Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 28

< 27 August	29 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. consensus they are meeting WP:BAND JForget 00:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti6

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

Fails WP:BAND 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 03:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see a Guardian article about them [1], as well as a Twitter account and Facebook, but I don't think it's enough to be notable yet. Delete per nom. ~~Bigtop~~ みんな空の下 (トーク) 05:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:BAND criteria SlechtValk (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thay have just been on A Campingflight to Lowlands Paradise (one of the biggest festivals) in the Netherlands.
Are being listed in Dutch music charts (source: dutchcharts.nl ) (thereby meeting at least one of the WP:BAND criteria).
And have had multiple performances on noticeble dutch podia (for example: Paradiso)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Clearly fails WP:BAND. The band is really new, and has only released 1 single and 1 EP. Where is the album. No notability whatsover.scope_creep (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charting satisfies wp:music, [2] (wp:goodcharts). Charting is also reported in "Top 40", BN/DeStem, 26 June 2010 Some coverage is shown above and there is a little bit more in Haider, Arwa (4 March 2010), "One To Watch Graffiti 6", Metro and a very short review in Lougher, Sharon (26 July 2010), "NEW SINGLES; Staying In Music Reviews", Metro. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An album, called 'Colours', is being released in September 2010. Very popular in the Netherlands. Although they may not (yet) be recognised worldwide, I personally don't think that worlwide recognition is a requirement for being listed in a Wikipedia article. There are children's bands out there with less recognition than these guys. (talk) 8:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep. I think the press coverage in the article and in Google news archive is enough for WP:GNG. (Also, I'd heard of them independently of Wikipedia, which isn't exactly strong evidence of notability, but it predisposes me to thinking they pass the "smell test" for notability.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be the valid G News results, yours is misleading CTJF83 chat 16:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, no. Your link only has one story about the band, The Daily Star 30/7/2010. The first few hits on my link lead to four different articles about the band: The Daily Star again, two from The Sun 14/8/09 25/8/09 and one from The Guardian 7/6/2010. So in your attempt to make your search more focused you also lost a lot of relevant material. Don't ask me why, what you tried looks reasonable to me, I'm just reporting what I see. It's true that the "about 96" hits Google claims to have in my search is far from the truth — it's really only those four — but it's the four news stories I was referring to in my keep comment, not the total number of hits. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Damn Google! Thanks for WP:AGFing. CTJF83 chat 06:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes point 1 of WP:BAND with significant coverage in reliable sources independent from the subject, which is essentially the same as WP:GNG. Bigger digger (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Total Drama (series)#Total Drama Reloaded. pointkess deleting if there will be something for a standalone article later on. Redirect for the moment but this can be undone when the sourcing improves Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Reloaded

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

Last AfD ended with a merge to Total Drama Island, we don't have much info on the contestants anyway. Nilocia (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Incubate I see the other series have been covered in articles which might exceed WP:LENGTH recommendations. They many need trimming. Its likely it will be created and forgotten about. I don't think it violates WP:CRYSTAL, since the series has seemingly started. scope_creep (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even as the nominator, I would not mind ~~Incubation~~. Nilocia (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, if I were to remove every unreliable source, this would be almost stripped of it's current content. Changing my vote to ~~speedy delete~~, never mind, turning back to incubation. Nilocia (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it It is just another season of a well known tellie show and it was approved and it will be on tv like the last three and each season has an article already and you could merge this to an series article but why do that when it is just going to be an article again after the first episode and why waste any effort and just leave it alone. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me note to the closing administrator that while he makes a point, as of right now, this has only one reliable source and is not able to be a standalone article. This keep vote is invalidated. Nilocla ^{♈ ☮ 卍} 12:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment author has requested deletion on my talk page. Nilocia (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nilocia (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G7 declined; there have been way too many contributions to the article beyond the original author, and his rationale for requesting its deletion is weak. Just because he doesn't like other editors modifying his work does not justify a G7 in ~~this~~ any situation. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I thought it was best to just let the people in discussion know. Nilocia (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries... just wanted to let everyone here know why I chose to remove the tag. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Total Drama (series)#Total Drama Reloaded. That section of the series article provides all of the referenced information available. The redirect can easily be undone when the series airs and reliable information about the epsiodes can be used to create a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mandsford 21:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progress index statisics

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

WP:NOTABILITY - I could find no relevant ghits for any of the names given (Progress Index statistics, Progress Index Statistical, Progress index statisics, standard magnitude variance ratio). Article is unsourced. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Can't find a single thing about it. WP:HOAX violation.scope_creep (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete title of the article is mispelled, and nothing on Google Scholar or Google Books under either spelling. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Further may need to speedy/prod/etc the supposed creator (who doesn't have any google books or scholar hits either, it appears). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with deleting both this article and the article about the creator of the system (which I see has been prodded). --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Samuel Matthew Akpan. Appears to be WP:OR. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Transformers: Cybertron characters. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderblast

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

Topic does not seem notable NotARealWord (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fine article in the making. Mathewignash (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Topics that don't meet the requirements in Wikipedia:Notability should be deleted even if their any good. NotARealWord (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If deleted it should redirect to List_of_Transformers:_Cybertron_characters#Earth_Decepticons. Mathewignash (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge clearly not independently notable, merge to List_of_Transformers:_Cybertron_characters. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news shows one result, detailed coverage of her. [3] Character had a speaking role in a notable animated series. Article is filled with information, most/all of which would be lost if '"merged". Dream Focus 22:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - no evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, as is mandatory per WP:GNG. A short summary in the list will be fine. Claritas § 13:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^confer 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers: Cybertron characters. Not notable enough for its own article. SnottyWong ^confer 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character lists, else delete. One of the reasons we even have character lists in the first place is so we don't end up with tons of hopeless articles like this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, I'm not fussed, but this article should not exist. J Milburn (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Centralize discussion and merge and redirect as accordingly decided by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers centralized discussion. There are so many articles, surely some of them can be lumped. —CodeHydro 13:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - fails WP:GNG, but I have no problems with verifiable information in the article being placed somewhere else. Claritas § 15:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just more trasnformers fluff.Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Transformers: Cybertron characters pursuant to the guidelines for elements within a notable fictional work listed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). This is a recurring character. No need to destroy the article or its history as the character may become more significant with future Transformer projects. Inniverse (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the sake of building a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its been shown time and time again the so called "sources" on this and many other Transformers articles are unreliable :See "Reliable sources for Transformers" Dwanyewest (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primon

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

Topic is really obscure and likely not notable NotARealWord (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a young stub. Let someone develop it, don't abort it. Mathewignash (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good reason. This is a really obscure character, even within Transformers. So delete. Please NotARealWord (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's so obscure (and I admit it is), It should merge with and redirect to more general page, like Prime (Transformers). Mathewignash (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Merge doesn't sound too bad an option. NotARealWord (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merging is not so good. Simply delete considering how this character is (currently) so vague and not really well defined. NotARealWord (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the ~~strange~~ retcon, the page "Primon" could be expanded rather than just being a short page. --TX55^TALK 16:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article subject must be referenced in secondary sources to count as notable. Even on TFWiki, Primon is a rather vague character. NotARealWord (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not saying using TFwiki as the source. I use the link to indicate the page has the potential for expandin. --TX55^TALK 06:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no sourced content, so there's nothing to merge, and if it's redirected it should redirect to the real-world primon gas. Reyk _YO! 23:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you want to send it to another wiki, do it, but this doesn't belong here. The line "it was never mentioned again in any other source" kind of sums up why this should be deleted... J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I've seen articles that fail to assert notability, but this is one of the few I can recall that explicitly claims non-notability. Reyk _YO! 23:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information to Prime (Transformers) Dream Focus 23:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge information to Prime (Transformers). --TX55^TALK 06:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prime (Transformers) (or Merge if there is actually anything to merge, though there doesn't appear to be). Black Kite (t) (c) 13:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^spout 16:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prime (Transformers). I actually would have tagged this for speedy deletion A1. I can't even tell what this article is about. SnottyWong ^spout 16:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and STRONGLY oppose redirection to anything to do with Transformers. If anything it should redirect to primon gas. Having a researcher look up a valid physics topic and get a cartoon character instead (!!) is exactly the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia look, well, stupid. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then a disambig page would be appropriate. Mathewignash (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Better to redirect "Primon" to "Primon gas", with a {{redirect}} hatnote there to point anyone looking for the Transformers usage to an appropriate article. PamD (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the hatnote is actually necessary, considering that it's "usage" within Transformers isn't really much of anything. !NotARealWord (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centralize discussion and merge and redirect as accordingly decided by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers centralized discussion. There are so many articles, surely some of them can be lumped. —CodeHydro 13:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing to establish notability, no real information.Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to verifiable information to indicate this character qualifies for inclusion in the Wikipedia project. Inniverse (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you look this topic up, there's not much information period. THis character is just that vague and obscure. NotARealWord (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of third party sources to WP:verify notability. Very inappropriate for redirect too. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and don't redirect because the term has other uses. Almost impossible to verify and a pretty unlikely search term. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shokaract

