his role as reporter and commentator, he has been involved in various notable controversies, and his book is noted in mainstream news coverage such as from the Boston Globe here [30], the New York Post "MIDDLE East terrorist leaders are dishing American celebrities. A book, published by WND Books, out Sept. 11, has the longest title in captivity: "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans - to a Jew!" Our sworn enemies tell Mideast-based, 20-something U.S. journalist Aaron Klein who they'd like in the White House, kvetch over showbiz types like Madonna, Britney, Spielberg, Mel Gibson, bigmouths Jane Fonda and Sean Penn and conservative talkers Limbaugh and Hannity, plus Richard Gere, who did a commercial urging Palestinians to vote. Well, they did. And elected Hamas." [31], Jerusalem's National Post "Aaron Klein, an American journalist who now lives in Israel, last year released a fascinating book, Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans -- To a Jew!. In it, he recounts how in hundreds of hours of interviews with dozens of terrorists their declared hatred of the West was nearly as great as their hatred of Israel. They were not motivated by poverty or political oppression as much as by faith and ideology, and nearly all spoke of establishing a worldwide caliphate once they had dispatched the Jewish state. They were especially enraged by our equal treatment of women and our tolerance of gays and lesbians." [32]. That's just a sampling of the citations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of those three links are actual reviews of the book, they are mentioned in passing within larger stories of other events. The NY Post one is bizarre though, in that this appears as a blurb amongst gossip about Desperate Housewives and Conan O'Brien. So no, I don't believe any of that passes WP:CREATIVE. There may be a case for the novel itself according to WP:BK, but it'd be a bit tenuous. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The origins of this article are suspicious see [33]. The creator's username contains the name of the subject's home base, and the subject wrote an article in regards to the edits of the creator[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114]. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While there's no contention with the dubious original versions of this article (it's been very publicly vetted), that does not negate the fact this person passes the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. Besides, the current version has generally been written by established Wikipedia editors rendering the "origins" argument moot.--Oakshade (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total self-promotion. Just because this article existed a few months ago doesn't mean it needs to stay. It was written under dubious terms, and now it's only under such scrutiny because of something he did himself. I don't really get the feeling of any true notability here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing added. Who cares how the article got here, it's now sourced so the rest remains regular editing. -- Banjeboi 13:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our judgemnt should not be influenced by the recent contreversy. Dy yol (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is well enough established. Since when do we delete articles about people who criticise Wikipedia? That would be censorship. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 07:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We've deleted them from the start, if the people are insufficiently notable. (One such was this fellow.) If I criticized Wikipedia, and my criticism were taken up in the blogosphere and so on, that wouldn't entitle me to an article, just as my praise of Wikipedia wouldn't entitle me to an article. If Richard Dawkins criticized (or praised) Wikipedia, he'd get an article -- uh, no, he's already got one, on the strength of actual achievements and/or of more than "fifteen minutes" of fame. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he's more notable for other things than his Wikipedia criticism. The latter is just the reason for all this bias. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 10:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seem to presuppose a bias. OK, I'll admit to having a bias: I'm biased against write-ups of self-promoters who have achieved very little. (For all I care, they can ridicule Wikipedia, they can suck up to it, or, like the huge majority of people worth an article, they can ignore it.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have a bias too, a bias against this person. But he still passes our notability guidelines and we need to remain consistent with our standards of deleting articles. Otherwise we are only helping prove criticism of Wikipedia correct.--Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by his mention in third party media sources. Dream Focus 13:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sourcing and notability demonstrated. -- Banjeboi 17:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies, I accidental double !voted. -- Banjeboi 09:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable partisan hack. --WatchingWhales (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the NY Times, Telegraph and CBS, notability is adequately demonstrated. Additionally, most of the newer delete votes are either WP:IDONTLIKEHIM and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, which have never been valid reasons to delete. Most of the older delete votes were posted before the sourcing was added. McJeff (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Sirius Mystery. MBisanz ^talk 09:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sirians

I believe this article does not warrant inclusion. The one reference given is not a reliable source in my opinion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand to include a clearer discussion of the sources that refute this so-called theory. At least five references were supplied when I looked.—I'm not thrilled with the inclusion of this piece of fringe science, either, but I believe I have to concede that while this is nonsense, it's notable nonsense. My memory says Carl Sagan even discussed it in Broca's Brain. I was tempted to suggest a merge with Dogon people but I don't believe this has a place in what should be a serious anthropological article, so all I'm left with is "keep".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose a possible redirect target would be The Sirius Mystery but that article doesn't and probably shouldn't go into such detail on the alleged Sirians.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is quite sufficient support for The Sirius mystery, but this rests on Temple's book, and the comment arising from it. The article does not directly cite the book, and I'm not sure why. I think there's enough comment for this to be notable nonsense.DGG (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect without loss of data to The Sirius Mystery. The "reliability" of the sources is not really properly contestable in articles of this nature; the real issue with "reliability" would be whether the sources reliably report on what this branch of the folk religion or folklore of UFO believers actually believes about Sirians, and I don't think that's the kind of reliability that this is supposed to lack. Whether any of this is true or just a fantastic belief is beyond our jurisdiction to determine. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Sirius Mystery; if it can be demonstrated that the Sirians are notable independently from Temple's book, then there can be a separate article, but it needs to be based on coverage by secondary sources, rather than being written in an in-universe style. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. And rewrite to read like an encyclopedia rather than a fanzine ("The Sirians are amphibians: they can breathe either air or water"). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is a topic for which a unique article is completely unnecessary. I would usually go merge, but, honestly, what is there to merge? Unsourced statements in the vein of "The Sirians are amphibians: they can breathe either air or water"? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic is covered well in The Sirius Mystery. I can't see any content worth merging. ClovisPt (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is certainly no reason for keeping this as a separate article, as The Sirius Mystery is a more appropriate place. Alternatively merge, but as Hexagon1 said above, "what is there to merge"? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Against Merge This article has definately established notability and passes WP:GNG. This article is also academic in nature and therefore encyclopedic. If anything The Sirius Mystery should be merged in to Sirians as the book was actually written about them. Valoem ^talk 13:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis article is anything but academic and anything relevant can be in The Sirius Mystery, a book which is not about 'Sirians' as a casual glance at our article or any review or summary of the book will show. dougweller (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GodivaCake (talk · contribs) removed the AfD template with an edit summary saying the issue is resolved. I've replaced it. dougweller (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looking at the contributions of GodivaCake (talk · contribs) and Tiramisoo (talk · contribs), the creator of this article, it's possible that they are not the same person, but not likely. dougweller (talk) 07:38, 15 March 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. The delete "votes" are rather weak, so I feel the editors in favor of keeping the article made a stronger case. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elora Danan (band)

Lacks notability. No mention of awards, no mention of charted singles or albums. Rtphokie (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This is dangerously close to filling WP:BAND point 5. They seem to have 2 albums under a notable label. OlYeller^Talktome 19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having looked at Boomtown Records, with a total of 31 releases in its history, I certainly wouldn't call it "a major label or one of the more important indie labels" as mandated by the guideline. Motown it ain't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment for what it's worth Boomtown Records is being discussed for deletion as well.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, third-party media coverage here, here and here. Meets criteia #1 of WP:BAND easily, and as I was able to find these in about thirty seconds using Google, I do wonder how much looking for sources the above !voters actually did. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep minor but notable band - Boomtown Records is a notable independent record label. Dan arndt (talk) 23:27, 14 March 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 rename. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs)

Amaranth Games

AfDs for this article:

CSD and prod tags have been removed by a primary editor of the article, taking it to AFD to get a consensus... There is a single reliable reference, to a state website showing that that paperwork was filed for incorporation of the company. Of the remaining 31 references. 8 are from primary sources (the company website), 5 are broken links and the remainder are unreliable sources such as blogs, message boards and one to a company selling music from the games.

There is a single english and a single Chinese Google News hit on the company name. This article just doesn't seem to pass the WP:N test of significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Rtphokie (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. Besides, a game company with no notable games can't possibly be notable in itself. Also has a slightly spammy / promotional tone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split Notable Games out then Delete - Secondary Sources mentioning the company either make only trivial mentions or interview the owner directly, not enough to satisfy WP:V nor WP:CORP. However, some of the games (Aveyond and Aveyond2 from a cursory search, possibly more) listed in the article actually do have enough third-party coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG through sources in scope with WikiProject VideoGames and warrant their own articles (currently all redirected to Amaranth Games). Suggest splitting games passing the GNG out under WP:PRESERVE before deleting the nom article. MLauba (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add Comment: To put money where my mouth is, I'm willing to take the article in my user space for the purpose of splitting out the games that can be salvaged if a consensus to this effect is being reached. MLauba (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Aveyond series and keep As Winston Churchill once said "excessive merging farts in the mouth of progress". Amaranth Games = Amanda Fitch. Amanda Fitch is known for the Aveyond series, the almost-but-not-quite notable time management games here are just muddying the waters, neither they nor the entity Amanrath Games need an article. The original Aveyond has reviews on Ace Gamez (8 year old review site where submissions go through the editor), Grrl Gamer (10 year old site specializing in women gamers' points of view), Gamezebo (a good reliable site anyway, but also by Marc Saltzman) and Game Chronicles (13 years young). Aveyond 2 has its own Gamezebo review (Erin Bell) and was a runner up in Game Tunnel's indie RPG of the year 2007 awards with some useful reception info. Aveyond 3 is due in May. Has scads more potential than this mish-mash. Someoneanother 14:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded & Proposal I went ahead and did just that, would appreciate input on This sandbox construction as the new article. MLauba (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Ahriman's Prophecy has a short review on Download.com and a larger review on Game Tunnel. Game Tunnel is a well-established indie game site, which covered these things long before most sites even bothered, and all the content goes through founder Russell Carroll. Carroll is a game director for Reflexive Entertainment, not some random schmoe, his experience in both developing and reporting on games in this area isn't to be sniffed at. I'd suggest merging all the release dates etc. into one infobox if the article is to remain a combination of all the games. Someoneanother 15:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Addressed the infoboxes issue. The GameTunnel Review is already in there, regarding the download.com one I'm more skeptical about it's viability as an RS (no mentions on the reliable sources noticeboard archives that I could find). Any more input? And do of course not hesitate to tamper with the sandbox if you can. MLauba (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's part of CNET Networks which was recently merged into CBS Interactive, and stable mates with GameSpot. Download.com's reviews are infrequent and never exhaustive, which is probably why nobody's falling over themselves to have them listed as RSs. The editor's opinion ultimately tracks back to CBS so I can't see a problem in using it as a source in this capacity. Someone another 16:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi, this is Amanda, owner of Amaranth Games, LLC. I'm not familiar with how to add something, so hopefully I'm doing this right... I have several dedicated fans who put up this page on Wikipedia and they've recently alerted me that someone is trying to have it removed. I'm not sure if it matters, but no one from my company has ever added anything to this article. It is completely maintained by fans. I'm not quite sure how the rules work here, but if you need reliable sources for anything, please list them and I'll find them for you. Our games have won several casual games awards and have been listed in several magazine articles. Our games have been number one, and top-ten hits on most casual game portals. I don't do as many interviews these days, which may be why a number of articles are old. I'm not sure where all of these references for deletion are... I'll look for them. My company has been an LLC for two years now. -Amanda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astarah (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The way things stand now, the article for Amaranth Games is being challenged because there are not enough reliable, independent 3rd party sources who have written, substantially, about Amaranth. When Wikipedia talks about "notability", it really means that a subject has been noted and commented upon sufficiently to help write and maintain a neutral and verifiable article here. At present, and from what sources could be found, Amaranth Games LLC doesn't pass this hurdle but several of your games do. If you do have additional articles or references for Amaranth Games itself, please post them here. If you have additional sources for Gaea Fallen, Grimm's Hatchery or Yummy Drink Factory, please post them to my talk page instead. Thanks. MLauba (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~If the article is kept, it's got to have some better references. The sandbox link above is a better article but it is still relies to heavily on blogs for references.~~ Kudos to {{User:Astarah}} offering assistance instead of getting into COI issues.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page needs cleanup in a bad way but there is info about the company on IGN, games are available for purchase from Amazon, and games have been featured at the IGF. Kagetto (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Aveyond series and keep this is a good proposal. Judging from WP:VG/S the references there are actually reliable despite appearances and may be as good as we can get on this subject.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Aveyond series and cleanup Games do seem to have some notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:22, 11 March 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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fenton

Had PRODded and a user improved it somewhat and removed the prod however the linked reference proves an album existed but no evidence that it or anything else by the artist charted. So not sure he passes WP:MUSIC. Doesn't seem to be an appropriate merge to the band since he was only with them briefly. Thoughts? StarM 12:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 12:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete claim to notability is a very brief (5 month) stint playing with Siouxsie & the Banshees before they were a notable band. While that's kind of cool, it isn't enough to pass WP:MUSIC. At best he might be a plausible redirect to the band's page, but since he's just a footnote in their long careeer even that might be too generous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OlYeller^Talktome 19:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siouxsie & the Banshees. Redirects are cheap Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficiently notable on his own. Appears to have done nothing of note past the Banshees. JamesBurns (talk) 09:59, 11 March 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: Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Non-administrator closure. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuessner effect

This should be a scientific/engineering term. However, searching for "Kuessner effect" gives no hits in Google Books, and only one hit in Google Scholar. While for an eponymous term one expects a significant coverage in the scientific literature. So: not notable, in my opinion Crowsnest (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I am not an IEEE member the following appears relevant: "Nonlinear output feedback control of underwater vehicle propellers ...Kuessner effect (gust). In this paper, we are considering a deeply submerged vessel ... Kuessner effect, which is caused by a propeller in gust, will ap- ... ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/48/18135/00838987.pdf?arnumber=838987 " [34] refers to "Kuessner effect", and so on. Books relating to Naval Architecture and related fields are mainly classified, by the way. Collect (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is relevant, but it is only one. For an eponymous term to be notable, one expects more than just one article using this phrase. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, filtering out the start of Kuessner effect: "In Marine Dynamics, the Kuessner effect is an unlinear effect" as well as references to wikipedia copies, gives this Google Web search result. Only three hits, of which two are still copies of the wikipedia article. The remaining one is the IEEE paper you mentioned. -- Crowsnest (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what to do with your remark regarding classified material. Inclusion in Wikipedia requires verifiability, while classified material is in general not verifiable. -- Crowsnest (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable eponymous term. Doesn’t matter the single paper which mentions this phrase is an IEEE article. I would have !voted as keep had there been at least a couple of papers that uses this phrase. Salih (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the findings of Edcolins. Salih (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. THF (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Abstain. THF (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for this term using Credo Reference (250+ reference works in full-text) turns up nothing. Credo will find main entries (definitions) as well as passing mentions inside an entry. Even a search of "Kuessner" by itself results in zero hits. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in deference to further research, justification, and bolstering of the case to keep by my betters! I should have done some research using variant transcription of Kuessner to Kussner (Küssner). Meh. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the effect is described under a different name. Nonlinear instabilities are important to fluid dynamics. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Special character kudos to Edcolins. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep ~~per nom~~sufficient citations added by Edcolins. OlYeller^Talktome 19:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Typo/variant spelling of "Küssner effect" (also see "Kussner effect"), [35] (pdf page 3, 1956 NACA technical note), [36] (September 2008 paper), [37] (pdf page 13, referring to three pages of this 1971 NATO manual). The Küssner effect seems to be somewhat linked to the Küssner function, which returns 200 Ghits, see for instance [38]. More library research might reveal other interesting sources. Seems very technical but notable enough to keep.--Edcolins (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further note (useful when checking notability): "U-umlaut is frequently replaced with the two-letter combination "ue"" (source: Ü). --Edcolins (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding this one [39], this makes five sources spanning more than six decades. --Edcolins (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a {{resuce}} tag to the article in light of these references. OlYeller^Talktome 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Excellent work, Edcolins! What remains is to incorporate these references and a proper description of the effect into the article (as well as move to the correct name). -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added these references to the article, and rephrased the stub article. -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add some extra template boxes.--Sloane (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per terrific work done by Edcolins and Crowsnest. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:55, 11 March 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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet(Grand Theft Auto)