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

Topic is really obscure and likely not notable NotARealWord (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fine article in the making. Mathewignash (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Due to lack of notability. Just because an article is good, does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia. NotARealWord (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He was mentioned in third party book review. Clicking on the above link finds tons of pages devoted to him, and google images of the character. Seems at least somewhat noteable. Mathewignash (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - cannot see how this is more notable than Serpentera or Evil Emperor Zurg. It's just one review for a book. Not really focused on this obscure character. NotARealWord (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the Zurg article itself has been deleted, it still redirect to a page with 5 paragraphs devoted to Emperor_Zurg#Emperor_Zurg. So it's not so simple to just say anything less notable then him should be deleted. He still exists on Wikipedia, as part of a larger page. Mathewignash (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero evidacne of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schroeders Collectible Toys Antique to Modern Price Guide list it as a Collectible. Features prominently in the Transformer universe, second most evil thing ever, found in anime and comic books. Dream Focus 23:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of real-world significance. Single cited source merely verifies plot; does not offer backing for real-world treatment. --EEMIV (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability provided. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^confabulate 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. SnottyWong ^confabulate 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even notable within the Transformers niche. Even the toy is just a repaint of another toy and could only be bought at one convention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it is demonstrated that there is enough reliable coverage out there to warrant an article. Passing mentions and in-universe significance are doing nothing for me. J Milburn (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Centralize discussion and merge and redirect as accordingly decided by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers centralized discussion. There are so many articles, surely some of them can be lumped. —CodeHydro 13:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources - fails WP:GNG. Claritas § 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Beast Wars characters pursuant to the guidelines for elements within a notable fictional work listed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). This is a recurring character. No need to destroy the article or its history as the character may become more significant with future Transformer projects. Inniverse (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That list is about characters in the TV series. It doesn't even mention comic-only characters like Shokaract. NotARealWord (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to WP:verify notability as a collectable toy or as a character. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A transwiki to Wikibooks is an option to discuss/consider. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics of common wasps and bees

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

The page is not encypclopedic; it reads more like an instruction manual or identification key. See WP:NOTAMANUAL. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page was previously nominated for deletion (by me, as it turned out). The decision at that time was a clear keep. Unfortunately, I've been unable to recover a copy of that discussion since it predated the current practice of archiving AfD debates. Rossami (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree, it's entirely encyclopedic. Its also well written, useful and factual information, ideal for WP. Source are decent as well. scope_creep (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know how you can say it's well written. There doesn't seem to be anything that could count as writing of any kind, let alone good writing. After that first introductory sentence, there's nothing but noun phrases. You must also be mistaken about the sources. There are lots of footnotes, but none of them is a cited source. Rather, they are further unsourced assertions. I think I agree with Ninjatacoshell; there is so much wrong with this article that it may be best to delete it. There is no definition of "common" (where I live, for instance, the bald-faced hornet is not common) so the scope is inevitably unclear. The article doesn't even function as a means of identification, and if it did, it would belong on Wikibooks, not here. The sourcing could perhaps be solved (an early edit summary claimed that "Every assertion in th paragraph is cited in the parent articles Honey bee or Africanized honey bee." – I haven't checked if that's true), but the fundamental problem would still remain that this is not an encyclopaedic topic. Features that distinguish a species from others in its area, and from its close relatives belong in the article on that species, not cobbled together into an awkward, oddly selective list. --Stemonitis (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it need a bundle of writing. It's an aggregate article, aesthetically pleasing, and succinct. Doesn't need much more. scope_creep (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the obvious hard work put into this article, it seems to fail as an encyclopedia article in too many ways. all the reasons given above apply. i do somewhat agree that this doesnt need to have sentences, and its short comments are appropriate for the form, but thats trivial compared to the big issue that this is not an encyclopedia article, but a field guide. the unverified notes, the sting levels, the video links, the assumption that these are common forms worldwide, the lack of references, the likelihood that the individual articles pointed to dont include this info (esp. the sting levels, which may not be universally recognized) all make this a "hornets nest" of issues. if someone thinks they can rescue this, maybe we could userfy it for them. im not sure how they would, and im not sure anyone would understand how complex a task it would be to get a good result.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and per above. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Transwiki to Wikibooks, probably a subpage of Wikibooks:Entomology/Common insects. It seems to fit their mandate perfectly. I'll tag it for copying, but if I've made an error, feel free to revert (or improve). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC) (Keep added September 1)[reply]
Keep and Transwiki to Wikibooks, agree with Quiddity. Widefox (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, keep as a comparison article - there are many examples of such. I added comparison category. Widefox (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a table aggregating encyclopedic information. Many similar comparison tables exist in Wikipedia and are useful to our readers. (See Comparison of operating systems for a single example.) This comparison table format which has proven useful to our readers. This page is moderately linked internally and is well-linked externally.
The information on the page is clearly sourced on the respective pages about each insect. The subset of information that's unsourced is, of course, eligible for removal but that does not require AfD to resolve. As a side note, we had a lengthy debate on Talk a few years ago about the 'sting levels'. I shared the skepticism expressed above but the consensus at the time was to leave it in. If the consensus has changed, be bold and take it out. That doesn't require deletion to remediate.
While the scope of the page is appropriate to debate (that is, whether bald-faced hornets are "common"), again, that debate is appropriate to hold on the article's Talk page, not in an AfD discussion. Rossami (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' It's an informative and very well illustrated article. What distinguishes information solely appropriate to a field guide from information worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia? There is no objective way of judging such a separation of material. If an opinion exists that an article needs a lot of work, that opinion should not lead to deletion of the article, otherwise there would be no stubs. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Island of Brighton, ON Canada

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

By the article's own admission, this does not exist on any map. Seems to be an entirely WP:OR description of some landform which the article creator, alone, has chosen to dub an "artificial island of...". Google reveals no sources other than this article. Yes, there are refs related to the history of the land in this area, but they do not confer notability or real-world verifiability for this "artificial island." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Land reclamation and artificial landforms have been in use for a long time, and the historical content provided does not really convey any sort of notability. If there was any significant coverage indicating otherwise (as there is for, say, the Palm Jumeirah), this could be salvageable, but in the end the information does not really indicate why this particular artificial island is notable. Indeed, its lack of a name to identify it lends credence to that assertion. The nominator's original research concern also applies. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting concept but WP is not the place to launch new ideas (WP:OR). But still cool, there is also an artificial island of Alameda, California in my neighborhood. Borock (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, WP:OR. Have to say delete. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author's note: This is an artificial island, and this is a notable topic. The article does require editing. I suggest the following: 1. Change title to Isthmus of Murray, which is the notable, historical name for the land mass in question. 2. Reference the fact, notable and visible on any map, the Murray Canal does create an artificial island, albeit, one which is not named. 3. Add links to the Town of Brighton, ON and Quinte West, both of which have areas on this land mass a fact which is notable and verifiable. This is relevant and significant to the visitors and inhabitants of this area. I think I understand the rationale for the deletion nomination and I suggest these changes will address these concerns. I'd appreciate your feedback and will certainly address the issues to ensure full compliance with Wikipedia guidelines for this important historical anomaly in the political and municipal boundaries of the area. This continues to have a significant economic impact, particularly with respect to tourism. As such, I'd really like to find the proper home in Wikipedia for this information. Thank you. Ddinglebb (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Isthmus of Murray would be a notable topic, based on my Googling. I suggest you create that article as it now seems likely this is going to be deleted and the current article name would not be useful as a redirect, in my opinion. As for this "artificial island" created by a canal, I suggest you not to make too big a deal of it as anything other than a passing mention will likely be tagged or removed as WP:OR. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Will amend article and re-submit on the topic of the Isthmus of Murray. Will tread carefully to ensure avoidance of WP:OR issues. Thanks Ddinglebb (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Island: Panama

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

A fan Wikia reality series. Must we say anymore, because we all know this is a WP:MADEUP violation. Nilocia (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as below. Nolelover 20:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, patently non-notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Island: Tahiti

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

An awful melding of both Wikipedia and reality show articles which somehow results in this incredible mess where someone has taken pieces of reality show articles and turned it into...I don't know what to say, but crap would actually be a compliment. Really, a Wikipedia reailty show? I...I have no words. I don't even have a trout to the creator. Nilocia (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or Merge Redirect~~ into Poptropica, which, I think, is where this comes from. I tagged this article, but it confused me so much that I just asked an admin. to do the dirty work. I agree that it needs to be done away with. Nolelover 20:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A merge? What content could possibly be merged into Poptropica that is from this article? Nilocia (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, wrong word. :D Nolelover 20:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: Just delete, per Hammer explaining things to me. Heck, this probably could have been Prodded or Speedied. Nolelover 20:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, patently non-notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Leslie (singer). JForget 00:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Futur 80

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

Unsourced, and a canceled album by a sub-par artist is hardly notable Nolelover 19:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article about a product that was never released. scope_creep (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leslie (singer). Without any additional commentary (such as about why the album was cancelled), there isn't enough information to justify a keep action. It is nonetheless a plausible search term for someone looking for information on the topic or the artist, and the article about the artist mentions this album. Of course, some citations there would be nice also... --Kinu ^t/_c 21:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Leslie (singer), as artcile fails notability criteria for albums: it was not released, but it is a possible search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is a consensus that all fail the inclusion criteria. Courcelles 02:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Cohen (rugby league)