Merge or delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT, into Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Also nominating Cheetah (Grand Theft Auto), San Andreas construction series, Xoomer and T.U.M.E. Construction cf38^talk 11:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All: Looks like WP:Fancruft to me. Nothing notable about any of these subjects to justify having an article. This information can never be verified from reliable independent third party sources anyway. If it can, though, the necessary information could be merged into San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto). Chamal ^talk 13:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - After all WP:GAMEGUIDE. And all this stuff looks like it would be in a game guide. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge Bullet and Cheetah, Strong Delete Construction - Merge the cars into Grand Theft Auto (series), not opposed to full delete though, per WP:GAMEGUIDE. MLauba (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - no standalone notability. Rlendog (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MergeIt more useful as a section in GTA article.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
Delete the article is filled with POV and the only remaining info after that is game guide material. (I'm not opposed to well-sourced factual coverage of such cars in a list). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:GAMECRUFT. I'm sure these are already well covered in various game-specific wikis. Marasmusine (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per Marasmusine --Numyht (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fancruft. The war on cruft never ends.--Sloane (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:GAMECRUFT. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frasier's Curse

AfDs for this article:

Since the last AfD from two months ago ended in a no consensus, common sense tells me I should not do anything with this abandoned article without seeking input from AfD again. The article is still unencyclopedic (WP:NOT#PLOT), still non-notable (WP:N), and Frasier (season 6) already has a non-copied plot summary of equal depth so that nothing needs to be merged per the GFDL. No good reason left to keep this article and/or its page history, so Delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Toss the salad and scramble the eggs on this one. Looks like the last discussion ended up in a long argument and observations that people shouldn't utter the "m-word" in an AfD discussion. If anybody cared enough to mention it in the article about Season 6, they would have done so already, I'm sure. There's no indication that this episode was considered independently notable (and no, an episode guide with the words "New York Times" in the title doesn't mean that this was printed in the Times). Though some episodes of a TV show are memorable, such as "Who Shot J.R.?", the notability of a TV series doesn't mean that notability rubs off on every single episode of the series. This is a holdover from Wikipedia's TV guide days. There is a [40] for anyone interested in writing it up there. Mandsford (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why aren't comments like this forthcoming in disputes over porn star articles puffed full of awards nominations that aren't really notable? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsfor's points. OlYeller^Talktome 19:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I wrote at the previous AFD, you did use several exact phrases from the original article in the season article: "his divorce with Lilith and being left at the altar by Diane"; "not keen to go"; "unemployed, single and living with his father"; "a catastrophic job interview at another radio station on the same day"; "is very cross"; "walking outside the supermarket in shabby clothes pushing a shopping trolley", etc. There is some superficial paraphrasing, but it's clear that the text in the season article is not wholly original. Thus, we at least need to keep this article's page history. (And why not? "Frasier's Curse" is at least useful as a search term, no?) Zagalejo^^^ 05:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To what level does wikipedia/GFDL need to attribute information? Whole paragraphs or sentences - that is reasonable and common practise. Descriptive run-of-the-mill phrases of a few words - by that measure, wikipedia already and irreparably consists of unattributed non-original information entirely (not to mention that plot summaries have a certain copyright anyway no matter what the wording). "Frasier's Curse" can serve as a search term through e.g. delete & redirect !votes as well as just redirect. But I can't single-handledly redirect this article without being accused of intentionally flying in the face of the previous AfD (seen this, done that). – sgeureka ^t•c 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know what the cut-off point is for attributing information, but I think your text in the season article is close enough that we should play on the safe side. Some of those phrases are fairly long, and most could be worded differently with minimal effort. Zagalejo^^^ 18:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far too soon to reopen an AFD. I think that reopening the whole episodes dispute is a gigantic waste of time. There is certainly enough information available to write short, decent articles -- adding verifiable third-party information like ratings (published weekly going back years and years in USA today, and daily for quite a few years in the NY Times), DVD availability, etc rather than interminable in-universe stuff. The articles on lesser-known professional athletes would be good models. The necessary information is out there -- but it's mostly print-based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable episode sufficiently covered on season 6 article. JamesBurns (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close this blatant attempt at forum shopping. Nominator claims that "I can't single-handledly redirect this article without being accused of intentionally flying in the face of the previous AfD (seen this, done that)", but this is not true, a "no consensus" AfD has never been a mandate against redirecting or merging. Nominator has made no attempt either to boldly redirect this article or even discuss redirection, despite having no compunction against boldly redirecting episodes from the previous four seasons. None of those articles needed to be deleted, and neither does this one. Nominator has completely ignored the advice of WP:BEFORE ("Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD"), WP:EPISODE ("Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research"), and the previous closer's rationale ("Consensus is that AfD is not for merge discussions and that this content is appropriate on Wikipedia in some form"). Nominator is also entirely ignoring opposition to his previous actions here. I'm not opposed to merging and redirecting, but I am opposed to abusing the AfD process like this, when deletion is entirely unnecessary. DHowell (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank God that the official merger discussion (linked from the merge proposal template) is at Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes then, where no opposition (or any input) has been forthcoming for three months now. (But this article doesn't need to be merged, so it may as well be deleted, and AfD is the only forum to get that accomplished.) After the joys of this, this and this where a group of people put incredible amounts of time to use bold mergers against me, believe me when I say that I know when to risk feeding their bad-faith accusations for my long-term harm, and when I shouldn't (like here). Can editors of this AfD now please judge the article on its merrits, or will this seemingly unfixable, nonnotable, unencyclopedic article have to undergo a third AfD to get deleted (or at least redirected)? – sgeureka ^t•c 09:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can find someone to confirm that the page history can be deleted without violating the GFDL, then I'd be willing to vote delete, just to end this. Zagalejo^^^ 18:41, 13 March 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 a7, website with no assertion of notability, hasn't even aired yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justine, Shannon and Kate Show

Non-notable YouTube show, fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL CultureDrone (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the very definition of non-notable web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A search on YouTube for "Justine, Shannon and Kate Show" got no hits. LittleOldMe (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. non notable.--Dmol (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NF or WP:WEB. Speedy may apply under A7 for webcontent, but I'm not sure so I think AfD is correct. We could definitely call for a speedy deletion on grounds of WP:IAR and WP:SNOW, though. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't think any of the speedies were valid for this, hence the AfD. CultureDrone (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7, Unremarkable Website, which includes web content. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:57, 10 March 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 per CSD:A1 R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Padres Radio Network

Originally speedily deleted via "A1: No context. Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article.", for some reason has been restored. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RADIO and WP:V cf38^talk 11:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1, no information, no context. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, it's still a clear cut A1 candidate, and I have tagged it as such. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I have read the article but still, I can't understand it. Alexius08 (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:CSD#A1. Whoever restored it needs to be asked, "Why?" DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nine Lives of Romeo Crumb

Prod contested on the grounds that this book series is notable. Unfortunately, I am unable to find independent sources that go beyond "where to buy it." The author is a redlink. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, appears to be self-published (or at least from a publisher that doesn't seem to have published anything else) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NB. All I can find is stuff about where to find it. Interestingly, the book series gets some 3,000 GHits, while the publisher gets a few hundred - not in itself enough to establish lack of notability, but indicates a vanity press to me. Plenty of online-bookstores have a "award-winning book" in their description of this, but I am completely unable to find any information on what award this book is supposed to have won. Complete lack of notability, it seems, and incidentally, if books could be speedied, we could have called that on the article since there's no description of why this book is notable - it's just a lengthy plot summary and nothing else. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep. Weighing in from library land, OCLC's WorldCat indicates that this has gone through 6 editions and is owned by at least ~~280~~ 260 public libraries. This might have some elements of self-publishing, but, if so, appears to have broken through the notability barrier. The article does need work. I'll go there and put in the OCLC and ISBN numbers so readers can click on them to find owning libraries. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've seen this kind of activity before and suspect what we have is a new and very young wikipedian (a fan of the book series). I counsel nurturning. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Good Dog for my previous experience in something like this. The first book in the series was reviewed in School Library Journal, Jan. 2005, Vol. 51, Issue 1. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up. Heres the link to the OCLC WorldCat Record for Series. Once retrieved, click on the "edition" link and/or the "Libraries" tab (down the page) for the information cited above. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stating that 280 libraries own it doesn't imply notability. Having an ISBN doesn't imply notability either. Neither of Quartermaster's points fall into WP:Book's 5 points to prove notability. While it is just a guideline, I still see no reason while this book is notable.OlYeller^Talktome 19:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - To clarify about the 280 library point, the ALA estimates that there are about 123,129 libraries in the US alone. At what point does a book become notable? When it's in 500 libraries. When it's in 50% of the libraries in the world? There's no way to quantify notability by the number of libraries that a book is in. OlYeller::^Talktome 19:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that I never stated nor implied that having an OCLC number or ISBN supports notability (they do not in the slightest). The point was to create links here, and in the article, in order to a) give information to y'all to weigh for yourselves the library holding information, and b) give readers of the article the ability to locate the book in their nearest library (not a store) should they be so interested. I regularly add that information in book info-boxes for just those reasons. Notability is an independent argument which can be bolstered by that information. The number of owning libraries, I feel, is useful information in determining notability one way or the other. I still hold that seeing that 260 libraries (the correct number) own books in this series is a pretty hefty factor in determining notability. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for thinking that. It was the only point in your "Definite Keep" comment so I assumed that was your reasoning for the keep nomination. OlYeller^Talktome 19:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be about 1500 public library system regularly using worldcat--which accounts, btw, for many times that number of libraries--cataloging & listing there is usually centralized. Very few school libraries except some large systems use it--it costs money. The number WorldCat gives is 10,000 library systems, but they are most of them not regular users. A great many libraries don't even catalog popular fiction--very few public libraries do if they buy it in paperback.. The ALA count includes everything possible, branch or otherwise. The way to go is to compare with other popular childrens books. For a simple example at the very high end, Charlottes Web, which is certainly in every relevant library, gives about 4000. Brown Girl, Brownstones, a famous prize winning but older book gives 1200. DGG (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, for current children's fiction that have been out a year or so, I use a cutoff of around 400 or so, depending on the exact genre & whether adults consider it important. this book is by that standard borderline. But that is not the only factor--reviews are even more important.

I think you've missed my point completely. Wikipedia doesn't use numerical hits to prove notability. Please don't take offense to this but your cutoff doesn't really matter. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines matter. OlYeller^Talktome 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understood your point. I disagree with it. Notability is not just popularity, because even unpopular things can be notable. But widespread diffusion of media is certainly one of the factors--as with recordings, as with software. Would I say sufficient popularity within a genre is justification for an article?--Yes, if there is also material to meet WP:V. We use analogous cutoffs for academic books (though of course the expected numbers are lower for most fields) The reason for not putting specific numbers in guidelines is that the value that matters will depend on exact genre, language, etc. Myself, I like numbers as a starting point, though, as I said, not the definitive factor by itself. You may prefer not to use numerical criteria, but that's your prerogative. A completely different field where numbers have proven here useful as a starting pt is shopping center , (1 million sq ft)-- but again, just a starting pt. DGG (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also understand OlYeller^Talktome 's point, and also disagree. Citing ALL libraries doesn't make sense since the target audience would be school libraries and public libraries. The former (of which there are thousands) are non-existent in WorldCat, and the latter often have multiple copies throughout a larger system. My professional experience tells me that if as few as 30 or 40 libraries, geographically distributed, own this series then that is notable enough for me (independent of Wiki policies and guidelines which I never see as binding law in any case). Hey, this isn't a great article and it DOES need work, but I see it as an honest attempt by a new wikipedian to create a reasonable encyclopedic entry about the subject. I prefer (and counsel) to err on the side of inclusion in these cases. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if additional reviews beyond SLJ can be found. Otherwise merge into the article for the author or for his more general seriesDGG (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have not been able to find anything other than the single SLJ review for any books in the series. I think additional reviews would make for an easier Keep, but they're just not there. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:33, 11 March 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. Nomination concerns have been addressed. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EMCF

Disambiguation page containing nothing but redlinks. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete disambig page with no articles to disambig to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disambig page with no articles to disambig to, too. All of their respective "What links here" are empty. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as these articles may well develop into bluelinks. The fact that no articles link to them is not the only indicator. I did a search of the three, and got these [41], [42], and [43]. The first yields five articles where a bluelink could be inserted, the second yields at least one (didn't go through all the results), and the third gives nothing. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now contains nothing but bluelinks. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:41, 10 March 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 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public Liability (band)

I deleted this article before but it now claims national airplay on Triple J, which led me to decline A7. Although I searched everywhere I could think of, I could not find any sources that this band meets WP:MUSIC. So Why 10:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while not being the most easiest of terms to search under, I still couldn't find any WP:RS to back up any of the claims. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Triple J Unearthed website is surely a reliable source of the claim to radio airplay (This is Reference 2 on the Public Liability page). If you hover the arrow cursor over the symbol next to 'listen to Damage' it will tell you "Played on triple j". Alex gawly (talk)
Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua L. Dratel

WP:BIO notability is WP:NOTINHERITED -- and he never even actually got around to representing his ostensible Gitmo client, who pled guilty. Two primary sources, and one SMH source that doesn't even mention him by name. Article is redundant with David Hicks. THF (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable lawyer. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 22:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Dratel is the author of two signicant books. Geo Swan (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. He is the co-editor of two books of marginal notability where he compiles primary documents. THF (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The nomination asserts that Dratel "never got around to defending his client" -- sorry, but that is a highly inflammatory way of describing Dratel's role. The Commissions are new, untried, unprecedented, and according to the many accounts of insiders chaotically run. The Prosecution has been repeatedly split by discord, with over half a dozen lawyers resigning over ethical concerns. It is very misleading to claim he "never got around" to defending Hicks. Dratel had flown to Guantanamo, time consuming, and expensive, for Hicks big day. Before Hicks trial began the Presiding Officer introduced sudden procedural impediments to the lawyers Hicks had been working with for years participating in his trial. Dratel described how he came to be barred. "Never got around" is a very misleading description. The nomination notes that Hicks plead guilty. Yes, he pled guilty -- almost immediately after learning his Defense team had been shattered by the Presiding Officers sudden procedural impediments. I suggest the circumstances under which Dratel was barred from participation are as remarkable as his actual participation would have been if the Commission had proceeded. Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#CHAT, and you just gave a very good reason to expand the Hicks article. But it doesn't make Dratel notable just because he took a plane flight and refused to sign paperwork. THF (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As is the case with most of these articles, he's not notable. WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. Simply representing a detainee does not provide an attorney is "notable" enough to merit an entire article. Scrap this article, and use some of the language to expand the Hicks article. I think this is the right move.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The individual is not independently notable, and the fact that the subject's alleged notability comes as the result of representing a detainee(s) is freely admitted. It is obvious the subject's "notability" is inherited from his clients' notability as detainees. The excuse is to, unwisely, use Clarence Darrow as an example. Ignored is the fact that Darrow's notability arose as the result of later coverage, when he was the subject of movies, and the fact he wrote four books. Darrow's notability arises not from his work, but from the later coverage he received in print and film. Note that these features are missing regarding the subject of this AFD discussion. Examples of an attorney rising to the level of notable include being chosen as a member of the judiciary, heading legal organizations, and significant legal scholarship published by reputable publishers. The subject's role in representing his clients are not independently noteworthy. An attorney's role as advocate for his client, as further required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, dictates that he zealously represent his client's interests, doing so is expected (and further required), but it does not impart notability. Further, an attorney's efforts towards his client, when he stands in the shoes of the client as his counselor at law in a tribunal, are ascribed to the client, not the attorney independently. For this reason, motions are brought in the name of the client, through his counsel, not in the name of the attorney alone. In closing, I have seen no argument that makes the case the subject is in fact "notable" as required under Wikipedia's guidelines, notwithstanding the patently uncivil personal attack I see in the above-post. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:17, 15 March 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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dorsey

WP:BIO notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. One primary source, two sources that mention him in passing in the context of his client, each with the same quote. Everything else is sketchy resume details and an attempt to WP:PUFF his one quote ("Dorsey commented on a letter") into notability. THF (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable lawyer. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per prior points as subject is simply not notable.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 22:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:40, 13 March 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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey J. Davis

WP:BLP1E; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. One primary reference; four references in passing in the context of his client. Mentioned once in the article of his client Mani Al-Utaybi, whom he apparently never met, or filed a valid court document on behalf of. THF (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject fails notability requirements.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E applies; all relevant data is already in Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi Al-Utaybi#Legal representation so there is nothing to merge, and deletion is the right answer. GRBerry 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never nominated a Guantanamo detainee for deletion. I've reviewed 30 or so Guantanamo attorney articles, and nominated about half of them for deletion. No one claims Darrow is notable because he represented Snopes; he's notable because he has multiple books written about him, and was the leading lawyer of his day. When Mr. Davis has a tenth of that level of notability, no one will contest him getting a Wikipedia article. You've cut and paste the same accusation of bad faith in multiple AFDs, which hardly suggests that you are performing your own good-faith evaluation. THF (talk) 17:53, 13 March 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) 16:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones (radio host)

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}}.

AfDs for this article:

Unnotable conspiracy theorist. While people have made attempts in his wiki page to make him look notable, when you check the sources used, they just mention him as someone involved in whatever conspiracy theory they are writing about, Jones is never or rarely the subject of an article himself, unless it's on some vanity press or local non reliable rag. All of his works are self published, apart from the radio show which is only available on the internet, or a couple of low power Christian shortwave stations and maybe a small local station or two, thats no better than self published in my opinion. I think it's time this page was removed, or perhaps as an alternative, just merged into some other article on 9/11 conspiracy theories or the like. Jones himself is not notable, he is at best a sideline in some other story. Please read the sources linked to on his page, and you will see what I mean. In the internet echo chamber he appears almost notable, due to a few active meatpuppets who he calls upon to spread his word (ie spam), but in the real world, he just really isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BimboBaggins (talk • contribs) — BimboBaggins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Heh, "Bimbo Baggins" really. Anyways, I'll bite. This looks like a low class WP:BLP1E otherwise not notable and should be cast out from the bowels of Wikipedia as soon as possible. JBsupreme (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not one-event notable. In addition to 9/11 conspiracy nonsense, he's also received reliable coverage for leading the construction of the current Branch Davidian church, ranting about the Bohemian Club, and opposing Arnold Schwarzenegger's political campaigns. WillOakland (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, almost speedy keep. At first glance I thought this nomination was a hoax. Sources in the article include major newspapers, such as the Washington Post, as well as BBC News. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: This book also refers to Jones as one of the "most prominent" conspiracy-related radio hosts, along with the likes of Art Bell. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hah, come on... Art Bell had over 10 million listeners and was on hundreds of stations at his peak, Jones can't even be compared. BimboBaggins (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe so, but it's a WP:RS, not I, that is making the comparison. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that reliable coverage of Jones is much less than you'd expect from his blog influence, but it's enough to keep the article.[44] WillOakland (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I reviewed a number of pages of results from your search, there were only a few results that actually dealt with the same Alex Jones, and apart from a couple of side mentions in some reasonable media, the vast bulk are from such notable news organisations as "thespoof.com" and "Bizjournals.com" BimboBaggins (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you (and others) to look through a few pages. Unfortunately many of the articles are not free, but the title and snippet can give some idea of Jones's role in the story. It's not my fault that Jones's parents gave him a common name, or that Google News processes comments along with the stories. WillOakland (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable media personality and fringe-theory promoter. I notice that his article doesn't (yet) cite Secret Rulers of the World and its accompanying book, Them: Adventures with Extremists as sources; they played a major role in bringing Jones to public attention here in the UK. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As has been said, while there may not be as many RS's as one would think, there are quite a few that tak about subject, more than enough to justify the article. Found thisand this after just a little searching. Personally, I think this deletion discussion is some sort of conspiracy... :) Vulture19 (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup - While the nominator is correct that some of the sources seem to be completely wrong or to web pages that don't exists (see ref #3), I did my own fact checking and found that he is syndicated nationally which proves notability. The references need cleaned up but that's all I could find with a quick look. OlYeller^Talktome 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep - the nominator has a point about the internet echo chamber, and the encyclopedia suffers for it. However, Jones gets more than passing mention in, for example, Fenster, Mark (2008). Conspiracy Theories. ISBN 9780816654932., Barkun, Michael (2006). A Culture of Conspiracy. ISBN 9780520248120., and the aptly named Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008). Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies. ISBN 9780470184080.. These are the kinds of sources that should be used for our articles, so we avoid the too common unmaintainable mess of self-promotion, original synthesis, and BLP violations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have all of these sources, why is your keep !vote a "reluctant" one? I'm just curious. JBsupreme (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article won't be written and maintained by giving due weight to the reliable secondary sources, well intended suggestions to "keep and clean up" notwithstanding. It will be written by the people who care most. "Responsible" journalists will look at our article for background even if they avoid paraphrasing it directly. They'll think Jones is a bigger fish than he is, and so write about him at greater length. Presto; there's another "reliable" source supporting Jones' notability. It is an echo chamber, just like the nominator says, and it's working. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup He's pretty well known as a conspiracy theorist. There's a lot of other conspiracy theorists on Wikipedia however who don't deserve inclusion. Best to direct some AfD attention to those.--Sloane (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep. If we had a policy not to include people who talk without checking their facts, the biography section would be halved, at least. But this redacted person is a notable conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His Prison Planet/Infowars site is pretty notable in the alternative media. Google News has been indexing Prison Planet as a source for years. Article is necessary to anyone studying the alternative media, whether you agree with their commentary on world events or not. The whole nom, which isn't even signed, smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion proposal is preposterous. He has been mentioned specifically in major publications such as the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better that there is the possibility of realistic reporting on Tin Foil Hatters like Alex Jones in Wiki than in places where things are leaning towards the "lizards ate my grandmother" type of editing. Plus, putting it up for deletion will only encourage him and his listeners to suggest WIKI is "run" by evil Jews, - sorry meant "Zionists" and I am not at all, of course, suggesting that "evil Zionists" is Alex Jones and his listeners code for their alleged Antisemitism. Plus, it only provides him with more free publicity and makes his listeners even more paranoid that everyone that edits wiki works for the CIA. The7thdr (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- You do know that his wife is Jewish?--E tac (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So was Karajans wife. Your point would be?The7thdr (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though various YouTube users have attempted to convince me otherwise, I have never found a reason to believe that anything this man espouses or has achieved is notable. –Merqurial (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal opinion about what he has espoused or achieved has nothing to do with the subjects notability.--E tac (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Alex Jones is one of the most notable alternative media news persons of all time. His nationally syndicated news/talk show The Alex Jones Show airs via the Genesis Communication Network on over 60 AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations across the United States, as well as having a large Internet-based audience. I let the popularity speak for itself, but their are many people who feel the same way. Rbpolsen ♦☺♦ Talk to me! 04:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand why this is even being considered, there's a page about the "Tron Guy" for god's sake. Do people really think Jones has accomplished less than some youtube personality. Grateguy11 (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. WillOakland (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Deleting this page would certainly look like censorship to me. Alex Jones has to be fairly notable. Otherwise I would most likely never had heard of him - Stian, Norway 18:51, 12 March 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.110.67 (talk)

Keep Well known radio personality. And anyway, if they know him in Norway, with so much snow... You know what I mean. Dr.K. logos 22:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't believe this.! Really. Are running out of space here? I can recommend a hundred articles that have less significance than this one. What is going on? Someone got hurt and no we going to sensor things? Haters of GOD, Homos, UNITE..! Ridicolous. Do not delete. People need to know about Alex Jones. Like it or not he is speaking for a lot of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.12.65 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP DON'T CENSOR Why is this article up for deletion? Regardless of your views on Jone's, the fact that this is even being considered for deletion is ridiculous, especially now when major media outlets like the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Time magazine, and Glenn Beck have all just published stories about the New World Order. Once again, regardless of your personal views on Jones or his theories about world government/New World Order, this information, on both sides of the fence, is more and more relevant NOW than BEFORE. Please do not delete this article on these flawed merits. Also, as someone mentioned above, Jones is NATIONALLY SYNDICATED on 60 shortwave stations, has a large internet audience, has guests like Charlie Sheen, Joe Rogan, Jesse Venture, Ron Paul, etc. He's a very prominent figure in talk radio any way you look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLCMemento (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I first learned of him from Richard Linklater's movie Waking Life. A quick look at Alex Jones at the Internet Movie Database http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1093953/, shows quite a bit of film work. So he has a presence beyond radio and internet blogging/broadcasting. Perhaps the nominator is confusing Wikipedia criteria for 'notable' with his own measures of notability or celebrity. Cuvtixo (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Alex Jones has millions of listeners, readers and viewers. The controversial subjects he covers have obviously provoked the originator of of the 'delete' suggestions. The delete suggestion should be removed immediately. The inclusion of 'to be deleted' at the top of the Alex Jones page is obviously an example of vandalism. And, yes, if you delete it we millions of Alex Jones fans will consider it a conspiracy. Netizen x (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Five days to consider deletion is not long in the scheme of things. WillOakland (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alex is a prominent alternative media radio host, with large listener base through syndicated radio, shortwave and RSS feeds. --Zaphood (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very prominent figure with impressive numbers of external links and references. Has produced high quality two-hour documentaries, something completely out of scope of a 'minor conspiracy theorist'. Deletion is entirely unwarranted.Flying hazard (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Suggest WP:SNOW keep at this point. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a reporter of unpopular topics, a true journalist. The person who started this is clearly just hatefull. Any review of the accountability of alex jones will produce awe and shock at the real danger facing america. User: Brother of Liberty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.143.3 (talk • contribs)

Keep Unnoteworthy? Are you kidding me? This guy is very well known. He's also a true revolutionary, but that's beside the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.85.14 (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unnotable? You must be kidding! Last time I checked there were over 3 million hits for "Alex Jones" on Google plus 224 on current news according to Google News. Most of that regarding Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist, author of known and popular movies on the subject. For many he is the embodiment of conspiracy theories - no matter if you believe him or are against him he is one of the most prominent figures in this movement/stream of thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBrandt (talk • contribs) 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep : this should be a non-brainer folks. You don't have to agree with him, but you should agree he is notable. If you think the article has POV issues, discuss on the talk page. Danski14^(talk) 02:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep : this should be fast-tracked. Having the deletion banner at the top of the page is vandalism timed with the release of his latest documentary, The Obama Deception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.115.63 (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what they want you to think... Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a nutjob, but a notable nutjob. His videos are everywhere, so people need a place to find out the story behind him and his crazy ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabalong (talk • contribs) 08:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in this article from mainstream and other media prove he is notable--Noppalsch (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this nomination in good faith? I find it hard to believe that it is not a joke. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 15:09, 14 March 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) 16:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dryer

This article was originally called Frequency and pragmatically unmarked word order and under that title I prodded it, as it was an article about a single paper that Matthew Dryer published, and I don't think individual papers are usually notable enough for encyclopedia articles. Even if a few are, this one isn't. The "solution" was to move the article to Matthew Dryer, under the claim that he is "a notable author". However, if he is, the article certainly doesn't show it, as the content of the article hasn't been significantly changed. The article is therefore now a mere coatrack, apparently being about a person but in fact still just being about one paper. —An gr 07:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, nothing here showing that Mr. Dryer is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Keep, thanks to Eric for his work on the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/stubbify. The article is crap, but Mr Dryer would seem to meet WP:PROF: full professor at major research university, major awards as seen here (NSF, Humboldt), lots of published work with lots of citations, etc. It was correct to prod the article about the paper, but before AfD on the author it would have been wise to check a bit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In its current state, the article isn't about the author anyway, it's about one paper he wrote. If the entire content is deleted and replaced with a sourced article that actually asserts his notability, I'll be glad to withdraw the nomination. But in its current state, the article should not be kept here. —An gr 19:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Nomoskedasticity. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact indicates notability (this is slightly different from the one obtained by Nomoskedasticity, but essentially the same conclusion). Article definitely needs rewriting, and should indeed be reduced to a stub for future growth.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you volunteering to actually do so? Or is this going to be another case of a bunch of "Keep but clean up" votes resulting in the article being kept but not cleaned up? —Angr 06:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Already done.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit. The article does not even mention such good evidence for notability, as being a co-editor of the World Atlas of Language Structures, Oxford University Press August 2005. The present material is not irrelevant, it just has to be reduced. DGG (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See my question to Eric Yurken above. —An gr 06:59, 11 March 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: page under discussion has been speedy deleted. FlyingToaster 09:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europartners

Bringing to AfD because PROD tag was removed. No indication of notability is given for this company. Two links are provided to a news source, but neither seems to mention this company. The talk page, username, and edits by article creator suggest a conflict of interest. FlyingToaster 06:58, 10 March 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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fool Me Twice