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

Nominating a number of what will almost cirtanily be Wikipedia:Permastub created by Youndbuckerz (talk · contribs) on American rugby league players. Rugby league in America is not a fully professional sport, and while a very small number of these players may play the game at the highest levels it is not the case at this time. I do not believe that these players meet any relevant notability criteria (WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG) and there for should be deleted

as well as this article also nominating :

Also nominating the following but they have been contested PROD's, but still no indication that they meet any relevant notability criteria :

Codf1977 (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all because of the huge size of the list, a few could be notable and deleted regardless, and it would be ashame to delete possibly notable content by mistake. Nilocia (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Codf1977 has gone through the list carefully and posted the list at Wikiproject Rugby League for input. These are all non-notable US rugby league players. Rugby league in the US is far from professional, so these stubs - which are in danger of lying unattended on the project - need to be deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all They all fail WP:BIO and other relevant categories. None are professional athletes and none has independent sources which would otherwise satisfy WP:BIO.--TM 21:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all if that's all there is in them. If any of them are by some chance notable, someone will put those ones back. I doubt any are, though. By the time this AfD gets closed, someone will have gone through them. (No, not me...) Peridon (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pity who ever has to do the honors. Nilocia (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all All the articles are way too short, unsourced (one external link for the entire collection) and, most importantly, non-notable. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 07:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP SOME I was the one who created them and it would be a total waste of time to create them in the first place when i find out they get deleted i will be very pissed off. i will pick out some which i think should be deleted and keep some which i think shouldnt be deleted. Because i hate it when i find my pages/useful information i have provided for others to see gone i could easily spend my time elsewhere then contributing to wikipedia so think about that before you delete them!.YB 07:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about your time, however this is not a reason to keep them - please see WP:PLEASEDONT. The simple fact is that these people just don't meet the notability standards for a WP article. Codf1977 (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I have no problem with these players being mentioned -- no merge, no redirect-- on their respective team pages, but there's no inherent notability under WP:ATHLETE for AMNRL players. I note that Youndbuckerz has created other articles that about AMNRL players that have not been nominated because there's an assertion of notability, three examples being Brent Shorten, Luke Hume and Siose Muliumu, the MVPs of the league over the last three years. However, nearly all of these articles follow the same formula: "(Name) is an (nationality) rugby league player for the (team) in the AMNRL. His position is (position)." Exceptions to that format are the first four on the list (Frymoyer, Madden, Worthington, and Quirk) who were selected for an all-star team, but that means only that they are more notable than other players in the same league. There's no reason to be upset if these get deleted. The facts -- name, nationality, team, and position -- can all be mentioned somewhere (team pages), but not in individual articles. Mandsford 02:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Hicks

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

non notable due to lack of third party reliable coverage about this person Theserialcomma (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few ghits, or indeed any primary sources to establish notability. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 1:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete - fails the WP:GNG and WP:BIO guidelines. Also, this article does not have any third-party reliable sources. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if sourced, there really isn't any notability here Vartanza (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kennesaw, Georgia#Education. JForget 00:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Baptist Christian School of Kennesaw

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

Delete. School is not notable. No references except school site. Student7 (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schools are used by 100's of folk everyday and that makes them notable. The article needs some work, and has a good chance of becoming a good article. scope_creep (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The same argument can be made for the toilets at those schools. Let's not revert to the silly (and long since debunked) arguments of several years ago on this matter, please. We have good notability criteria based upon sourcing now. Apply them. Uncle G (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, no references beyond school's website, and this article essentially duplicates that content while adding some unsourced commentary about the principal change, etc. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per below sounds like a legitimate solution. Could potentially be a search term that should go somewhere (and to possibly discourage recreation). --Kinu ^t/_c 23:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kennesaw, Georgia#Education, where it is already mentioned. This is a non-notable primary school. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kennesaw, Georgia#Education per Gene93k and WP:OUTCOMES#Education. Deor (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uncle G, no, that would be silly indeed. The real problem though, is that there are 10's of thousands of USA schools made it in to WP for no particular reason except they exist, and somebody decided to add them. But for some reason now, schools need to be "notable" when the clearly represent pure factual encyclopedic information, and they are getting removed at a rapid rate. If that bias is allowed to exist and continue, at some point its going to damage the reputation of WP in the eye's of the up and coming generation. It could become another MySpace and the real work will be moved somewhere else, probably to China. They have a much more cohesive rational towards the value of raw information. That's the reason I want it kept in. scope_creep (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't recall grade school articles being given free rein on Wikipedia before and "now" needing to be notable; it seems to me that they have always been almost habitually sent to AfD — and, it's worth pointing out, are usually found not to meet the notability guidelines. And these guidelines are why Wikipedia doesn't become MySpace. --Closeapple (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gene93k and Deor, as we normally do for elementary schools. This is an elementary school -- it only goes up to the 6th grade (students up to 11 or 12 years old). Elementary schools are not presumed notable, and this article gives no reason to suggest that this school is notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gene93k, Deor, and Metropoliotan90. WP:OUTCOMES#Education provides sufficient rationale. Other than directory and social networking sites, I have not found any other sources at all that might establish notabiity.--Kudpung (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above: fails WP:ORG; and as mentioned, grade schools don't get the presumption that notability will be established, as high schools often do. --Closeapple (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Don't understand "redirect" votes. This is on an elementary school, not a high school. There are perhaps tens of thousands of elementary schools in the country. All redirects? Seems a change in policy somehow. We've discouraged elementary and middle schools til now (unless notable) for reasons of vandalism.Student7 (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - a mention of elementary schools in their district article (US public schools) or their locality (others) is just fine, just as we mention and redirect parks, art galleries and loads of other features. Vandalism isn't a reason not to create articles. Having said that, vandalism on merged and redirected schools is not a common occurrence. TerriersFan (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Kennesaw, Georgia#Education per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Kennesaw, Georgia#Education per usual practice - we have well established policy/guidelines on all this. Unlrss they have doene something extraordfinary to assert special notability such as being hundreds of years old, or having bred a succession of presidents, or received an important national or international award, primary schools are just not notable, neither in the US nor here in the UK.--Kudpung (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I am TERRIBLE at using Google. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Kennedy (Scottish singer)

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

Not notable, no sources found to verify info here. Only hits online are for an unrelated country music songwriter who is clearly not the same person. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as an unsourced BLP. Nolelover 20:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considered by the Scottish Government to be "a major figure in the Scottish music scene. She is equally respected as a performer and as an authoritative commentator on world, classical, traditional and folk music", presenter of BBC Radio Scotland Young Traditional Musician of the Year, her marriage made an article in the Daily Record, and presenter of BBC Radio Scotland's Celtic Connections programme and two-times Royal National Mod gold medal winner.--Michig (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article moved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She has won a couple of golds at the Mod, which make her big News in Scotland for the luvvie crowd. There is a large number of primary and secondary source available. Clearly passes WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 1:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 probably merge somewhere. Even the nomination supports a merge, discuss on the talk page where to merge and redirect to. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HIV exceptionalism