Genuine but non-notable privately made film—fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) - "released for free online via Google Video". References are all either links to the original or mirrors of the Google video, or links to unrelated news stories. With exception of this not a single mention of the film by an outside source. Much is made of Google viewing data, but other than a single week in Australia in Nov 2008[45], it seems to have slipped back into relative obscurity. Was created by a single-purpose account User:Policies in December 2008 and linked to the 2002 Bali bombings article by a new user [46] at about the same time. Article has had no substantive edits by anyone else. Djanga 06:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Djanga 07:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Djanga 07:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Indonesian Australian relations article - with a proviso with the text or a footnote the conspiracy theory element to identify as such. The Indonesian and Australia projects have been fortunate not to have too many limited range articles regarding their relations - the essence of the material covered in the film needs to be inserted into another article - as I agree with the WP:N issue for such a film Satu Suro 09:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another online "viral" video that had a small, brief blip of internet popularity and was quickly forgotten. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A low quality internet video that appears to use no original source material and features a number of questionable conspiracy theories. Glebesam (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable video. JamesBurns (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:28, 14 March 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. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whispers Radio

Non-notable radio program. No reliable sources are present that prove any notability. Subject seems to have received no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as is required per WP:NOTE. Also, article was started and has been mainly edited by the hosts of the radio program.Sloane (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Sloane (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Sloane (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Rtphokie (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after merging to parent station article WKKX There is already a paragraph on the show there. Lacks sufficient notability to warrant its own article.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable vanity article (cites its own press release). - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rtphokie. youngamerican (wtf?) 22:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable, as I could not find any news hits. Sad thing is, this is a very popular Radio program in the paranormal investigation community :( But, delete per nom. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:18, 13 March 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. AfD is not a place to discuss mergers. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching record of John Beilein

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Coaching record of John Beilein

This has been split from John Beilein by Levineps (talk · contribs), who is a highly productive article cleaner with an abnormally high propensity to split articles. Many of his splits have been reversed and some others are at AFD now. With respect to this article, I have asked on his talk page [47] [48] about why this article was split. I continue to await an explanation of whether he is familiar with a category for coaching records and examples of other coaches with their records split from their articles. I feel this split was unnecessary. I propose merging the information back into the main article. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete – No need to having this information in a separate article. No need to keep the resulting redirect around either, IMO. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Changing my vote. This article is a duplication of of information in the existing John Beilein article. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete since there is, as X96 says, no need for a redirect. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Considering that the nominator and every other !voter prefers to see the material merged, I recommend withdrawing this nomination and proposing a merge on the destination talk page or going to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers if you think the merger will be controversial. The article talk page, rather than AfD, is the best place to consider the appropriateness and mechanics of a merger. Second, Merge and delete is deprecated; for GFDL compliance a redirect should be kept after a merger (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). Baileypalblue (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close Nomination doesn't propose deletion. Townlake (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware the nominator has merged the content of this article back to the main article. Assuming good faith, this merger still should have been discussed at the articles themselves, not at AFD. This isn't process for the sake of process; it's requesting a fair opportunity for "real WP users" to comment on the merger. My request for procedural close stands. Townlake (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Nominator has put forward no rationale for deletion. AFD is not articles for merger. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K. I have recopied the record back into the article and now propose deleting the redundant article at issue here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what I was going to propose too: revert the change that will add the record back to the main article then delete this article with the basis it is a duplication of existing information. This is sort of a strange case where the article in question is simply a subset of an existing page and a "merge and delete" is OK. There is no relevant history included in this article that needs to be preserved, IMO. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were two updates to the table between the time it was split out and the time it was copy-pasted back in again. Failing to leave a redirect-merge notice denies attribution to those editors and violates GFDL. It may seem trivial, but redirects are cheap -- just leave a redirect and be done with it. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Baileypalblue is correct. With the material merged back to the original article, the history of contribution must be preserved with a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm just curious, but it doesn't seem like GFDL cares about edits to articles that have been deleted. How is this article any different? Would the situation be any different if this edit had been reverted "immediately" (or as soon as it was noticed), but this article was still changed? Am I making sense? I'm just curious for future reference. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article John Beilein is not being deleted. In order to attribute the latest changes to coaching record which has now been copied into John Beilein, we must retain Coaching record of John Beilein which is where the contribution history is noted. Deletion of Coaching record of John Beilein would remove that history and lose the attribution to the conributor. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe I wasn't clear. If this edit to the John Beilein article was reverted right away (within a day) but there were still updates made to Coaching record of John Beilein (since an AFD takes awhile), would those updates still matter from a GFDL perspective? Even though they were made to the "wrong" article. It being the "wrong" article because the data existed in two different places and there was no consensus to split the article. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It is irrelevant. New material has been added to Coaching record of John Beilein, which in turn has been merged back into John Beilein. Therefore we must redirect to maintain contribution history. -- Whpq (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Redirect is fine. That is what has been done with this editor's other hasty splits such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture of Buffalo, New York and will likely occure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reaction to the Inauguration of Barack Obama.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:32, 12 March 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.

Please note that eight of these editors who !voted for this AfD: EastHills, A-Kartoffel, JoannaMinogue, JamesBurns, TheClashFan, HelenWatt, Marvin Ceee, Iam are socks of the same person, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive Ikip (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes

AfDs for this article:

Essentially just a tracklist with few incoming links. No assertion to notability. Album did not chart, no singles released off it. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've added a new bunch of referenced info to the article regarding the Led Zep "Dazed and Confused" controversy. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The information you added is incorrect. Bands don't assign themselves ASCAP codes, only ASCAP does that. JamesBurns (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has a few references and is just like any other stub. Stubs should not be deleted from Wikipedia. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from Dazed and Confused, which is already duplicated in that song article, there's not much notability with this release. Non-charting. JamesBurns (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 05:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC, which says that officially-released albums by notable artists are notable themselves. If the nominator's concern is that it's just a track listing, that's grounds for merging, not outright deletion.SPNic (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: contents of this article is a duplication of what already exists on "Dazed and Confused" article. As James has mentioned above, the copied wording is also incorrect. Only ASCAP can assign numbers, not artists. The song has some notability, and we already have an extensive article for that, but the AfD here is on the album (not the artist or the song) and the album by itself isn't notable. It has no history of charting and was long out of print for many years. Without "Dazed and Confused" this article would remain essentially a stub. TheClashFan (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, album very little notability. Trivial coverage on its own. JoannaMinogue (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Content duplication. Outside of one song already covered, there is limited notability of this album. EastHills (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of sources available, one must only work them in. The album is not only notable for the one song. Both, the album's and the artist's article could be expanded with this. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: When that site uses language like "thieving magpies", I have to question it's neutrality.. There are also no references on it. A-Kartoffel (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable album. Any information can already be found in the "Dazed and Confused" article. HelenWatt (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no awards, no charting, references used lacks neutrality WP:NEUTRALITY. Marvin Ceee (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been on the site for a few years now; why are you attacking it now? If you had concerns about its notability, they should have been raised when the article was created. The redundant info can be gotten rid of without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.SPNic (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So? There is vandalism on wikipedia that goes unnoticed for many months... There are no guidelines which state length of time spent on wikipedia is a reason to keep. A-Kartoffel (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. Limited notability. No charting. Lacks neutral sources (in fact some of the content within the references violates WP:BLP as it makes unsubstantiated accusatory assertions against a living person). Iam (talk) 00:07, 15 March 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 as copyright violation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannover Sevens

The article has been completly copied from the Hannover Sevens website(see here).

Also, a similar article already exists under 2008 Hannover Sevens. EA210269 (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Clear copyvio. Townlake (talk) 05:53, 10 March 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 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planetarium Football Star

Non-notable webgame. No reliable sources proving notability . Fails to meet inclusion criteria per WP:NOTE. Sloane (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Sloane (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has no 3rd-party sources to back it up. Per nom. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V due to lack of reliable third-party sources. Google searches turned up empty for me. MLauba (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability and sources. Flash games are a dime a dozen and would have to be truly revolutionary to warrant an article of their own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:50, 10 March 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) 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFL New York/Hartford

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/UFL New York/Hartford

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Until firm details are announced, pages for individual teams of a proposed league do not seem to be viable. The only information already appears in the United Football League (2008) page and all seems to be sourced from the league website. This raises notability concerns in addition to those of speculation. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources from the teams from ESPN, the league has a tv deal with Versus, there other articles for the teams [49]. There seems to be enough coverage out there to show that these are the four teams that will take to the field, if the league does play. If the league never plays a down, the articles can be merged into the main league article. Patken4 (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football's list of football related deletions.

Patken4 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Them playing this season has been reported numerous times.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Patken4. I have added some other sources (namely a CBS article mentioning the coaches of all these teams) to the main UFL article which can be used here.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the guys above. If you see a problem with the article just improve them, don't delete them. And you only marked 3 of the 4 UFL team article why's this. What's the point of having 1 of them if you're not going to have all of them. Standleylake40 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided on the articles and those presented above help to allay any crystalballing and notability concerns. It seems more likely that the league will go ahead than not and, like Patken said, if the league never does get off the ground these articles can be merged later. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a consensus here to Keep, can we get this confirmed by an admin?J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:05, 13 March 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. CRYSTAL is a strong argument. MBisanz ^talk 05:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFL Premiere Season

WP:CRYSTAL. It is also unclear if this will be notable enough to warrant individual pages for any season (if one is even played). Since there is no information that is not already in the article United Football League (2008), there is nothing to merge. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crystal only applies if the season is only rumors. With the league securing a TV deal and hiring head coaches, it's apparent that preparations are underway. If, in the future, it is shown that the season never comes to fruition, it can be merged into the main UFL article. -- Me ^Holla! 11:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here that can't be mentioned in the main article. This seems to be the equivalent of camping out at the ticket window in order to be first in line when the sales begin. When a schedule is released for the 2009 UFL season, there will still be room on Wikipedia for that information. Mandsford (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The UFL is going to start up. Face it. The season isn't a rumor, CRYSTAL doesn't apply. This article has merit. Standleylake40 (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm still trying to face the All American Football League. Maybe someone can reserve space for an article about the Official UFL football, since I have it on good authority that the league plans to use a football when they play their first games. Mandsford (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. It isn't relevant whether the the prospect of a season occurring is a rumor or not, there isn't any confirmed information to put in the article. The article hardly has merit when all it basically has is the dates of the start and end of the season, without any third party confirmation. Why not wait until there is some meaningful information before creating all these UFL stubs. A good start would surely be improving the United Football League (2008) page. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the NFL can have articles for specific seasons why can't the UFL? They're both professional football leagues. Just because the UFL is a startup league doesn't mean that it shouldn't have separate articles for seasons and such. It would be sort of...discrimination to not let the UFL have separate pages for seasons. Mazaradi F (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The NFL is somewhat more notable and has been playing for over 80 years. With regards "discrimination", see WP:NOT, amongst other pages. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, silly to compare the NFL with the UFL. Secret ^account 14:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Mandsford, unneeded fork for a league that just started, also note the keeps has extremely faulty reasoning, many of possible sources out there are rumors being made into news stories, which isn't a reliable source. Secret ^account 14:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this page is deleted someone will eventually make a new one anyway closer to the season so why delete this one when it's already here. You're just delaying the inevitable. You don't think that the inaugural season of a professional football league deserves it's own article? I just think it's silly to delete it. The page will grow more and more as the season approaches and it would just be a good way for people to keep track of the league. Mazaradi F (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's hardly a good reason to keep the article. If it's appropriate to create the article in future because the league is well-established that's fine. Now is not that time. There seems to a rush to create a whole bunch of UFL articles, mistaking quantity for quality. There isn't enough content from reliable third-party sources in the main article yet. Hippopotamus (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be less on this page than on its parent page (United Football League (2009)), and I can't find anything reliable that could be added to make it worthwhile at this stage. I agree with the guy that says it makes no sense to compare with the NFL. If it weren't for Michael Vick, I wouldn't even have heard of this league. Aubergine (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A comment from someone who can't see what American Football is all about anyway: How can you have an article about a season that hasn't yet occurred? This is an encyclopaedia not a directory or a What's-On. Peridon (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio

"Royal Confraternity" of a long-abolished monarchy, formed long after that monarchy was abolished -- so having no official status. Appears to have little or no reliable third-party coverage. Disputed WP:PROD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: the following are the relevant policy and guidelines:

WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
WP:GNG: "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."
WP:ORG: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."

Does anybody see a pattern here? Does anybody think that a 'Keep' !vote that does not address the quantity and quality of coverage has much relevance? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep that is not a reason for deletion; if they want to use the word "Royal," it's their lookout. It seems to have an actual existence & notable members. . I would be very much more satisfied with some neutral reliable source on them , though. DGG (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (i) lack of third party coverage is a reason for deletion: WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (ii) Even a kids' tree-hut secret-club has "actual existence" (and, it would appear, the same level of both official recognition & third-party coverage as this topic) -- that doesn't make for notability. (iii) Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and a few notable members (many of whom are themselves notable for nothing more than being dis-established royals) does not make this confraternity notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the part of the nom: " a long-abolished monarchy, formed long after that monarchy was abolished -- so having no official status. " was not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not directly a reason for deletion, and wasn't intended as one. However a "royal confraternity" implicitly draws its claim to stature from its relationship to royalty -- and when that royalty had been disestablished 90 years before the confraternity is established, this clearly draws its notability into question -- a question that its lack of third party coverage answers in the emphatic negative. Or to put it another way, given the shear volume of hand-waving about (generally bogus) 'inherent notability' that one sees in AfDs, I got my rebuttal in first on whether this topic was inherently notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I tried to find some reliable, third party sources, but without success. --Yopie 11:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep. While it needs a major cleanup, I can see no compelling reason for its deletion. The fact the Portuguese monarchy no longer officially exists is not a justification for deletion of an article on what appears to be a genuine order with notable members which is apparently open to all Roman Catholics, not just members of the Portuguese monarchy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: so how do you propose getting around the lack of third-party sourcing, and thus notability? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't propose anything. I give my opinion. That's what an AfD debate is for. You have your opinion, I have mine. And remember the notability guidelines are just that - guidelines. They're not set in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V, as quoted above, is not a mere guideline, and likewise requires third-party sourcing -- which is a "compelling reason for its deletion". Your "opinion" does not appear to have any policy basis -- and therefore may be discounted as mere WP:ILIKEIT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't particularly like it. I have no particular views either way. I am merely voicing an opinion, as I stated. This is the whole point of AfDs. An essay (not even a guideline) such as the one you cited provides no basis for discounting the views of a contributor to a discussion. As to verifiability, there are enough third-party sources out there to verify that the order exists, so the policy's requirements are satisfied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bare mention of existence ≠ "significant coverage", so no "the policy's requirements" are not satisfied. The "whole point of AfDs" is to give arguments that are substantiated (by policy and reliable sources). Please read WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD. Opinions lacking any substantiation may be discounted. ("Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.") Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this is an AfD. Its purpose is to determine whether an article should exist or not. That is completely different from WP:V, which is to determine whether information within an article should be on Wikipedia or not. As I said, there are enough third-party references out there to substantiate its existence. Therefore it meets the requirements for WP:V, the only applicable policy. Notability guidelines are fluid and are guidelines. If they were set in stone then AfD discussions would be rendered obsolete. Notability and Verifiability are different issues. Whether all the information within the article can be verified or not is a separate issue and one we are not discussing here - all that matters is whether the order exists (it clearly does) and whether or not it is notable (which is what we are discussing and is effectively based on opinion).

So, to recap, there are two separate issues here:

a) Is the existence of the organisation verifiable? Yes, it is.

b) Is the organisation notable enough for an article on Wikipedia? What we are here to discuss. I believe it is for the reasons I have given. If you disagree then that is your prerogative, but please do not start quoting non-applicable policies to back up an argument and claim that other editors' opinions are invalid. That is bordering on a lack of civility. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There is not "significant coverage" in "reliable, third-party sources" on the Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio, so "Wikipedia should not have an article on it." So, NO it is NOT "completely different from WP:V". And as it is POLICY not a mere guideline it is NOT "fluid". To recap:

Is mere existence sufficient to meet WP:V? No it is not. (See quote above.)
WP:V, WP:GNG & WP:ORG all require significant third party coverage. Has any of your "reasons" discussed this? No they have not. (Nor for that matter have they discussed any relevant policy or guideline supporting your opinion.) Are they therefore in any way relevant? No they are not.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we are uncivil aren't we! Well, we'll let the closer decide, shall we? I'm rather tired of debating with a ranter. Frankly, I'm not really bothered about this article, but I'm a little surprised at your reaction to someone who dares to disagree with you. You obviously don't like your opinions being challenged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also looked for reliable 3rd party sources without success. dougweller (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without comment on this article, the above discussion based on the content of WP:V appears to have missed some key facts. The quote from WP:V given by the nominator was from a short-lived version that was reverted fairly quickly because the change (introducing the word 'significant') did not have consensus. Also, the inclusion of 'third-party' in the sentence has been disputed by a number of commenters on WT:V (myself included), and I am uncomfortable with the claim that that has consensus either. WP:N, of course, continues to require significant coverage in third-party sources as it always has, but as Necrothesp points out, we can choose to ignore such guidelines if they tell us to delete an article that common sense indicates we should keep. JulesH (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I was quoting an obsolete/non-consensus version of policy. However, I would question whether we have been presented with any "common sense [reason] indicat[ing] we should keep" -- the best that Necrothesp has come up with to date appears to be the very lowball 'it exists'. Strong, valid reasons for ignoring guidelines need to be clearly articulated for the call to ignore them to be given any weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I used my own name which is even mentioned in the Confraternity entry, but I was the one tagged with WP:COI for editing this article. I feel compelled to mention for all those who say they can't find reliable sources that there are quite a few listed when they aren't being wrongly tagged or reverted. All are independent and verifiable. Those are the primary Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources. One challenger seems particularly biased against formally regnant royal houses (PLEASE refer to his own text on the discussion page of the article; this is not my opinion) and apparently assigns negative reliability based on that status. The same challenger questioned the citation of a Spanish publication which was already found in an online bookseller site and for which I offered an electronic version as well. I have asked what facts support the individual's claims that the two royal house websites and the publication are unreliable and the only answer I get is a challenge to produce proof that the Spanish Academy which produces an annual publication listing the Confraternity is "recognized". Since there is no authority in place to do such a recognition this is impossible. How can the source be called unreliable when the challenger has not even reviewed the source itself and doesn't even know the authors? One of the primary authors is Jose Maria de Montells y Galan, who you can find as a direct source in a number of Wikipedia entries which are not challenged. Of course no one bothered to follow this up on the discussion page where I defended this publication and offered to share the information. I would have thought that someone truly concerned with Wikipedia policy and not personal opinion would have wanted to know things like that. DaleLeppard (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is admittedly weak and needs major revision but we can not do so while the entry is under challenge for deletion. There are many activities which could be referenced with sources such as the websites for the royal houses of Georgia and Rwanda, but as long as they are challenged for being "former royals" and therefore "unreliable" there is no point in adding further target material. I hope to see the notability of this article proved here or in further arbitration and then help to build this article into a more informative one. I thought the purpose of this process was to avoid deletion but one challenger in particular has been completely negative and provided no helpful information to improve the article. My alleged WP:COI edits were to add sources and improve format of sources as they were challenged. DaleLeppard (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would note that:
1. DaleLeppard has not presented any evidence that any of these sources are reliable.
2. The royal houses in question have overlapping membership with the Confraterntiy, so they are not independent.
3. None of the disputed sources are actually WP:CITEd for any specific information in the article, so it is not clear what, if any, information they contribute on the topic. In fact, as of now, the only citationed information in the entire article is that "Saint Theotonius [was] a 12th Century Portuguese canon and royal advisor".
4. This lack of citations means that it has not been established that this organisation "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources".
Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are independent and verifiable. What possible reason could you have to challenge the reliability of two royal houses and a Spanish publication that you have never even read? Do you hold all Wikipedia articles to this standard because nowhere else do I see such scrutiny applied. It seems you can not be satisfied. You argue that the Confraternity is not notable enough for the Wikipedia yet according to you it influences several royal houses and publications. How is that possible? Your words might even carry weight if you so much as looked at the sources but I had to walk you through all of them myself. The sources were added, as you well know, because you challenged the notability of the organization. That is their purpose. When the arbitration process is completed the article can be revised and appropriate citations can be added based on the sources given as well as new sources applicable to the material that will be added. Yes there are members in these royal houses and many MANY other organizations. Independent means simply that the Confraternity exercises no control over these organizations and entities and that they are not a component of the Confraternity. That is established. Whether there are mutual members is a standard beyond reason. If it was uninteresting to the people in a position to give it credibility it would not be worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia in the first place. Again you ask the impossible. DaleLeppard (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a lack of independent third-party sources that can be used to establish the notability of this organisation. Guettarda (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify why you apparently disregard the cited sources. If you are simply assuming the constant erroneous "unreliable source" labels are correct or failing to find something on a search engine then please actually look at the sources cited. If you have questions perhaps they can be answered. I would like to improve this article but only constructive input will help. Third party or independent sources means that the subject organization is not a parent or sibling component of the source and exercises no control over the source. That is the case in all the sources cited. Thanks. DaleLeppard (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references are used to establish the notability of the organisation. They are simply listed as "general references". No attempt is made to connect them with the content of the article, no attempt is made to show how the support the notability of the group.
There is nothing to suggest that the "Registro De Ordenes De Caballeria Del Reino De Espana" is a reliable source. I found 7 google hits for that publication. Two of them appear to be bibliographic databases; neither could find any library which held the volume. A reliable source would, presumably be available somewhere.
The reference to The Sentinel is insufficient; Sentinel is a disambiguation page which lists 16 local papers by that name. The article title, "Ode to a Portuguese king in a Carlisle church" sounds like a local-interest story. It doesn't sound like the sort of in-depth reporting that would be needed to establish the notability of an organisation.
The third "general reference" does not establish the notability of the organisation. As is to be expected in a "Community Scrapbook", it lists happenings of local interest - an "Academic Bowl" victory by a local middle school; a local church presents "Gold Medal Marriage Awards" to three couples who were married 51, 54 and 62 years respectively. And the "Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio" donates $1000 to the local Habitat for Humanity. There's no investigation in "Community Scrapbook" articles. The reporter almost certainly did not ask the couples for proof they had been married 62 years. This isn't investigative reporting. This isn't subject to intense fact-checking. But most importantly, the three-sentence paragraph in the "community scrapbook" does nothing to establish the notability of the group. That paragraph wouldn't establish notability in Wikipedia. Simply referencing it outside of Wikipedia does not magically make it sifficient to establish notability here. Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: during this AfD DaleLeppard has:
1. Flagrantly disregarded the advice of {{Uw-coi}} that "If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when: ... participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;" (emphasis in original)
2. Made edits to the article that go well beyond WP:COI#Non-controversial edits, and has included removal of templates, introduction of unreliable wiki references (in a manner that also violates WP:MOS#Link titles incidentally), reintroduction of an unpublished and thus unverifiable reference.
3. Has repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims about the independence and reliability of sources. I would note that despite his pretense that I am the sole skeptic on this that (i) that the reliability of the Spanish source was challenged by Yopie first, and (ii) that nobody except DL is defending these sources. I would further note that the membership of the Rwandan 'King' and a "claimant to the headship of the Royal House of Georgia" in this organisation clearly impeaches the independence of these 'Royal Houses' as sources.

I would conclude by requesting that DaleLeppard exercise restraint on this AfD (in keeping with WP:COI) and that in particular he take lengthy discussions of the reliability of sources either to talk (to which I've removed his latest, lengthy missive) or to WP:RS/N, which are the more appropriate fora for these discussions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like an improper policy interpretation is being used as pointed out by JulesH Since WP:V states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", not whether the coverage meets individualized "significance" tests. As far as WP:V, Necrothesp makes a valid point that there are verifiable third party sources. Msnpilot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msnpilot (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 March 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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linkin Park Underground V2.0

Almost entirely unsourced, unlikely to ever be sourced beyond a stub, notability not established, the general "Underground" article was previously nominated for a selective merge to Linkin Park discography at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linkin Park Underground. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Rehevkor ✉ 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot. Searching pulls up no significant, reliable, third-party, sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: insufficient 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although a merge into one article might also be a possibility. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fanclub albums with no media coverage? All fail WP:NALBUMS. Any needed info not already there can be added to Linkin Park discography. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into old main Linkin Park Underground article, which would then have to be recreated. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A solution which still neglects to address notability issues. Also not really a viable option since the Linkin Park Underground article was deleted/merged by consensus 7 months ago. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope its not too late to add:

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DarkZero

AfDs for this article:

Delete Non-notable website. Google searches turn up only the original domain. Page was deleted once previously. In addition, this may fall under WP:CONFLICT as the article's creator and primary writer seems to only have contributions that advertise the site. Teancum (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - A number of "According to Dark Zero..." hits on Google News [50] in addition to the links from Metacritic. However, DarkZero itself hasn't been the subject of any news coverage or whatnot. Marasmusine (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything Chzz ► 16:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable; re-creation of deleted content. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable and unsourced (reliable). Should be salted if recreated like this. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, re-creation of deleted content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN website. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:46, 10 March 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) 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip P. Gaonkar

Keep the updates since my nomination show that he is notable A new name 2008 (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC) ~~Fails to meet inclusion guidelines for academics. No references to show he is notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Delete~~. ~~Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Citation impact seems to be very low. No books listed on WorldCat. News coverage practically nonexistent.~~--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep based on the results of the modified search by Madcoverboy. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). I’ve also re-done my WorldCat search with a few variations, and found two scholarly books with more than 200 holdings worldwide; one published by Routledge (247 holdings) and the other by Duke University Press (201 holdings). Given the publishers and the fact that the books are in very specific topics, these holdings reinforce my belief that he meets criterion #1.--Eric Yurken (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use a correct query: [51] At least 3 books, 76 articles, and several hundred citations. Obvious notability. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. ₳dam Zel 20:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite a an obvious institutional conflict of interest on my part, Prof. Gaonkar is a notable scholar and (co)author/editor of at least 12 books and 76 articles: gScholar results Amazon results. Obviously a rhetorician isn't going to have any impact factor in something like Web of Science; one would no more measure an elephant with a teaspoon. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF, as established by User:Madcoverboy and User:Eric Yurken. Abecedare (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable author, academician, and also quoted in several academic books see here --Ekabhishek (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the beginning, the article failed to describe Gaonkar. It looks okay now. He may be an Associate professor, but has some good citations in Goggle. He is also grandson of two notable people on Wikipedia. May be he has inherited writings from his grandfather SAPA. Gaonkar. It may be updated showing some comparison study among people in his field. Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 15:11, 14 March 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, notability demonstrated by snowball, nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet who twice earlier nominated the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J Stalin

AfDs for this article:

The subject of this article is fails the notability guidelines particularly having multiple non-trivial coverage in published sources, although mentioned in passing in several places and that is has many sources, all but two of them only mention J Stalin about one time if at all, most sources establish facts irrespective of the subject of the article and do not establish notability, the subject also fails WP:BAND, previous nominations for deletion were never allowed to finish due to interference and bickering. This is a rapper of local interest, with no significant coverage and the article makes several dubious statements, such as using the artist's album notes as a source.Fails: WP:NM, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, Troyster87 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's a lot of references, and I disagree as many are more than in-passing. The local part is hard to argue with (all SF/Bay area) but that's a big area and I think these papers have significant circulation. Hobit (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a lot of references, there are only two that offer more than passing coverage.Troyster87 (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a lot and I'm not finding them to be "in passing" for the most part. Which two do you think are okay? Hobit (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep - suggest early close. Pointless nomination of an article that has survived two AfDs and obviously meets formal notability criteria, suggests weak understanding of notability in the nomination. Local interest is fine. There are many more sources out there if anyone would care to look.Wikidemon (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify how it obviously meets the criteria? Isn't it premature to suggest a snowball keep? If sources exist point them out.Troyster87 (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- While not all of the sources linked as references in the article cover him in depth, there's enough there that, to me, he comes off as notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough references to support the article and be notable. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to clarify the first reference is an article/interview in free newspaper[52], the next is a claimed mention in "murder dog magazine", next are the artist's "album notes" that are not independent of the subject and cannot establish notability, second is "sideshow" article, where J-Stalin is mentioned in passing, at the very end, as a resident not the subject of the article[53], not a reliable source for establishing notability, the next is a very brief six sentence "article" in another free newspaper, not a reliable reference for establishing notability[54], the next is a link to comments on stash.com, not a source of anything, the next is a San Francisco Bay Guardian listing of various concerts[55], listings are not reliable sources for establishing notability, another is a dead link to another free newspaper (bayview)[56], the next is an article about stem cell research and rap music, where J Stalin is again mentioned once in the end, where he is not the subject of the article, this does not establish notability, furthermore Yo! Youth Outlook does not appear to be a reliable source for anything[57], this article mentions J Stalin four times, but is not about him it does not assert that he is of any note and only states that he has collaborated on music with other rap artists, that are also not notable[58], only mentioned in passing, I don;t feel that mention in one or two (free newspapers) sources counts as non-trivial coverage in multiple published sources, please make sure not to be prejudiced by the clean look of the article, the references are well inserted however the references themselves are lacking.Troyster87 (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, J Stalin is not signed by a major or any label, does not have significant if any verifiable album sales, nor does he have any press in the mass media, he doesn't even have his own website (ixnay myspace).Troyster87 (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major mentions (full lengthy articles, profiles) in significant reliable source newspapers. These free papers are major operations - one is owned by Village Voice, etc. Both have large staffs, full editorial process, circulation in the 150,000 range, and are leading mainstream papers covering local music. Leading representative of a style and a local music scene. Important to the development of a genre of music. Has collaborated and performed with many notable musicians. Called influential, groundbreaking, etc., by the various sources. Tracks on notable albums. Signed to label that is considered a leading center of a sub-genre of music. Covered every year in the round-up of music, #1 local rap sales, some mention of a billboard chart, "regional stardom"[59], etc, etc. As someone said in the last deletion nomination, what's the point having notability criteria if people won't follow them? If you think the criteria should be changed then please lobby there but not by nominating articles for deletion. Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does he have major mentions multiple newspapers? That's really the only question. What are "full lenghty" articles? 2 is not multiple. Which notable musicians has he collaborated with, do they have wikipedia articles, do you have links proving this?, Please provide a source stating that he is a "leader", "groundbreaking", Tracks on what notable albums? A notable label? In what roundup of music? Regional stardom is "local", local isn't notable, what do you mean some mention of a billboard chart?Troyster87 (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're pretty much wrong on all counts. Why don't you figure it out for yourself, preferably before nominating articles for deletion. Don't you have anything more useful to be doing on Wikipedia? Wikidemon (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get all ad hominem on me please and assume good faith. Please answer the questions.Troyster87 (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're making up notability criteria and you're asking me to answer questions for you that you can figure out for yourself. If you want to know his discography, for example, some of it is mentioned in the article and you can find the rest on google. The deletion discussion is for several editors to say what they think, not a challenge match. Wikidemon (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies the general notability guideline and criterion 1 of WP:BAND which is essentially a restatement of the GNG. Setting aside the deadlink and sources not accessible online, we have a SF Guardian profile on the subject, a Guardian article giving an award to the subject (not a concert listing), two additional Guardian articles that qualify as "non-trivial" but probably not "substantial" coverage, a non-trivial YO! article mention (see no reason to declare it non-reliable), and two newspaper blogs, one a profile and one a non-trivial mention, which may or may not be reliable sources depending on the amount of editorial control the newspapers exercise over their blogs (see Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources). Two or three clearly significant source mentions plus three or four more non-trivial mentions is easily enough, even without considering any other sources in or outside the article. There's no non-local coverage requirement for people as there is for organizations, so it doesn't matter if all the article's citations are local, nor does it matter if the subject has a website or record label (so long as source coverage is available). ~~BTW the first AfD was closed early due to procedural issues, but the second closed just over a week ago after a full run with a consensus that the subject's notability had been established.~~ Baileypalblue (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a year ago, I'm still not used to the change from 2008 to 2009 :) Baileypalblue (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings, and on another note, not a real award. Not an article. Not a reliable sources for establishing notability.Troyster87 (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure :). Agree the award is not notable, but I'd say an award from a newspaper counts as significant coverage by that paper, even when the award itself is not notable. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep (probably speedy) - Easily passes all of the guidelines the nom claims this topic fails (that they threw in WP:V is bizarre - a topic only "fails" WP:V if anything about it is unverifiable). The coverage is substantial and in-depth, particularly from the San Francisco Bay Guardian. A pointy nomination. --Oakshade (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as still notable (it's not temporary) and still well-covered by reliable third-party sources (see Baileypalblue's comment above). On an unrelated note, I don't appreciate being canvassed by the nominator for this AfD just because I made a trivial formatting edit last April. - Dravecky (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - user is a banned sock. //roux 23:28, 10 March 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 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Jones (Georgia politician)