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

Based entirely on one single source, seems like original research or perhaps a neologism. Either Delete or Merge to AIDS or an AIDS-related article. Spatulli (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was getting ready to call this a Non-Notable Neologism, but I ran a Google search for the phrase and it came back with a number of reasonably impressive hits. So I will say: as it currently stands, this is written like a dictionary definition, and WP is not a dictionary, etc. However, it would seem that an article on this topic COULD be written, which would imply that this should be kept and not trashed. Color me neutral. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems like much of the Google hits point to a single person called Ronald Bayer who apparently coined the term back in 1991 (see [4] and [5]). IMO if this AfD is closed as kept the content should be merged or renamed as I stated in my rationale above. Spatulli (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~and rename~~. While AIDS seems the most likely target, it could go to any general article on HIV/AIDS and public health. Sadly, my quick look for such an article or section came up empty. I found public health discussed in local-level articles, only. While there is enough material related to the term to make an article, the article (or section) should be "HIV/AIDS and public health" or some variant with the emphasis on the term "public health", not this neologism which appears in quotes in a number of the articles in which it is mentioned.Novangelis (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you please clarify your vote? It seems to me like you didn't actually mean to say "Merge" but rather "Keep and rename to HIV/AIDS and public health". Am I right? I agree, but then the problem with this is that the article will then have to be completely rewritten. Spatulli (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No, my vote is for merging, at the present. Currently, there is not enough material written or a distinct enough topic to support a stand-alone article. This is an idea that needs a home, but not necessarily one of its own. I'm not sure that the term "complete rewrite" ever applies to a three-sentence article; we can build off of what is written, but the text has to be developed into a clear topic rather than a definition. Since this is about public health and there is a paucity of discussion, that might be a good direction to go. Ideally, we can improve the article such that I will change my recommendation to keep and rename. I'll also throw out the idea of another article to which it is related and for which public health is poorly discussed: Sexually transmitted disease. The article might develop to be a keepable article in a manner that I had not anticipated, so I don't want to commit to a name before the improvement.Novangelis (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be helpful if you could specify where to merge the article. But you can also generalize to say "Merge to AIDS or another AIDS-related topic" - it's legitimate too. But if you say "and rename", it's not clear what you mean. I think what you meant to say was "Merge or Keep/Rename". "Merge AND rename" is just impossible to make. :) Spatulli (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of renaming after a merge is avoiding jargon; the obscure term should not appear in the section header, and, thus, the table of contents. If you saw "HIV exceptionalism" as a section header, would you have any idea what the section is about if you didn't already know the meaning of the term? The exact reword would depend upon the article. For AIDS, it might be "Special status in public health". While I listed AIDS as a default target for a merge, it is possible that there is a better fit and would support such if anyone can find it. My ongoing search isn't coming up with anything. I struck the "and rename" aspect out of my recommendation to avoid further confusion. This discussion should suffice.Novangelis (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable - a phrase only mentioned once in one article 13 years ago. Bearian'sBooties 01:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It was in 1991. So 19 years, not 13 :) Spatulli (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Bearian, do you see that "Find sources" at the top of this page? Maybe you'd like to click on some of those and try again. I suggest you try the "books" and "scholar" links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, OK, I was at a bad computer :-) Keep. 13:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  - Why not merge to AIDS? Wouldn't it be better? Spatulli (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is IMO a valid topic, but it's just a small piece of it. Specifically for HIV, there's a big push for exceptionalism, which results in odd behaviors (e.g., a legal requirement to "counsel" a sophisticated AIDS activist about the test, because he might -- after dozens of tests over the last decade -- still be as ignorant and panicky as a young teenager). However, HIV isn't actually unique: similar restrictions are put around other subjects, e.g., elective abortions and cancer diagnoses. So I think there's a bigger article here, but I'm not sure what to do with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article and the similar stub, Genetic exceptionalism, could perhaps be merged to the general article Exceptionalism. I'm not sure that's the best option, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies for the disjointed replies. There's plenty of sources out there for HIV exceptionalism: PMID 19451406, PMID 17678423, PMID 17626924, PMID 16914699, PMID 16885092, PMID 15923478, PMID 9556470 (and many more). There are also some on "Stem cell exceptionalism" (PMID 20461647, PMID 16578940), a current discussion on "Research exceptionalism" (PMID 20694909), and a fair number on Genetic exceptionalism (PMID 20588076, PMID 20556868, PMID 17543059, PMID 11508189, to name a few). So I think this article meets the minimum threshold for notability, but I'm still not sure whether it makes more sense to merge it to a larger topic, or to leave it separate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have actually found some "bigger article" where this can be, and is, mentioned. See Exceptionalism#Separateness, where the subject of AIDS exceptionalism is discussed. Further, I think the main issue here is that this is a neologism that doesn't meet the notability requirements. If you can assert it is notable enough by expanding it with further content and third party reliable sources that prove it is an eligible subject, be my guest. We're talking about the current state of the article as it stands now, which is not worthy of keeping IMO, not about what may happen someday. I strongly support a Merge to another article, however, as stated in my rationale... Spatulli (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, WP:N has nothing to do with the current state of the article. If the subject gets attention, then the article gets kept -- even if it currently cites zero sources, contains only a single sentence, has massive grammar problems, and other fixable problems. Deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do not think this is a notable subject. Do you have sources that can prove me wrong? Even if it is, I think a merge would certainly be appropriate, at the current state of this article. Spatulli (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Click on "scholar" in "find sources". The first page includes articles from JAMA, Archives of Internal Medicine, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine. The subject has been covered in major sources—more than enough to establish notability. Because it is medical jargon, it should redirect. The only question is where.Novangelis (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'd suggest a merge to Exceptionalism#Separateness and to AIDS as well. You're very right - the only question is where to redirect. Maybe there are other eligible articles but I cannot currently find or think of another one. Spatulli (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think a lot of good sources have been listed here. It's probably enough for a short article on HIV exceptionalism. I guess in an ideal world, we'd have an article like Policy responses to HIV/AIDS, or Public health response to HIV/AIDS, or something along those lines, where we could integrate this material into a more comprehensive scope. MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exceptionalism seems to go hand-in-hand with advocacy - it happens with many conditions to varying degrees. HIV exceptionalism is sufficiently notable to warrant specific coverage. I agree with other comments here that the question regarding whether it warrants an article depends on how extensively this coverage expands. Currently, it does not seem to need a free-standing article. -- Scray (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 17:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge the term into one of the more general articles. As it stands, I doubt that this term will warrant a separate article anytime soon. Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This term is covered extensively in a number of respected medical journals [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But, is not notable per se. It should be anyway merged to AIDS. This has no place in a separate article. The only question is whether to merge and where, or delete. Look in comments above Spatulli (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I've found a lot of WP:RS in the Ghits, but I do not feel there is enough material for a stand-alone article. Prbably merging it with Aids would be a net benefit to the Aids article which IMO could use some expansion.--Kudpung (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SIZE for reasons why the AIDS article, at 129 KB, could certainly not use any expansion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is evidently notable and deletion will not improve our coverage of it. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think this isn't a notable subject per se. It is certainly part of a larger concept. The content can be kept but then should be merged to AIDS or another AIDS- related article. I don't say the article has to be deleted. The content can be kept, but not in a separate articleSpatulli (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless made-up concept, probably from some tenured academic, or drug-industry funded activist, with nothing better to do. Bluehotel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The Google Scholar search helpfully linked in the nomination shows that this is clearly a notable, widely studied, concept. Merging to AIDS is out of the question, as that article, at 129 kilobytes, needs some more summary style splitting rather than further bloating. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it out question? Can you explain yourself a little bit more please? Spatulli (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SIZE for the reasons why. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean it should be expanded? That's not the issue here. The problem is that it is not notable enough for a separate article and there's no evidence of it from the text in the artice either. If you can give more references and improve the article, ok. In the present state of the article a merge seems to be a good choice, and you still didn't answer my question, which was not why you said to keep, but why a merge is "out of question". Please explain yourself a little bit more. Also, why do you sugggest "more summary style splitting rather than further bloating."? I didn't understand that at all. What "summary style" has to do here at all?? I mean, the summary style page talks about huge articles, not about stubs, right? Spatulli (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you just make a habit of not reading comments properly before you reply to them? As I said above, AIDS is the "huge article" in question. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice it. Spatulli (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get the point. Do you mean that the subject of HIV exceptionalism should be under some section in AIDS? For the moment it's not even mentioned there.Spatulli (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are saying that this should be under some section in AIDS, by your repeated calls to merge this article. I am saying that it should be kept as a separate article because of the clear notability shown by the sources found by the Google Scholar search linked right at the top of this discussion, which is supposed to be used by people commenting here to help inform their opinions, and because the AIDS article is already too big, so no more content should be merged there. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was confused by your first comment "needs some more summary style splitting". I thought you meant something else. Spatulli (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to AIDS#Society and culture. Although Bridger is correct that the AIDS article is already large (129 KB), the lone paragraph here isn't going to send it into critical mass. Ideally, people will consider spinning out an article about society's reaction to AIDS; I'm surprised it hasn't happened already, but the lack of any other merger target and the considerable size of the article are both arguments in favor of making an article about the social aspects of AIDS, of which the "exceptionalism" described here-- i.e., treating HIV differently than one would other STDs-- is but one factor. Mandsford 23:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. :) Spatulli (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn per the sources found by First Light (talk · contribs), which I took care of inserting into the article. Seriously, though, when we're dealing with a prolific mass-producer of press releases like this, finding reliable sources is like finding a needle in a haystack. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roni Lynn Deutch

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

Attorney with no evidence of notability. When I tried to prod this article, I found out that it had been deleted four years ago in a discussion tainted by both sides. Although this incarnation fails to address the concerns expressed in the first AfD, IMO 4 years is too long for a G4 speedy. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry Blanchard. I think she is plenty notable, given for instance these search results. She runs a big operation, and there must be an article there that has more than just 'controversies.' Moreover, and I am not sure this was addressed appropriately in the first AfD, she is smoking hot (I'm not a spring chicken anymore), and I think WP:HOTTIE applies. In case you're wondering, yes, my wife thinks I'm a total moron.Drmies (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: some of the Google News results are press-releases or material of a similar sort which are not reliable sources. Perhaps there is a source out there which supports the assertion of notability in the article. No recommendation either way at the moment, pending further research. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there are also plenty of good sources there. The way I see it, a company that big and visible, and gets sued for so much money, is pretty much notable already. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much as I hate BLPs based mostly on negative notoriety, she is getting some widespread and mainstream coverage: LA Times,[11] Time,[12] Forbes (blog).[13] In addition to the lawsuits against her, the Forbes blog point out that she is notable because "Deutch gets a fair amount of free air time as a “tax expert” on such networks as Time Warner’s CNN and GE’s NBC." First Light (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though there was a strong consensus towards Keep, it seems likely at the least that this would not be deleted, but possibly a more prolonged merge discussion could continue. This can take place at the article's talk page, and if needed, editors can pursue further dispute resolution steps there, RFC, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monster (Lady Gaga song)

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

Per WP:NSONGS: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". There is hardly enough verifiable material for this to warrant a separate article.