Article is about a failed candidate for the US House of Representatives in 2008, which fails WP:POLITICIAN. Was de-proded for arguably meeting WP:GNG, but the cited AJC article is a human interest story that doesn't do anything for notability, and I was under the impression that any campaign coverage isn't enough either (this wasn't a close race or anything). BryanG (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- yea, I un-prod-ded this article because it looked like he had enough to warrant at least an AfD. I'll go through and see what, if any, other sources are floating around out there. SMSpivey (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, the only reason this person would be notable would be for campaigning for office. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable losing candidate, nothing else in the article meets WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not fulfill the requirements of our notability guidelines. ₳dam Zel 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I see no agreement about whether the sources are sufficiently specific, which is I think the main issue.. DGG (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Wicca

AfDs for this article:

This OR-magnet fails the general notability guideline in that the topic lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This article survived a previous AfD, but has only deteriorated since then, and in its present form is pure OR: a sort of meandering essay on some perceived affinities between Wicca and Christianity, salted with a few Bible and other quotes; the references for the article relating directly to its subject derive principally from quasi-essays on personal websites or blogs. The OR and substandard sourcing would not by themselves form a rationale for deletion if they were correctable, but they're not: once you subtract the OR, even from the earliest versions of the article, there's really no article left, and no reliable sources you could use to create one. The sole text apparently dedicated to the topic doesn't appear to describe a set of beliefs or practices that any actual group of people ever held or engaged in, and one of the most extensive online sources I found on the topic turned out to be an adaptation of the Wikipedia article. While there appear to be some number of people active on the internet who evidently would like to combine some aspects of Wicca and Christianity -- hence the Google hits on the phrase "Christian Wicca" -- there's little evidence that they form any identifiable group who hold in common any halfway-coherent set of beliefs or practices such that you could say with confidence that something called "Christian Wicca" even exists, let alone meets WP:N. --Rrburke^(talk) 02:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI am not convinced that this is so much a branch of wicca as it is a descriptive term for an existing school of thought, such as Unitarian Universalism, I believe it is not an independent topic. However since there is so much info out there it should be kept, since it appears notable, the article is in horrendous condition, but articles on notable topics written poorly in an overly-convoluted essay format shouldn't necessarily be deleted but cleaned up, or in this case douched.Troyster87 (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - preceding comment was made by a now-blocked sockpuppet of a notorious AfD troll. - 02:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak Delete No clearly independent, reliable sources are currently listed in the references. While the blogs and other SPSs clearly indicate that more than a few people are interested in this, I don't see anything that would meet WP:V or WP:N. If kept, the article should be thoroughly trimmed of OR. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article is in strong need of a rewrite -- probably half of the text can go, if not more. But at the end of the day, I think there is something of value regarding the Wiccan faith that can be salvaged. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It had a snowball keep last time. It is easy confirmable that this exists, and is noteworthy enough to be mentioned. Google gives it 28,700 hits. Looking through some of the results, it appear to be a well established belief system. Dream Focus 22:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The number of hits is so misleading as to be meaningless. For instance, 16,000 of those hits disappear once you exclude "meetup.com" pages. The overwhelming majority of what's left are doorway pages or landing pages, whose sole purpose is spamdexing. I tried sifting through as many of the remainder as was feasible, but was not able to come up with even a single one that might qualify as a reliable source. The articles at experiencefestival.com turned out to be adapted from the very Wikipedia article which is the subject of this AfD. Nor could I find a book or article on the topic -- save this, which doesn't appear to describe an actually-existing faith, but rather seems to attempt to point out affinities, and does not appear especially reliable. If someone else has had better luck, I'm all ears. There appear to any number of people on the internet who would like to think of themselves as both Wiccans and Christians, but very little evidence that any identifiable group of people exists who hold in common a discernible set or beliefs or practices that would qualify as "Christian Wicca". If anybody could offer sources -- or a single source -- that would suggest this topic could satisfy the general notability guideline, I'd be grateful if they would. --Rrburke^(talk) 00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22christian+wicca%22 I found a link to the books in the original nomination. Also, the original afd discussion mentioned to historical facts, of how when converting to Christianity, some also kept their Wicca beliefs, mixing them together. Many missionaries were told not to cut down a sacred tree someone worshiped, but instead to Christianize it, give it a new meaning. History Channel had a bit about that years ago. Dream Focus 02:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Amazon review of that book is enlightening, particularly that this was a self-published book sharing the author's personal beliefs, and that it's a poor source for historical facts. I don't have the book in my hands to comment on it from personal observation, though.

Looking through the references is weird. There's a lot of criticism of "Christian Wicca" as a concept, and precious little description of it. An awful lot of people are awfully angry about something they simply assume the reader is already familiar with. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the book is self-published it's unsuitable and won't meet WP:RS. As for people retaining their Wicca beliefs after the spread of Christianity, this is something of an anachronism. No practitioner would have referred to such beliefs or practices as "Wicca" prior to the 1950s. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant and third party coverage as stated by WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking through the history, and reading the article when it was at its longests, and I see plenty of quotes from the Christian Bible. Witches and whatnot were listed there in places, but the word Wicca was not used. Might be why finding notable sources is proving somewhat difficult. Is there a single physical church that is dedicated to this religion, or does the IRS or other government agency in any nation recognize the existence of any Christian Wicca religions? I know Wicca is recognized in the United States by the IRS, the military, and universities. But is there officially recognized merger of the two anywhere? Dream Focus 11:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles needs reliable sources, not bible quotes.--Sloane (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability comments and the fact that its a paradox rdunn PLIB 10:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it links to dozens of Wikipedia articles, including Grieg's music in popular culture, and has some good sources, so it needs clean up, not deletion. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking to other pages is a ridiculous reason for keeping an article. Also, none of the sources is any good, since none of them are from third parties.--Sloane (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly the books in the references should meet WP:V and WP:RS. Or you would need to show that those sources do not apply to the article. There is no indication in this discussion that this is the case. So clearly we need to keep the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be exactly one reliable source in the references section: it's Joanne Pearson's Wicca and the Christian Heritage, published by Routledge in 2007. The phrase "Christian Wicca" does not appear in the text even once -- which, considering the topic of the book, is extremely telling. Nor does it appear in her 2002 Popular Dictionary of Paganism. How could it be possible that a recently-published monograph on Wicca and Christianity would not mention the topic even a single time if it were sufficiently noteworthy to merit an encyclopedia article?

The remainder of the books in the references section are unlikely to meet WP:RS: For example: two are by Sylvia Browne; another editor points out above that Nancy Chandler Pittman's Christian Wicca: The Trinitarian Tradition is self-published; and Carmina Gadelica is unrelated to "Christian Wicca".

I found a passing reference to "Christian Wicca" in the The New Encyclopedia of the Occult which, if anything, tends to confirm that the subject is sub-notable and does not appear to exist in any sufficiently-organized fashion such as would make it possible to write an encyclopedia article about it. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There is simply no such "significant coverage" to be found. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily confirmable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Conforms easily to encyclopediac standards, and I don't see why we wouldn't want to include it. And why are we doing another AfD on this article? Ks64q2 (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Because, despite brusque and blithe assurances to the contrary, there is no evidence that the topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," which is the principal measure of whether a topic merits an article. For those who are convinced that it has, please point the sources out so they might be added to the article. To date, none have been offered. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The subject is certainly notable, with a quick search I found searchable books with "Christian Wicca", a few more on "Christo Wiccan", and several dozen on "Christian witches". "Crisis of Identity: Obliteration of Definition Within the Wiccan Community" might not be a source itself but has a section devoted to this subject with references that certainly seem useable. Google Scholar also has a few hits on "Christian witches". The rest is clean-up concerns and it seems apparent there is no shortage of energy for deleting material here and adding lots of tags to point those interested in constructive directions. -- Banjeboi 16:11, 15 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STARFLEET International Conference

Non-notable event; reads like an advertisement. No references to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to that Star Trek wikipedia.Troyster87 (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: This editor has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. - Dravecky (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beam it up, Scotty.... to Wikia Unencyclopedic for our purposes, belongs on a Star Trek themed Wiki, not here. -Senseless!... says you, says me 04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still am not quite sure if it truly would be better off on a Star Trek themed site, but it meets our notabality guideline now with the sources that were added - Keep. -Senseless!... says you, says me 21:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is about a long-running real-world event and not a fictional "Star Trek" event, multiple on-topic articles in reliable third-party sources are available (it took me all of about 15 seconds to find articles in the Charlotte Observer and Fort Worth Star-Telegram), and AfD is not cleanup. I'll work to whip this article into shape but a stampede to delete without any attempt to flag concerns first is not called for. - Dravecky (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopedic. Sounds like an ad. Move it to the Star Trek Wiki! Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion, but if it gets kept it will need to be moved since the current name violates MOS:TM. TJ Spyke 05:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have taken the editing axe to the prose, chopped out the minutia, added a fistful of references from reliable sources, and done a bit of formatting. There's still plenty to be done to expand this article about a real event but it's now in a state that I assert proves notability per the guidelines. - Dravecky (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Proponents suggesting moving to a star-trek themed wiki should reconsider their opinions, due to the fact that neither such wiki hosted by wikia will accept this article, as (1) neither cover content related to fandom, and (2) neither uses the GFDL license so cannot accept content moved from here. Sources added to the article suggest this is a notable conference, and I see no reason not to cover it. JulesH (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete patently unencyclopedic. If even the Star Trek wikis won't take it, that's all the more reason we shouldn't either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The notion that a Star Trek Wiki's focus on a fictional universe should influence which real-world subjects are covered at Wikipedia is odd. For example, they have no Barack Obama or ham articles but do cover George W. Bush and bacon. Also, per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, the "unencyclopedic" !vote is hollow and devoid of meaning a deletion discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event. Does not read like an advertisement. Lots of references to third-party sources. Kudos to User:Dravecky who has demonstrated what is to be done in such cases before bringing articles here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real-world notable event that is more appropriate here than in a fiction-based wiki. Agree that cleanup is needed, but deletion is not. Teekno (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (1995)

Delete These are just listings of songs based on listener voter tallies/requests [according to the article European Hit Radio Top 40, which I redirected to European Hit Radio (which itself has neutrality issues)] --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comment that these are unofficial charts no different than a radio station's most requested songs of the week. Non-encylopedic and probably WP:IINFO. --Wolfer68 (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Delete- Per nom, useless list. Lets drink Tea 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom §hawn poo 01:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, try changing it into a category instead. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: impractical lists of an unofficial chart. JamesBurns (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No compelling rationale for deletion has been advanced, and it's particularly important to have one in giant bundle-deletions like this. Townlake (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are effectively "Lists of songs played on Radio Station x (year y)" and as such are each non-encyclopedic as both an "indiscriminate collection of information" (WP:IINFO) and a "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" (WP:NOTDIR). All articles should therefore be deleted per the content policy WP:NOT.--Rogerb67 (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Yates

Non-notable autobiography, few Google hits and no Google news hits. Prod was removed by swigzracing, a group affiliated with the subject. CyberGhostface (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The links are pretty much just single appearances of his name, and the article talks just as much about his personal life (not really notable for a racer) as his racing one. The article doesn't really include much linking and I'm not even sure the competitions he's been in are notable. Vincent Valentine 16:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, no relevant G-hits anyways Lets drink Tea 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article clearly does not meet the notability guidelines, and is not reliable sourced beyond trivial coverageTroyster87 (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no sources. Article appears to be autobiographical in nature. Deconstructhis (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnotable. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an easy one. According to Mr. Yates' own career highlights listed in his article, he is pretty unremarkable. This includes "Receives AMA Professional Roadracing License...", "First experience...", and a couple of 4th place finishes. that's pretty much "it." --Quartermaster (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy If he's indeed hired to drive in the AMA Superbike Championship, it's only a matter of time before he competes and passes the criteria without objections. I suggest we move this to the userspace and give the user in question some guidance on the relevant policies so they can improve their WP editing. (If not improved in a couple of months I'd support renomination) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 11 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead up to the Iraq War