In this digital era where non-singles can chart off of high downloads or airplay, I really think the music notability rules should be altered, but this is not the place to discuss it. Basically, not every random non-single that charts needs to have an article. I don't see what's here that couldn't be present in The Fame Monster. –Chase (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Fame Monster. Looking at the content that's properly sourced, I agree that it could be merged into the album article.--Michig (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm fairly neutral on this now that it has been expanded and sourced better - I think it should be merged or kept. More details on the songs on the album could easily be added to The Fame Monster using the detailed album reviews, and the relevant detail covered there, but it's marginal whether this would make that article too long, so I have no real objection to this remaining a standalone article.--Michig (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - Agreed with nominator comments. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* I do agree, not every song needs an article, BUT this song has had the same amount of promotion as what DITD did, with live performances, and it was kept. It's blank now, but if you add to it and fix it, we can have a very good constructed article.--Jackex56 (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dance in the Dark had a lot of information about it and it is currently at GA status. There is hardly any information here. Add to it right now and maybe I'll change my mind. –Chase (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe there will be enough info soon to make this article a good one. She has had 3 different live performances of the song (that I know of), and there may be more soon. She has performed on Oprah, Monster Ball Tour 1 and 2. There was also a NZ promo-single last week on iTunes. It charted high because of it. It has notability because it's been receiving airplay on NZ radio stations. It has more notability as a song than "Speechless", and with time, it would become a good article.--Morgan3136 (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When that information is available, you may have a valid point. However, is the info available right now? No. Therefore it is not notable right now. –Chase (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The above comment displays my view on the subject. Seeing as Monster has had a individual release (iTunes NZ), unlike Speechless, I think it is somewhat more notable then Speechless. Also had a similar amount of promotion (live Performances), high charts on the NZ charts and other charts, and still managed to peak higher than "Beautiful, Dirty, Rich" on the UK charts. It has also been confirmed to be getting radio airplay in NZ.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some references to show that this was released as a single. Charting does not make a song a single. Radio stations can play songs without the label releasing them to radio. –Chase (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It charted on the UK singles chart, which is based on singles sales, not radio airplay, therefore it must have been released as a single. Not sure how the other charts are determined, but I think in most of Europe radio airplay is not the normal method. JulesH (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily - the UK singles chart includes download sales, which includes downloads of album tracks.--Michig (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that is hardly relevant to the deletion discussion, since being released as a single is not a requirement for a song to be notable. Rlendog (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then how is this notable? Notability guidelines only say that charting probably makes a song notable. This song has only been performed on Oprah and it charted in a few countries. Can be mentioned in The Fame Monster. All critical reviews are coming from the album (not a requirement for review inclusion but the reviews do not indicate individual notability aside from the album). –Chase (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator comments. Candy o32 01:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Currently, this article doesn't have enough material to deserve to be kept, and the song hasn't done anything spectacular. If more relevant content is added, I would gladly reconsider, but until then I think it should be merged with the album. Ishdarian|lol^wut 04:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge At this point in time, the song Monster does not deserve it's own article. It's as simple as that. Just becuase the song has charted on a few charts, and has been performed a few times does not give the song enough importance. Tons of different singers sing their songs that are not singles, but they don't get there own wiki page. So what should Gaga? I am open to change though if the song continues to rise on some charts and becomes more well know.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of information that could be added to this article. i would do it myself... but im terrible with sourcing things. GOPTeen1995 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until said information is added to the article by somebody, I'm afraid that's not a valid argument, especially since you're not providing sources that could be used. –Chase (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added some composition information and reviews. More to come following more research. GOPTeen1995 (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge if that was possible. There is nothing in the article that can't be present in The Fame Monster. And that's coming from the person who created "Dance in the Dark". — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the person who created Dance in the Dark". Really???. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh. I should have been clear. The person who promoted it to GA. Feel better? Or worse? I DGAF. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Without this song TFM would never have been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.206.62 (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasons based in wiki policy? –Chase (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Merge is not a sensible option for a modern song. There is no logical way that the contents can go in the album article without unbalancing the album article, for example a sample of this one song doesn't sit in the album article without samples of the other songs. So the result of any merge is that in practice the content is ultimately removed entirely. So the question is, do we keep the song article or delete it. So then we have to look at WP:NSONGS. Has it been ranked on national or significant music charts? It charted in the UK and New Zealand so clearly the answer to that is yes, note the wording is about being ranked, this has nothing to do with being released or a single. Next part 'a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs'. Looking at the talk page it's assessed as a Stub - that's a bit hard. The criteria of 'a reasonably detailed article' is the heart of the issue for me and rightly given by the nominator. The current sources for the article are not substantial and also I understand that additional references are unlikely in the future. On the other hand we doesn't set a minimum length for article. The body of the current article body has 796 words and we have Featured articles (Tropical Depression Ten (2005),Tropical Storm Erick (2007)) that have less. So for me it's really a borderline situation with 'a reasonably detailed article' and on balance my view that it is reasonably detailed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't even need to be merged. We don't need a sample of the song in The Fame Monster and if necessary, we can mention that it charted in that article. Per WP:NSONGS, charting only makes it "probably notable". If charting absolutely made a song notable in every case, we would have far too many song articles on wiki. This isn't a notable song and I see no reason for us to keep its article. –Chase (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are suggesting we mention that Monster charted in The Fame Monster but not the other songs? This is what I refer to above as unbalancing the album article. Once you have mentioned information on one song there is a good case for mentioning information them all, or the more likely alternative - leaving them all out. Charting alone doesn't make a song notable, it's one for several criteria specified in WP:NSONGS. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did I ever say we couldn't mention other songs charting in that article? –Chase (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we just put it in Lady Gaga Discography? CheezeDoodles (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Discography would be musical releases. Non-singles aren't releases. –Chase (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I agree with Sun Creator's comment. --Europe22 (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete* It serves no great purpose. There is not much of a background and there are alot of songs which have charted higher that don't have a page. CheezeDoodles (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It meets the notability guidelines of WP:NSONG and there is a reasonably detailed article. Rlendog (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* - the article would be out of place merged into another, information would also have to be provided then about all of the songs including those singles which already have pages as singles and there is too much information and the digital sales that are charting it are sufficient to presume it may be a future single, to consider deletion would go against the wikipedia ideals of distributing such information. the song is also notable alongside the creator of the article, hence why I linked it to the Lady Gaga template

- kaiserm (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing really even to merge. All we have to do is mention that it charted in a few countries and maybe include the Oprah performance in the The Fame Monster article. All notable information about this song is already included in that article (except the charts, which, again, can easily be mentioned). Charting does not imply that a song will be a single, see WP:NOR. –Chase (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Notable in the charts (Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable.), ~~but not notable with the prose, all unsourced and original researches.~~ but still not being independent from The Fame Monster Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 16:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - there really is nothing particularly notable here. The entire article seems to only serve the purpose of praising a Lady Gaga song. It's an album track that charted briefly due to some download sales. Performing it live does not make a song notable. - eo (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated before, Dance in the Dark was kept when it was not officially a single, so it seems to be a little strange to delete Monster. In my opinion, Monster has been sufficiently advertised, having been promoted on Rock Band 2, performed on The Oprah Winfrey Show, and featured in the advertisement for The Fame Monster along with the first three singles. This video shows a notable significance. The four songs featured in the video were Bad Romance, Telephone, Alejandro, and Monster, respectively. The first three songs were released as singles, in the order that they were shown. If that pattern continues Monster may well be another single. It seems somewhat likely, however, that it won't be released as a single. Even so, Speechless was never released as a single. Again, as stated before, with a little sprucing up, Monster could be a perfectly respectable article. - Weaselpie (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't keep this article just because other non-single songs have articles. See WP:OSE. And that video means nothing. "Dance in the Dark" has been released as the fourth single anyway and to assume that it will be a single from that is pure WP:OR. "Speechless" is a very notable song which is why it has an article, this isn't which is why it shouldn't have one. –Chase (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but possibly merge/redirect. Continued discussion on the article's talk page will be needed to determine if and where to target a merger/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erdinç Tekir

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

This article do not meet the general notability guideline. Kavas (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that one of Mavi Marmara passangers was a former hijacker, but that does not mean there should be an article for this man. There are only two special things in his life. Besides, he was not the leader of that hijacking event, the leader was Muhammed Emin Tokcan. In addition, there is nothing iconic about him that deserves a page, and practically you cannot write an article about a person with such little significance. Kavas (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a rap sheet or a detective agency.Borock (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are indeed two very special things in this man's life. The first is that he was part of a an armed group of Islamist militants that hijacked a civilian ferryboat and held over 200 people hostage for three days, threatening to blow the boat up with the passengers aboard if Russia did not pull its army out of Chechnya. He was convicted <section deleted> and served time in a Turkish prison. <section deleted> Most of the sourced material in the article has been removed, and needs to be replaced.AMuseo (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This contribution appears to make unsourced allegations about a living person and should therefore be removed. PatGallacher (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - His first activity is hijacking and we are sure that he was an hijacker. His second activity is being on the ship seized by Israeli Army. <section deleted> Yes, he was on the ship, but it's not cited that he resisted violently as far as I know. Even if he resisted violently, there is no need to write an article about him as there are many people who resisted violently on that ship. Kavas (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are problems in your comment not directly related to this discussion, but I have to correct them otherwise voters would not know the truth. Firstly, the Circassians who hijacked the Avrasya ferry were not convicted of terrorism, as the Turkish laws (See (http://www.mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr/html/809.html) define terrorism as an attack on the Republic. Though he served in the prison, the Court convicted him of hijacking not of terrorism as the hijacking was not considered as against the Republic (http://arsiv.ntvmsnbc.com/news/78509.asp). As Muhammed Emin Tokcan, the leader of the group, is a Circassian man (comes from a family deported from Circassia by Russia in 1856 who settled in Turkey), the group is more pro-Chechen than Islamist. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/apr/26/chechnya.worlddispatch) Kavas (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You also have to prove that the MV Mavi Marmara passangers had guns, I know they took rifles from Israeli soldiers (FM Davutoğlu had a talk with Barak, reportedly Barak told Davutoğlu that the passangers fired at soldiers with captured rifles.)Kavas (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now this is my comment on the reason of your vote:"That's directly related to the discussion here: I think that when you take up arms in a way that draws the attention of the world press twice, you are sufficiently notable to have an article". First of all, do you know he took up arms, or is it your guess? For example, Ken O'Keefe took the rifles of soldiers, but we have no information whether Mr. Tekir took guns. If you can find a source for it, please cite it. In the first event, the significiant thing is the hijacking event, not particularly Mr. Tekin's involvement. In the second event, the flotilla raid got world's attention not because of his presence at the ship. If he did something special in the raid, like killing someone or being killed, that would get world's attention, but this is not so. He did not become a hero in Turkey. The page of Ali Heyder Bengi was deleted as people decided that he is not notifiable although he was killed. There is not a "Significant coverage" for "himself". He is only noted for his participation in that flotilla where people was killed after hijacking a ferry 14 years ago. You cannot open a page for any terrorist you want, there should be something special about them, for example German Wikipedia has an article on Zeynep Kınacı (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeynep_K%C4%B1nac%C4%B1) as she is the first female suicide bomber of PKK. His presence at the ship can be noted somewhere else in Wikipedia, but that does not mean an article should be written about him. Kavas (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gaza flotilla raid etc. Takabeg (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Now we have enough information about him. Takabeg (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep documented terrorist, not just a 'militant'. Quite notable for WP. --Shuki (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Terrorist is a value-laden word to be avoided per WP:LABEL (.i.e. POV) (signed later on, unintended) -DePiep (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment This discussion could benefit from the help of someone able to consult Russian-language and Turkish-language newspapers for coverage of Tekir's involvement with the ferryboat hijacking, of the IHH (Turkish NGO) and of the Gaza flotilla raid. This AFD seems premature ... <section deleted>.AMuseo (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, or merge if there is anything of value to the flotilla raid article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable and verifiable sources are provided to show that this individual has received ongoing media coverage, establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Sea hostage crisis unless more substantial coverage of the person can be found. Let's consider the various notability guidelines first. We need to consider the general notability guideline, the basic notability criteria for people, and the special notability criteria for criminals.

WP:GNG requires "significant coverage", defined as "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". We have a small number of short articles from Turkish reliable sources, which are all about the story: Erdinç Tekir, one of the IHH members wounded on board the Mavi Marmara was in fact a terrorist. These articles are not at all interested in the person Erdinç Tekir – where and when he was born, his background, his motivations etc. – but only in the fact that his person proves an overlap between the Mavi Marmara passengers and pro-Chechen terrorists. IMO this is not "significant coverage".
According to WP:BASIC, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Given that we learn almost nothing about the man except his participation in two notable events, I argue that we have only trivial coverage.
Application of WP:PERPETRATOR is somewhat problematic, since it silently assumes a single perpetrator. But in the Black Sea incident Erdinç Tekir seems to be mentioned only in the context of a complete list of the hijackers (can someone verify this?). Therefore criterion 3 (which applies to the Black Sea hijacking) is not sufficient here. Criterion 2 clearly does not apply, leaving us with criterion 1: "The perpetrator is notable for something beyond the crime itself." Given that he was far from the only perpetrator in that case, and the only other thing he is arguably notable for is being wounded on board the Mavi Marmara (and the overlap I mentioned above), this does not appear sufficient.

Additional concerns are BLP and NPOV.

BLP (which tends to take precedence over everything else), more specifically its section WP:BLP1E, says very clearly: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." In this case reliable sources have covered the subject only in the context of two events, but in the coverage of the first event he merely appeared on a list of 9 people (clearly not enough to establish notability), and in the second he would not have been mentioned at all had he not participated in the first. Therefore the spirit of this principle applies, as does the rationale: "Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view." (See next items.) In this case BLP advises: "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article [...]." The last sentence says: "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." While there is no doubt about the significance of the two events, there is no persistent coverage of Erdinç Tekir in reliable sources.
In its current form the article violates WP:COATRACK. It is not about the man but about the fact that there was a former terrorist on board the Mavi Marmara. (Something that Israeli sources such as the IDF had persistently claimed without any proof at all.) It's not acceptable to create a BLP article just for such a bit of information that can easily be included in another article (in fact, in several other articles).

Taking everything together, unless someone can find more detailed coverage of the Black Sea hijacking he is not notable at this time, although he comes relatively close and things could certainly change. E.g. a Turkish newspaper might decide to interview him and publish a portrait piece. BLP1E advises us to redirect the name to "the event article". Since his role in the first incident appears to have been a lot more active and significant than in the second, that's the correct redirect target. I guess Black Sea hostage crisis should also be updated with a short mention of the connection to the Gaza incident. Hans Adler 09:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment: this is a great analysis, taking our policy on notability and such onto a higher level. -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Black Sea hostage crisis, Hans Adler states the case very well. I think this discussion has become a vehicle for all sorts of pov-pushing, unwarranted synthesis, and unsourced attacks on several living people. PatGallacher (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Sea hostage crisis as per Hans Adler above -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I may support a redirect, but I see no reason to choose Black Sea hostage crisis as a target over MV Mavi Marmara or vice versa.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources within the article appear to establish notablity and there does not appear to be a viable target for a merger.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources in the article seem to show that he's received significant coverage. Apparently notable for two events, so a redirect isn't a good idea. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notable thing should be himself, not the events. In this case, the events are notable. Kavas (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. Media coverage is based on the controversies surrounding the MV Mavi Marmara . --Jmundo (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't this interview from before that event? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Sea hostage crisis. Per comments above. Spatulli (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix up style. Being actively involved in two notable maritime incidents makes one notable. A redirect, even if it were a good idea in principle, would run into the problem of which incident to redirect to, as several editors have pointed out. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Wade

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article creator is a single purpose account with seemingly intimate knowledge of the subject. That's not an automatic disqualifier, obviously, but it's worthy of note. Footnoting is terrible here, but I'm neither here nor there on inclusion. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional in tone, and non-notable. PhilKnight (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the provided references, several are self-referential, several are press releases that mention him in passing, and several (including the NYT one) don't mention Mr. Wade at all. Only the Advertising Age article provides significant coverage, and that's not enough IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mandsford 21:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lincity

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

Non-notable game that depends solely on one source. Nilocia (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to LinCity-NG. There is some coverage for this game in the reliable sources. See for example this article published by the Washington Post or another review at CNN.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vejvančický. —I-20 the highway 17:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you'll both be lending your editing tools to going back to this 2007 version of the article and this 2007 version of the other article, then? Uncle G (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G: It is possible to write an informative article about a game, sources are present. All we need is competent editor. The "oldid" is irrelevant here. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary, it's relevant because, as you can see, in 2007 we had what you state you wanted above, an article at LinCity-NG. So are you going to use your editing tools to support going back to that? Uncle G (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, the naming is a question for editors who are familiar with the game. It isn't the most important thing at AfD. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick two-minute search yields good results at Joystiq, a feature at 1UP, Google Books shows some semi-promising results too. --Teancum (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and introduce the above references inlined into the article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons listed above. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:GNG Mandsford 21:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Hanlon

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

Non-notable person, fails music notability and is written from a non-neutral point of view Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and written by the subject himself. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:BAND. scope_creep (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is here. This isn't some ego trip, I have stated nothing but facts. I may not be a 'noteable' musician on a large scale yet, but i feel i have accomplished enough so far to justify a very small article. The intentions behind it were simply to offer a very brief history for the benefit of my followers and for future followers i gain as a result of several things that are in the pipeline for the remainder of this year. There will certainly be a lot more to update in the near future, but i'm not in a position right now where i can disclose those details. This is out of my hands but i strongly feel that removal of this article is not only unfair but also ignorant! - Kennyh7. 22:53pm, 28th August 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennyh7 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny, this project is an encyclopedia. There is a lot of free space on internet where you can inform your followers. Good luck with your career. Greetings from a musician who doesn't have an article here :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 22:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but we aren't ignorant. We know the rules of Wikipedia - and I'm afraid this article fails them. We are not saying you are not being factual. One self-released record doesn't confer enough notability for an article - and you give no references that might show any more. We get a lot of people in the music business putting up articles, and being very disappointed when they are deleted. A common claim is that notability is just round the corner, and sometimes that leaving the article would help that corner to be reached. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, though, and it is in the business of recording things that have 'made it', rather than the 'nearly theres'. Wikipedia is also not for promoting things, and articles are ideally 'about' not 'by' their subject. I do note that you have been factual rather than promotional in style, but the facts aren't enough just yet. Come back when you have a bit more achievement - and references from outside reliable sources to show it. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC) (PS - As with the above poster, I don't have an article about my music either...)[reply]
Delete - Zero footnotes on a BLP is an automatic fail, even if it is created by the subject, which is another issue of concern... Unverifiable, plain and simple. Good luck with your career though. Carrite (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced BLP, with no Google news or books or scholar hits that pertain to this person (a couple books hits from 1872 obviously do not apply to this person...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M. P. Birla Foundation Higher Secondary School