This Article is a copy of the intro to the Iraq War main article. It would require a complete rewrite to make it a new article. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No article is needed for this Lets drink Tea 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Keep The Iraq War article is too big, would benefit from pruning Lets drink Tea 00:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is part of a process of pruning the main Iraq War article out in to smaller pieces. Adding more context to the article would be fine.--Nosfartu (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could benefit from pruning as mentioned, but a good way to prune it is how i did 2007 in Iraq so as to keep the articles together. §hawn poo 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable fork-for-length. JJL (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reduce page size, can add a link "Main article: Lead up to the Iraq War" on the Iraq War article. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iraq War until there is a proper summary of the split sections to replace the moved content per WP:SPLITTING. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh, now why didn't I think about that? Agree with MGM. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 00:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Iraq War. It being solitary takes away from the context of the Iraq War article, and worsens the quality of WP. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reduce page size of Iraq War and expand this page. --Richard (talk) 04:45, 14 March 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glabermania

This seems to be a neologism. Other than the Wikipedia article, Google gets only one hit, from a doctor who purports to treat the condition, and Google Scholar gets no hits, indicating that the term is not used in the medical literature. A request to the author for sources that use the term has gone unanswered. Looie496 (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. This is a neologism and hasn't caught on yet. I found only one reliable source: [60] (through google news). If this later catches on, it will be used in more sources and we can recreate the page. Cazort (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 16:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT, WP:NEO Lets drink Tea 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm inclined to make a weak call of hoax. One of the first links - Glaber - is a redirect to author Rodulfus Glaber, indicating nothing on having a desire to be physically hairless. On a Google search, the only other note I have is for the Naked Mole Rat (heterocephalus glaber), but dictionary definitions either point (in [answers.com]) to as a species in reference to H. glaber, and dictionary.com points back to the aformentioned Mr. Glaber. In fact, links in general seem to point to Glaber as a surname. Of the web links, the first is 404 compliant, and the second goes to a page that's been around possibly a year. References below are all over the chart - for example, reference 2 indicates a desire to shave twice daily, but the article in question is about "Massive foreign object ingestion". I see one on hirsuitism. The article even goes in, hinting upon it as somewhat of a sexual fetish. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Dennisthe2. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 16 hits on Google, and most of them aren't even in English. I think I'd have to agree that it's a neologism. Matt (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Touring Theatre Company

Advertisement for small theatre company. No suggestion of notability, and the creation of COI account Ytouring (talk · contribs). Calton | Talk 13:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article an advert when they are not a commercial company?

It seems like a theatre company that invented a model of theatre practice i.e 'theatre of debate' might have some notibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomface (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:ADVERT#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. Something doesn't have to be about something commercial to be promotional. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm not convinced of notability and it does sound rather advertisement-like, whether it's commercial or not. Hippopotamus (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 10:03, 11 March 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. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enchirito

I think they're pretty tasty, but do they really need an article? I can't find a single source pertaining to the food item proper, and I see virtually nothing worth merging to Taco Bell if we can hardly even verify what goes into it. Also, the article has been orphaned since November 06 and tagged for OR since September 07. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references appear pretty quickly. (Personally I wouldn't touch one with a bargepole - they sound revolting!) Deb (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. At best, merge to a list of former Taco Bell items. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my mind, per DHowell's notes, I'm going with a keep. Rock on, man. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the present article is unsourced, there are enough reliable sources for this to show notability and to improve the article. "Taco Bell's Enchirito really hits the spot" in The Gazette of Cedar Rapids; "Hey! Pick Up the Enchirito!; Taco Bell is ringing in the new year with something old: the enchirito" in the Los Angeles Times; and "Cerritos entrepreneur Dan Jones, creator of the enchirito, has gone from fast-food cook to franchisee" in the Long Beach Press-Telegram. Also, it is not a "former Taco Bell item", either. While it was discontinued in 1993, it was reintroduced back in 2000, and to this day is shown on their website as a menu item. DHowell (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started adding sources. I will probably add more later if this is not deleted. DHowell (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS thanks to DHowell's input. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this even gets a handful of refs it will have more refs then the majority of its counterparts. Hard to believe we can't find a good article in there. -- Banjeboi 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N due to DHowell's input. I think the article can be rescued and it's now on it's way to recovery. Geoff ^T ^C 14:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice work Dhowell. I essentially withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy . MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Science Association of Mid America

Unnotable, marginal organization in pseudoscience community. Tagged as an orphan for a year and for notablity in September. Brief mentions in three books don't assert importance. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: mentioned in two major works on the conflict (Forrest & Gross and Scott), and received multiple mass-media mentions for its involvement in the KBOE standards (e.g. [61][62][63][64](convenience link)[65][66][67] + a number of others that are behind pay-walls). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Being an orphan article is not a sufficient criterion for deletion. Neither is the group's pseudoscience. Article has earlier cited other sources, so three mentions in books is not the sum of the evidence. It might be accused of having marginal notablity, but is that not sufficient? Emeraude (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might need to set up a List of organisations advocating young earth creationism (or similar title) and merge this (and other similar articles) to it. I agree with the previous two posters that Wikipedia should have something on these people, but I don't think there's enough there to warrant a full article in this form.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy already exists, and I would not be averse to this article being merged there. c^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The tags cited by the nominator are no reason for deleting the article. This is a minor organization, but the article meets Wikipedia standards for notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy per hrafn. The group is cited, but only in the context of the KBOE case. The group needs inclusion based on that, but not a unique article. Vulture19 (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy, as suggested by hrafn, on the basis of the reasoning shown in my earlier comment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Vulture19 and S Marshall. THF (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article has been deleted as 'created by serial hoaxer' who has, as Nick-D notes, been blocked for this behaviour. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major Turner Staubenzie

(PROD removed without explanation by creator) Unreferenced, Non-notable soldier. A google search turns up 1 site which isn't a Wikipedia mirror. No news/scholar hits, but one books hit. Seems to have done nothing extraordinary in his career as a soldier. Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for now, giving the article creator time to add WP:RS that establish WP:N. This article was just created, and I think cleanup is more appropriate than immediate deletion. Aleta ^Sing 00:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Note if kept, the article should be renamed to Turner Staubenzie without the title. Aleta ^Sing 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 00:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if some sources can be provided. This user has also created several more entries formatted in almost the same manner and also unsourced Chapple Norton, Thomas Pringle, Edward Mathews, and Major John Maitland. For what it's worth, I'm correcting the spelling and spacing issues on these. Wperdue (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Keep - per Aleta, is just a stub in the making. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO and the officer seems to have had a fairly unremarkable career so there's no reason to assume that sufficient reliable sources will exist. Editors have a responsibility for providing sources for all material they add under WP:PROVEIT, so newness is no excuse for keeping articles on people who don't appear to meet the inclusion criteria. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fairly junior officer with an apparently normal career. Not especially notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. - Buckshot06
Delete. The American Revolutionary War and the Napoleonic Wars have been written about extensively, so I would expect a Google Books search to be able to find at least a mention of the subject's name if he were notable, but it finds nothing. The fact that the article is limited to bare facts about his birth, marriage and death and his military career suggests that this is the result of some genealogical research based on primary sources such as registries and military records. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, that was my impression as well. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor who created this article has been blocked for creating a large number of hoax articles, including fake biographies. This appears to be one of their hoaxes (see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Pringle (Royal Navy officer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asher Holmes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning of the Valleys). Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ircloop

Unable to find anything that states that this site is notable. Unless I'm missing something, this site appears to fail WP:WEB. — neuro^(talk) 15:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete spam (not helped by poor quality article). WikiScrubber (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article is poorly writen. 65.78.29.12 (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates WP:SPAM --Mhking (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lets drink Tea 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMBr57

PROD removed without comment. No claim of notability, all the references are irrelevant. Black Kite 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to PHP#Usage where it can mention that PHP, in addition to being a server-side scripting langauge, can be called from the command line, can be used to create native GUI applications, and can be used for shell scripting. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Technically not "removed without comment"; see Talk: HMBr57. – 74 03:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without merge as a non-notable fork of a piece of software which we don't have an article on (r57shell). This isn't a shell script (the article is incorrect in this regard); it's a dynamically generated web page (like most other PHP applications) that can be used to execute commands on a web server. I'm surprised, though, that we don't have an article which describes r57shell, c99shell, or their ilk. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zetawoof. This is essentially a web script written in PHP. Not notable and not appropriate for a merge to PHP. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, there's no reliable sources that talk about it. Second, about half of the Google hits I found have been taken down and give me a 404 error when I try to look at them. Third, most of the OTHER sources I found weren't even in English (I know, I shouldn't be using that as an argument, but when there's no sources in English, that kinda says something against its notability). Fourth, the websites that were in English that hadn't been taken down made it look like this was a security hack to be used on a compromised web server -- in fact, the article on linux.com that's linked to in the article has comments posted on it to the effect of "this is the worst idea ever! Why would you install something like this on your web server??". Fifth, the sources that the article lists don't even use the term "HMBr57" in them -- they talk about "PHP Shell" instead, which is written by Martin Geisler, NOT Hosam Badreldin. So, in conclusion, I'd say that my best argument in favor of deleting this is that both it and its author both fail the notability test. Anything else and I'd just be rambling on. Matt (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the current search results for "hmbr57" are, in fact, Middle Eastern web boards which got hacked and had this script installed on them. A few of them even haven't been fixed yet. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Goodbuzz

Non notable anonymous author. Only links are primary sources. Topic seems to be just a advert hook to a blog page. Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Mikeblas (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have this feeling of deja vu. Mandsford (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, doesn't seem notable. Hippopotamus (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, unnotable. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of minor local notability at best, as even the article pretty much admits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyInfo

Non-notable software. On google I can see download sites that carry it and a couple reviews in personal websites [68]. Best source I could find is a 2002 review from the owner of Sitepoint, who calls it "yet another variation of the NoteCenter concept"[69]. The only source in the article is a single review in wikipedia which is signed by the software maker[70] (doh). Enric Naval (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, has a single source, and I agree with above statements.Spring12 (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most software of this type is not notable, but in this particular case I'm going to argue that within the niche, this seems to be a bit more notable. After sifting through the shareware download sites that regurgitate the company's PR material, I found this, this, this and intriguingly, this. It's not OneNote for sure, but you do not get many actual reviews on this type of shareware-that-shows-up-everywhere applications. §FreeRangeFrog 03:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently sourced, random piece of software. Esteffect (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Dweck

Delete this short BLP article about a writer has been unsourced for 2+ years; his books don't seem notable - indeed none is carried by Amazon.com only used copies available through third party suppliers and no indication that he meets WP:BIO any other way either. Again, sufficiently nn that we don't know when or where he was born and haven't heard news of him in a sufficiently long time that we cannot really say he's still alive with confidence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 16:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News archive search finds a fair number of reliable sources. These include a New York Times obituary of someone whose notability derives from his work with Dweck, so it would be reasonable to assume that Dweck himself would also get such an obituary, which is usually regarded as a bright green light for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reason per Phil to establish notability-almost anything featured in the New York Times can be automatically considered to be notable enough for its own article; as for references, that can be easily fixed. In fact, I might do that now. Even though it hasn't even reached Start class yet, it can be easily changed into a B or even GA article if enough effort is poured into it. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources found are substantial coverage, subject does not appear to meet any of the additional criteria in WP:BIO. —Snigbrook 14:04, 11 March 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.

keep...Stephan is currently producing television shows and working on his next book.

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caricom Airways

There are zero sources available which gives this "airline" any notability. Am thinking it is quite possibly a hoax. Russavia ^Dialogue 13:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a hoax -- I found some lists of airlines including "Caribbean Commuter Airways" (Caricom), but is existence as a commuter airline sufficiently notable? Collect (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide those lists? Because the alleged ICAO code and callsign does not exist in ICAO 8585-146, and has been removed by myself from the article. But even then, mere existence in a directory doesn't confer notability. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds plausable, but not notable. Hippopotamus (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation

Via where can I provide you with documentation? my e-mail: s.chin@caricomairways.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.2.190.58 (talk) 20:46, 16 March 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 Renegade Five. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undergrounded Universe

Non-notable, no information given aside from one sentence (which is a general summary) Ejg930 (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:31, 6 March 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) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent artice as a plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources to allow for a stand alone article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Harris

I placed a PROD on this article that was quickly removed, article concerns non notable architect that is unreferenced. Fails WP:BIO. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable yet. Maybe someday. The page seems to be part of a general PR effort (ghits are LinkedIn, Facebook, etc., not any kind of third-party coverage). J L G 4 1 0 4 12:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:03, 5 March 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) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound & The Story

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Sound & The Story

Contested prod. Instructional DVD. The author/instructor is notable, the DVD itself is not. Delete, or at the very least merge to Blackbird (album). Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me why this is needed to be deleted; I see no reason why the DVD is not notable. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.81.243.250 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unable to find third-party reliable sources (click to see what we mean by that) that attest to the DVD's notability. The only way to remedy the situation would be to provide such sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:07, 5 March 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) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourceable article about a DVD of questionable notability Lets drink Tea 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable instructional DVD. Any worthwhile (and sourced) content can be included in the guitarist's article. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Vakili

Google search reveals Wikipedia mirror sites only -- as well as what might be a small role in a film. But I can find no reliable sources whatsoever establishing notability for this film critic/historian. What's more, the "Controversy" section is a complete non sequitur, given over to a personal essay of some kind -- nothing to do with article's subject, at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The "Controversy" section has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article, and I am also unable to find any neutral, reliable sources that might demonstrate notability. PC78 (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Ferreira

Delete doesn't seem to be much by way of reliable sources looking through google for this guy. It's been an unreferenced BLP for over 2 years, and he's sufficiently nn that we don't know when or where he was born or whether he's really still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find refs back to wp Chzz ► 16:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: broke at least one important story in Botha's time. Apartheid's environmental toll. Ottre 03:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete, the comment on the article's talk page suggests the subject may be notable, but without references both this assertion and the content of the article cannot be verified. —Snigbrook 14:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardmen RFC

Not notable. This isn't the Otago University Rugby Club, whiich would be notable - it's simply one of the social teams which plays in the University's competition. Hardly of any particular note even locally, let alone beyond Dunedin. NOTE: Looks like it has had a CSD notice attached to it at some point which was removed by the article's creator. Grutness...wha? 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Unnotable sports team Lets drink Tea 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate nationalism

This article does not cite any relevant sources, and no effort has been made to find them since the page was tagged 5 months ago. Article should be deleted under WP:NOR Jonovision (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article can be saved. I would like to see the corporatism category built not dismantled. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been more than enough time to fix it. In the five years since the article was created, nobody has added relevant citations. The warning tag was added 5 months ago, and nobody has touched the article. Can you provide any citations that would justify keeping the article? --Jonovision (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Wikipedia:There is no deadline, so I don't know what you're worried about. It's tagged sufficiently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregbard (talk • contribs) 2009-03-05 07:07:35
    - Comment - The point I'm trying to get across is that this is an abandoned article. It was probably based on original research, and nobody has been working to improve it. You may want to check out Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state#Ways to spot article potential, especially points 4 through 7. --Jonovision (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep loads of news refs to this; needs improving but there's no deadline -- Chzz ► 06:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please do show us to these news refs. I'm still trying to figure out what corporate nationalism is, because I haven't found any sources outside of Wikipedia. --Jonovision (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with corporatism until there is enough reliably sourced material there to merit its own separate article. This one is simply WP:OR. THF (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - This merge was already discussed, and there was unanimous opposition. See Talk:Corporate nationalism. --Jonovision (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have trimmed the article to a point beyond objection, I hope. There is enough material there to go on for anyone looking for this topic specifically.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A note on sources:

This article has cited two sources:

The very first edit claimed the text was "Taken from the Christian Falangist Party of America website." (Christian Falangist Party of America "is dedicated to fighting the "Forces of Darkness" which seek to destroy our Western Judeo-Christian Civilization", in case you haven't heard of it. I hadn't). I couldn't actually find the relevant text on their website.