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

Fails WP:Notability Gian (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: common practice (but not written guidelines) holds that secondary schools are considered notable, at least this is the standard applied to American schools in AFD. So the standard should either be applied everywhere or reconsidered. Frankly I find the dividing line between primary and secondary schools bizarrely arbitrary. This entry is actually better sourced than some US school entries. Hairhorn (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Secondary schools are notable and articles about them are ideal encycopedic knowledge. It is also critical that the bias inherent in WP for articles on USA based schools in addressed.scope_creep (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secondary school article with references from national newspapers far exceeds what's mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. First Light (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the reasons for keeping high schools are given in the essay WP:NHS. However, apart from the generality this is clearly a significant and notable school. The page needs work but that is an editorial matter. There are plenty of sources available that meet WP:ORG and from which the article can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by usual consensus as a secondary school, and in fact this one is better sourced than most. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Bigger digger (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anusmar

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

Dictionary definition, orphaned. Hairhorn (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the very model of a dictionary definition. - Whpq (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agix 3D

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

Contested prod. Non-notable software, developped by a student. See also User talk:Blanchardb#Whats wrong with it?. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any sources. In the discussion linked to above the creator also admits sources are very unlikely to exist and states that he wrote the article in an attempt to get it noticed by someone. Hut 8.5 18:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Free (musician)

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

Contested prod. My initial justification for deletion was that it failed WP:V and WP:RS. I created the article in 2006, but I honestly can't remember why, and standards have clearly changed since then. I think it had something to do with a disambiguation issue. I would have G7ed the article, but an editor with a possible conflict of interest has made significant edits to the article since I created it. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for BLP failure. You can't be putting stuff like this up without footnotes, period: His second release The Living Dead, in 1999, received 4 Gay/Lesbian American Music Award nominations. He joins an infamous lists of artists whose works have been banned by government agencies (the City Hall of Chicago in the winter of 2001). Carrite (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Storey

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

This person does not appear to meet the basic requirements for inclusion. Whilst there are claims of notability, I cannot find any sources directly discussing the subject of the article and it is therefore not verifiable as required by WP:BLP. There is a related discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Smartse (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently none of the three refs mention Storey, though one has a link to adjudicators where she is listed amongst dozens of other people. She does not seem to be notable based on the refs given. Malick78 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and the references do not support notability. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the others, fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Premier Medical Group. JForget 00:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Brünjes

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

This person does not appear to meet the basic requirements for inclusion. Whilst there are claims of notability, I cannot find any sources directly discussing the subject of the article and it is therefore not verifiable as required by WP:BLP. I suggest it is instead redirected to Premier Medical Group. There is a related discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Smartse (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and redirect to Premier Medical Group self promotional puff piece.Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proper third party refs are provided establishing notability. Malick78 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect) Fails WP:BIO and we should not have an article on every businessman unless independent sources have demonstrated notability. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per Teapotgeorge. Fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 2005 Little League World Series

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

Wikipedia is not a sports almanac or indiscriminate collection of data. PROD contested. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Results of significant world-wide sports events are very often notable. The Little League World Series fits this criteria. It is not an indiscriminate collection of data. Furthermore, there is no rule (as far as I know), that says, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. On the contrary the results of sports events, written with appropriate sources, in an encyclopedic and NPOV tone, and following all the other guidelines of Wikipedia have an important place in Wikipedia.--Crunch (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also cannot find the policy that says Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. The 2.9.3 section that you reference in other posts has to do with an indiscriminate collection of statistics, and none of those concerns in that policy apply here - a) it's clean, and not difficult to understand for the average reader; b) the main article explains the 2005 LLWS with enough context to put this results article in context for the general reader; and c) as Crunch said, the LLWS is clearly a significant world-wide sporting event. Bds69 (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2005 Little League World Series. Giving this its own page is excessive, imho. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Muboshgu. I would have said "keep" otherwise. Nolelover 20:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge... no opinion either way, for the most part, but the content is not sufficiently indiscriminate to warrant outright deletion. Note that such articles exist for all years since 2005; thus, clear consensus is important here. I personally feel that a merge could work, as long as it does not make the main LLWS article for each year unwieldy; in that case, it might eliminate some redundancy to have it all in one article. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Wouldn't merging make the main article excessively long? Tampabay721 (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely it would be too long. I fail to see how this is different than other sporting events - i.e. 2010 FIFA World Cup and 2010 FIBA World Championship that have a separate page for the boxscores that aren't on the main page. Bds69 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be. The main article is 9k, the article in question is 23k. Combining the two wouldn't be unreasonable. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True on the size, but I think it's a simple matter of easy readability, not just in this year, but in later years. For example the 2010 Little League World Series article is 14k, while the results article is 33k. To be consistent, we would merge that article too, which would be at minimum a 45k article (pretty big for a Little League World Series, imo). There seems to be a bit of a consensus right now that all the information is worth keeping; it definitely reads easier as two articles, particularly in the later years, so I don't see what the problem in having two pages is. Bds69 (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Wikipedia is not a sports almanac" And it says this.. where? Vodello (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A bit of a content fork, but the 2005 Little League World Series article would be an overlong mess with a straight merge. The two pages do need to have See Also links with one another though. Carrite (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darren M. Jackson

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

Procedural nomination: editor (the original creator of the article) wishes to nominate as a non-notable BLP. I'm opening it up for discussion. Bilby (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the first nomination was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren M Jackson - Bilby (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is an biography, none of the reference match up, take fracas at the fair, it does not mention DMJ.

The only artcile in Fighter Magazine was 6 years ago. Most of the reference are not really good sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.172.149 (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Checked references very poor. The romany route one does not mention Jackson, also we have no proof he is a Romany, no proof of fight reord, no proof of undeafeted bareknuckle fights, it needs to be removed.Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not notable needs to be removed.
Comments If it is a Joke it can be removed, also its not notable.
Delete Clearly non-notable individual. Fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Photograph fails copy right, how do we know he lived in Sittingbounre, also how do we know he trained with those guys, there are no refs.
Comment Delete under WP:MMANOT. Not Notable enough.
Delete following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SaxonAir

AfDs for this article:

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

This is not an airline, but one of many small air charter companies and FBOs that exist; and there is nothing to suggest notability of this particular company. Looking at the first deletion discussion, the keeps seem to have been based on the presence of external sources, but these are by-and-large directory listings. In addition to the refs in the article there is one mention of the company in a Norwich Airport media release about Klyne Aviation buying the company, but I don't think that any of these confer notability. This appears to be just another example of a COI User creating an article to promote the company with which s/he is associated. The article creator's edits are almost exclusively to this article or in adding info about the company to other articles, almost all of which have been reverted.YSSYguy (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

formatting change Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three reliable non-directory sources in article (although one has a broken link, it looks as though the article would also have appeared in the magazine's print edition) seems like enough to justify it to me. JulesH (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The refs cited do seem to establish notability to the extent required of WP:CORP. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep COI "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias" in this case I believe means this page needs more eyes on it. I dont believe deletion is the solution, cited refs seem sufficient. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Transportation companies are public amenities and articles on them are apt to be of use to Wikipedia visitors. There is something to be said for giving the people what they need. Certain worth having a couple sets of eyes with no connection to the company giving the piece the once-over, however. Carrite (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "apt to be of use to Wikipedia visitors" is not notability. – ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but a Articles usefulness "can can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion." Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be sure to look up WP the next time I want to blow six month's pay on hiring a private jet. YSSYguy (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - given the references, just squeaks by on notability. ukexpat (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW, it would appear... Tone 22:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of highways numbered 500

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

No need for a list. Sandman888 (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a dab page redirected from Highway 500. Does this mean that you want all 1,200 pages in Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title deleted? 117Avenue (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per 117Avenue, and although I can't find proof, this isn't the first time somebody stupidly added a list of highways with the same name for deletion. ----DanTD (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid disambiguation page, though I think it should replace Highway 500, that is, the redirect should be reversed. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a set index page, not just a list. The ambiguous links Route 500 and Highway 500 redirect here, and this page assists in disambiguating those links. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways numbered 888 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways numbered 19A. – T M F 15:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extremely useful concept, valid set index. Imzadi 1979 → 16:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Previous consensus to keep should be upheld due to the nomination rationale not providing any worthwhile insight as to why this list is unnecessary. Indeed, the purpose of the article and all other articles of the "List of highways numbered x" ilk is to assist in disambiguation. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Imzadi1979. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and i will assume the nominator is simply not familiar with these types of pages. I would prefer it be named something else, but its not a big deal, as far as i can tell.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful dab page. Dough 48 72 19:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a dab page. There are occasionally requests to have them all renamed to something else to make that more obvious, but they never really seem to garner too much interest. Why don't you hit us up at WT:HWY and we'll have a discussion about it? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre at Ywahoo Falls

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

This Wiki article is based almost entirely on the completely fictitious essay written by one Dan Troxell for the Kentucky Historical Society. There is no earlier reference of any kind to such an incident taking place. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it.Forteana (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I have no knowledge about this event myself, without knowing the basis for your calling Troxell's essay "completely fictitious", I'd be inclined to keep this. The KHS isn't some vanity press or fly-by-night blog. And while I realize that ancestry.com probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source, this link claims a byline of a professor at Northern Kentucky University. To me, it seems that some academicians at least haven't dismissed it out of hand. Even if it didn't happen, it may still be worthy of an article that discusses how the account of the massacre came into being, the fact that apparently some folks believe it is true, and how it has been debunked or at least called into question. The article on Swift's silver mine, which I created, might fall into the same vein (no pun intended). I'll await further comments from other users and the nominator before I !vote. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SOLE source for the this massacre written by Dan Troxell for the Kentucky Historical Society, as I said before. I did not stress that the society NEVER PUBLISHED IT. State and local historical societies are, in any case, not always consistently reliable on facts. I also see reference above to a PhD; a PhD isn't necessarily a good indicator of a person's diligence with regard to factual truth. For example, a PhD in Chattanooga and Hamilton County in Tennessee published reams of junk history as fact in order to support certain claims made in support of the area's tourism.