The current version cites a collection of essays called "Sport and Corporate Nationalisms". From page 7: "Simply put, and prefigured on the operations and machinations of multi-, trans-, and supra-national entities, the politico-cultural nation of the nineteenth century has been replaced by the corporate-cultural nation of the twenty-first century. We have termed this process, corporate nationalisms, processes that are qualitatively distinct from those that helped to constitute the symbolic boundaries of maturing nation-states during the nineteenth century." The authors seem to have coined the term specifically for this book, and it conflicts with what's in the article. It smells of someone googling for "corporate nationalism" to find references, and not actually reading them.

How do you guys even know that "corporate nationalism" means what the article says it does? --Jonovision (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting an article when it disagrees with sources is a matter of editing, not deletion. So here is the proper question to be addressed at AFD: How do you, Jonovision, know that no sources exist? You tell us outright in your nomination that "no effort has been made to find them". We must take that statement as including you, too. As such, you're part of the problem, not the solution. You're doing yourself the very thing that you are criticising. You're not making any effort to find sources, either. Put in that effort. Look for sources yourself. Report what you do and don't find. Looking for sources oneself is what one should always do before nominating an article at AFD. One cannot honestly say that no sources exist, the deletion policy criterion under which we delete articles in cases such as this, unless one has actually looked for them onesself. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. Uncle G (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -

The article has lacked valid citations for 5 years
I looked for references, and couldn't find any, which led me to believe that the article contained original research
The one citation that is currently in the article is clearly worthless, and anyone who bothered to read it would realize that in a minute.
I assumed that nobody else even checked that invalid source, because it wasn't removed, and I also assumed that nobody else made any effort to find valid sources, as none have been uncovered.
If anyone who has tried and failed to find sources for this article before I nominated for deletion, I apologize for suggesting that you didn't make an effort.
I applaud the efforts of anyone who has looked for references since I nominated the article for deletion. However, suggesting that I haven't is a personal attack. I'm deeply offended by the previous comment, and would appreciate an apology. I care about the quality of Wikipedia's content, and I nominated the article for deletion because I sincerely believe that its content is dubious.

To summarize:

This article does not have any valid references, and several users have commented that they believe the content is dubious
The single reference which is on the page provides a conflicting definition
The comments opposing deletion have so far argued points of procedure. Nobody has stepped up to provide sources, despite one commenter's suggestion that they are all over the news. --Jonovision (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First a corporation will always have the interests of its shareholders primary, and all else secondary. If the company is gov't owned entity, then it is a whole different issue and still warrants deletion as it is already covered here Government-owned_corporation Jtyoga (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Corporatism does necessarily mean commercial corporation. The corporatist political culture extends to cultures that regard the family or extended family as the corporate group which the corporatists hold to be the primary unit of society. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that the people who want to delete it could use the most elucidation on the topic.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - per Gregbard. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure how more discussion is going to help us reach consensus, because so far everyone in favor of keeping the article has simply said "The article can get better, give it a chance", or "There are references all over the news". Nobody has seriously responded to my concerns, so I'm going to ask a few basic questions. I hope the people who want to keep this article would be kind enough to answer them, and that this might kickstart a discussion.

Where did you first hear the term "Corporate Nationalism"? (In school? From a book? From the wikipedia article?)
Have you ever seen a work that provided a definition of the term, or did you infer its meaning from the context?
What indications have you encountered that the concept is notable, and not just a term that's used in a small handful of academic papers?

--Jonovision (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Think the term is mentioned in a couple of texts about the "learning company", an Australian version of learning organisations. Ottre 14:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Jono, you are obviously feel very strongly about this article which I do not. However, I always find the deletionist/immediateist view fascinating. You are crying out for references and that's fine. However, no references really only justifies deleting particular statements not entire articles. I don't see what the urgency is with you? I think I have resolved any controversy arising in the article through a substantial cut and reword. Jono, aside from the crdibility issues, do you have ANY objection to the statement on the topic currently? I.e. do you deny that Corp. nationalism is what is claimed in the article? If you do, there is a direction for people like me to go, by way of responding. If you are just demanding that people head to the library to satisfy your urgency, I don't know what to tell you other than "no deadline". We actually can go a long way on consensus, if we have consensus builders. If you have no content objections, you probably should just let it go. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, I do have content objections. When I tried to find references that support the content of the article, I found the term being used in ways that conflict with the article's definition. [71] and [72] use the term in the context of national identities being influenced by corporate activities. [73] uses the term in the context of government intervention against foreign control of companies. In [74], it refers to trade protectionism. I think Aymathh2 said it better than I could: this is a term which "means whatever the use wants it to mean". --Jonovision (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I didn't really feel that strongly about the article when I nominated it for deletion. When I first came across it last week, I assumed it was a valid article, and went out to look for sources so that I could remove the citation tag. I was surprised that I couldn't find any, and even more surprised when I looked at the article's history, and saw that it never had any sources for 5 years, and that nobody was maintaining it. What I do feel strongly about is that the people defending the article seem to have a strong bias against fact checking. I feel like I'm the only person here who has actually tried to verify the validity of the content. If anyone else has looked, they haven't admitted that they have come up empty-handed. --Jonovision (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the current article is merely a dicdef. There does need to be some evidence of its general use. DGG (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the article history, different editors have held different views of what the phrase means: corporations should advance national goals; nations should favor the interests of corporations; nations should delegate some roles to corporations etc. Seems like a dictionary definition of a term that is not widely used, and then means whatever the user wants it to mean. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. This phrase has been bugging me. It is like "Progressive Conservative": what does it mean? Took a break, took the dog for a walk, had some food, still bugging me. So I dug around a bit and found five meanings, which I have added the article. I suspect there are more. This would be no problem with a Wiktionary entry, which welcomes definitions of all the meanings of a term in one article, but it clearly violates the WP:DICTIONARY policy, which says that each meaning should have its own article. Any volunteers to turn this one into a disambiguation page pointing to five (or more) dicdef-type articles? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Aymatth2, I think this is quite a bit better than what we had before. I'm not sure about how we could split this up into five articles, though, since we don't have enough high-quality sources to establish notability for each individual definition. --Jonovision (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to save the article. As it stands, it is in clear violation of WP:DICTIONARY policy: "The same title for different things (homographs) are found in different articles. For example: backup (to move backwards) and backup (save computer data).". I don't think any of the meanings warrant a new Wikipedia article. Existing articles on Nationalism, Nationalization, Corporatism etc. cover the concepts. I have added a Wiktionary entry (see link in this article's page) which I think is sufficient. I suppose, maybe, the page could be turned into a sort of disambiguation page giving the different meanings and pointing to the articles that discuss these meanings. I would prefer to just delete it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sox-Rays rivalry

Contested WP:PROD. The Article highlights a baseball rivalry between the Boston Red Sox and Tampa Bay Rays. Should we keep this? –BuickCentury Driver 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know. You're the one nominating it. Please provide a reason on why you think it should be deleted, or why you believe a discussion is warranted. We're not here to mindread. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If you weren't sure, why did you remove the PROD? And if you're not sure, then it's probably not notable enough. Anyway, I initially PRODed this article, since it's about a rivalry of dubious notability, based on a single season when these two teams were the two best teams in the American League East. It narrates a few episodes but otherwise there's no information about the rivalry itself. --Mosmof (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any time two teams compete in the same division for the same title and playoff spots, there is significant rivalry. The only issue in this case is the fact that the 2008 season was the first time the Rays were ever in significant playoff contention. The article needs cleanup and referencing, but numerous sources [75] [76] [77] [78] exist. Rklear (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By that logic, we should have articles on every divisional and localized interleague "rivalry" that exists. Not every rivalry is as notable as Red Sox-Yankees, or Dodgers-Yankees, or Cubs-White Sox to warrant its own article. By virtue of the fact that the Rays interrupted the Yankees-Red Sox dance that dominated the AL East for most of this decade, of course any match with the Rays and either the Red Sox or Yankees will become an intense showdown. Merge useful content into Tampa Bay Rays, Boston Red Sox, 2008 Tampa Bay Rays season, 2008 Boston Red Sox season. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not paper; who cares if there are articles on every rivalry? If they exist and are notable within WP:GNG, they merit inclusion. Whether a rivalry is "as notable" as Yankees-Red Sox is beside the point. Rklear (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to this,[79] there were a few interesting incidents between the teams before 2008, but you'd never know that by reading the article in question. It basically serves as a recap of what happened last year, which can be summarized in the teams' season articles. For now, I'm going to say delete. I just don't see how this can be viewed as a real rivalry after just one season, and the article doesn't make a case as it stands. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess it would help if there was some sort of guideline for determining what is and isn't a notable rivalry. It's obvious there are rivalries, and then rivalries. For example, Rays and Red Sox were undeniably rivals in 2008, and you wouldn't have much trouble finding articles discussing the two teams as rivals. But any reference to rivalry is limited to the 2008 season. If the Rays plummet back to earth, I imagine they will cease to be rivals, whereas the Yankees and Red Sox will most likely remain rivals even if one team is in last place and the other is headed to the World Series. Also, "rivalry" is sort of indiscriminate/undefined - two teams in the same division are, by definition, rivals. But that doesn't mean they're rivals. I have similar concerns about Battle of Ohio (MLB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Mets-Braves rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Mets–Phillies rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I'm curious to see what arguments are raised for keep or delete. --Mosmof (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong delete. They may be in the same the division, but they're over 1000 miles apart and have only really played one notable series. It's not exactly Duke-North Carolina... Hippopotamus (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hippopotamus. The Red Sox and Yankees are one of the most significant rivalries in professional sporting and have a history going back to the beginning of modern baseball, the first time the Red Sox and Rays played each other in the postseason was last year. There might be some ill-will on the part of Red Sox Nation, but common sense says that a single postseason defeat isn't enough for a true rivalry to form. I'm not saying that it isn't brewing, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, articles are written on already notable subjects, not ones that might become so someday. -Senseless!... says you, says me 04:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, it's pretty clear the two teams are going to be rivals this year, too, and it makes little sense to delete an article that is on the borderline of notability when that notability is fairly certain in the near future. The article can be improved by discussing the previous ten years, the Rays signing Wade Boggs, etc. But I can also see an argument for consolidating this and similar articles into American League East Division rivalries, where notability is less of a close question. Incidentally, the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry in the sense Mr. Senseless is talking about only dates back about 30 years: the Red Sox and Yankees were almost never good at the same time until the mid-70s. THF (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- While I understand the need for sports fans to compare every rivalry to Yankees-Red Sox or UNC-Duke, that isn't the standard by which articles are determined to be notable or not at Wikipedia. A topic only need be covered by independent, third party sources. If the rivalry only existed in 2008, perhaps it would make sense to rename/move the article to 2008 Red Sox-Rays Rivalry or something of the sort. There is no reason or precedent that shows that these articles should be treated any differently than any other article in Wikipedia. In my opinion, the strong feelings against this and articles like it are driven more by personally-held sports opinions/emotions than Wikipedia's standards and community-accepted practices. SMSpivey (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be covered by Wikinews, not Wikipedia.--Sloane (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. As of now the only thing that makes this a rivalry is that they ran very close last season for the AL East and the then in the ALCS. One season doesn't make it a rivalry. BUC (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't seen much in the way of policy discussion here, mostly point of view on what constitutes a rivalry. If someone (the nominator himself as a good faith gesture, or Rklear who seems to have taken the time to research this) would take the time to actually add references, this article would fit even the most strict definitions for inclusion (WP:N, WP:V). I think this AfD is premature and the issues would have been best worked out on the article itself and it's talk page. By the way, a good copy edit and redesign of the article wouldn't hurt either. Mstuczynski (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll be making some general improvements to the article as part of WP:ARS. Magnetic Rag (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brasstronaut

Non-notable band. Speedy tag was removed with "(decline speedy - may be notable (check Google News))", so I did check Google News, and got only three articles, none of them proof of notability. In addition, all three of the hits are to www.pressdisplay.com, which is a compendium of back articles from a variety of newspapers, but every one of them is apparently removed from pressdisplay's database, so even if you wanted to pay to read them, they're no longer available. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google brings up 7 hits, none of them citable sources. ~Cr∞nium 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Firestorm ^Talk 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The decline was because of the 20 Google News hits I got, there was for example this article about the band in Vue Weekly, a reliable source. One might want to consider that source. Also, mentioned on Canada.com. So Why 11:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The two sources above, plus this, this and this just about cut it. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 14:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1, not only for the sources supplied by SoWhy & Sparklism, but also for these ones too, [80], [81], [82], [83], [84]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Seems to meet the notability criteria with all the sources listed above. Hippopotamus (talk) 04:14, 10 March 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 Myst (series). MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterium

Contested prod, notability not established, I can't picture it ever being established, nor can I picture it being developed into an sourced article that isn't just a list of locations. I am also nominating the following related page because of the same reasons, if not more:

Rehevkor ✉ 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. A simple google search on Mysterium + Convention turns out plenty of RS which can be used to establish notability. Instead of pulling the AfD trigger, there are many ways to flag an article for sourcing... or even improve it directly. MLauba (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has been tagged for notability issues and it was not addressed. Rehevkor ✉ 16:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Redirect and apologies. My previous vote and the google check were made in a hurry without proper verification on my part. I do however not retract my gut reaction to the tone of the Nom, which to me reads like "I don't know about it so it can't be notable" the way it was phrased. MLauba (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Myst (series) and include one sentence about Mysterium there. Very short news article at InsideMacGames. Remainder of ghits are blogs and forums. Not enough to fully satisfy the WP:GNG. Not sure what RSs MLauba is referring to, if something substantial can be specified then I can review my !vote. Delete Mystralia due to a complete lack of notability. Marasmusine (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That reliable sources (questionable ones, at that) mention the topic is not sufficient. We need substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the game. None provided, none found. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [[Myst (series) and merge Chzz ► 16:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whether this is kept or deleted, I would prefer to see this content at Mysterium (convention) if it will be kept, and move the text from Mysterium (disambiguation) here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Myst (series) as per MLauba Power.corrupts (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge Not notable, only deserves a blurb Lets drink Tea 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects to Myst Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only one reliable source? Merge some of the content and redirect. --Sloane (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:25, 10 March 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.

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Liability (band)}}
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palladium (Australian band)}} -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvatore Culosi}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvatore Culosi}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua L. Dratel}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Dorsey}}