Troxell's account can be found at http://happytrails_2.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ywahoo.htm . It cannot, however, be found on the website of the Kentucky Historical Society. Troxell's chief motive seems to be to buoy up the imaginary legitimacy of the two made-up tribes to which he claims to belong, the "Mighty Cumberland Plateau Thunderbolt Cherokees" and the "Southern Ky Cumberland River Shawnee". That in itself is reason to doubt his story. As you can see from the link, he offers no source for his tale other than it being what was passed down to him by word of mouth.

First, there no Cherokee living in Kentucky in 1810.

Second, Doublehead, whose family is well-documented, had no daughter named "Cornblossom", nor did any other Cherokee.

Third, Gideon Blackburn never had a mission in the Sequatchie Valley. The furthest west of his missions was at Sale Creek in what is now northern Hamilton County.

Fourth, Troxell's account mentions that those who committed the massacre were authorized by the "War Department" and the "Governor of the territory". Both Kentucky and Tennessee had long been states by 1810, so there would be no "territory" for a governor to sit over and the state militia rather than the War Department would have authorized the actions.

Fifth, Rev. Blackburn's schools had all been closed by this time after he was caught selling bootleg whiskey down in Alabama. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have no expertise either way, and thus no basis for arguing these facts with you one way or the other. However, it seems to me that your argument for deletion is based on original research. Accurate research, perhaps (again, I have no way of knowing), but original research nonetheless, which is not permitted by Wikipedia. While a you are correct that a PhD is not always an indicator of diligence, what we have here so far is the word of a PhD versus the word of a Wikipedia editor, hardly enough information to make a determination either way, imo. Has anyone ever published a rebuttal to Troxell's manuscript? Certainly the fact that the KHS did not publish it is notable, but it is not necessarily an indicator of its unreliability. Again, I'm not opposing deletion at this point, but I'd like to have something more concrete to base a decision on either way. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:58, 16 August 2010 (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, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've deleted the bulk of it as clearly copyvio from Troxell. There was one cite to an article by William G. McLoughlin, but that just mentions Blackburn's schools casually, all it says is "the Presbyterian schools of the Reverend Gideon Blackburn (1803-1810)," and we can't use that as evidence of why the schools didn't exist after 1810. I'll look at what's left now. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found [14], [15], and [16] plus a news story [17] about this. I also found [18] but it really doesn't help as it is probably based on the dubious sources we already have. Please remember it's also called 'Yahoo Falls'. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete, on the grounds that it never happened as per Dougweller's links. If it is kept though, it definitely needs to be moved to Alleged massacre at Ywahoo falls. Chris (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC) (See below).Chris (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This sort of material that relies on a single online source that may or may not be reliable simply does not satisfy WP:V. If this were verifible in a number of independent sources, it might be suitable for an article; but as it stands, it's not. Deor (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other sources existing that need be included as references. Their lack is not a reason to delete... so I'll add them since no else has yet done so. I agree to the name change to Alleged massacre at Yahoo falls would be sensible, but as a topic covered in multiple book and scholar sources, it meets inclusion criteria.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on sources One of the books is self-published by Lulu.com, so you'd be hard put to claim it's a reliable source by our criteria. A 2nd is a hiking trail book, a reliable source for hiking trails but not for this article. The third looks on the fact of it to be a reliable source but I'd still like convincing it's independent of Troxell's manuscript. Encyclopedias such as this are always of varying quality. I searched JSTOR and didn't come up with anything useful. Nothing at all for Cherokee and cornblossom. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment Okay, we can disregard the Lulu book (now removed as a ref). However, Hiking the Big South Fork, University of Tennessee Press (ISBN 1572330317) is not self-published... and per guideline offers "significant coverage in that it is more than trivial mention, and need not be the main topic of the source material. And are you suggesting that Women and war: a historical encyclopedia from antiquity to the present, Volume 1, ABC-CLIO (ISBN 1851097708) is a work of fiction? Or are you suggesting that both ABC-CLIO and University of Tennessee Press have no editorial staff or reputation for fact checking or accuracy? While I suppose that's vaguely possible, and that they have been publishing hoax material for years... but somehow I think that conclusion highly unlikley... specially as both institutions have been long-accepted by consensus and guideline as decent and responsible publishers. If you want to learn how the ABC-CLIO and University of Tennessee Press vet their information, I suggest you write them. And again, I am not myself claiming that the massacre happened... only that its allegedly happening is covered in books acceptable for sourcing such. And respected as it is, JSTOR is not the sole repository or archive of all human knowledge. So when a G-search "Princess Cornblossom"+"Cherokee" brings up book sources... JSTOR must have simply missed them, I suppose.[19] and even ABC News' Diane Sawyer speaks toward the legend of Princess Cornblossom in speaking of her own Kentucky family history.[20] Or is Diane Sawyer herself a Troxell shill? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hold on You're getting a mite aggressive here, verging on personal attack when you suggest I'm calling an encyclopedia fiction (or publishing hoaxes, etc). or someone a shill. Reliability is not the default, and I don't think you're going to convince people that even a fantastically reliable book on hiking trails is a reliable source for history. Google books does have a handful of books, I agree, but they all postdate Troxell's book, which is the problem. All, including Diane Sawyer, almost certainly in good faith. Do you have any evidence that any of them have evidence independent of the book? Which is why I looked in JSTOR - in effect, you are saying that several hundred well known historical journals, going back to the alleged incident, somehow overlooked the existence of Princess Cornblossom and in fact this massacre. That backs up the suggestions that this is a made up story. As for the encyclopedia, does it give any citations? Usually you can find out who wrote an entry, who wrote it? You have read the entry, not just the snipped, right? Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hold on yourself All I have stated is that the allegation of this incident has received coverage... and not that it is true or false. As Journal Storage (JSTOR) is not the compendium of all human knowledge, having been founded in 1995 to archive academic journals, I believe it is an error to assign their being incomplete with an unmerited undue weight in light of a publication from ABC-CLIO, founded in 1956 as "a publisher of reference works for the study of history and social studies in academic, secondary school, and public library settings." And where is a mandate in guideline or policy that all outside encyclopdias, specially those from respected publishers like ABC-CLIO, must have citations, else they can be ignored? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was obvious that if it had citations we could use those. I'd like a direct answer to my question asking if you've actually read the entire entry, please. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our governing policies and guidelines do not demand that encyclopdia provide the world or us with their citations or vetting processes. Per WP:V and WP:RS, we are propely allowed to use the encyclopdia entry itself as a source, as it is not SPS, is independent of the subject being addressed, and comes from a respected publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this needs to be taken seriously [21], although we have the self-publishing problem again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced (allegedly) personal letters between individuals, exchanged on an open SPS forum, to be taken seriously? Letters reflective of (allegedly) two individuals sharing a similar POV? That is not reflective of the Wikipedia ethos. Again, and to repeat, I am not claiming that the information in the article is "historical" or "accurate", only that it is discussed in sources... just as many ledgends or ghost stories or tales of monsters. Wikipedia is not about truth, only about verifibility. For instance, Loch Ness Monster and Chupacabra come to mind. Even with complete lack of scientific validation, we have articles based upon its coverage, not truth or accuracy. And that the sources respond with their coverage AFTER an alleged incident is reported upon by someone else? Well, that makes sense... as someone, somewhere had to make the first report, didn't they? And all subsequent reports will follow upon that initial one, no matter the credulity of the initial report or its lack. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about verifiability, but I'd still argue that it's relevant in this specific case. As for the first report - that should have been in the 19th century, not the 1970s. So what we have is one book, which no one has suggested so far is based on any written evidence, then being used in subsequent reports of the alleged incident. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the policy requirement for Verifiability is a point which cannot be overlooked, specially as (allegedly) personal letters posted on an online networking forum between two individials sharing a personal POV, are not RS and not WP:V. And we have several books, not "one". I am unable to ignore the information provided in the ABC-CLIO publication Women and war: a historical encyclopedia from antiquity to the present, Volume 1, as the publication is from reputable institution known for fact-checking and accuracy. I am unable to think that information from a respected and relibale source can be ignored. I am unable to believe that because we might not personally know from where or how an encyclopedia performs their research before creating their entries, that their research can be discounted. I would be interested in any discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard that allows that encyclopedic publications from ABC-CLIO or publications from the University of Tennessee Press are invalidated because they do not reveal their editing practices. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move Clearly, there is enough controversy surrounding this event to warrant a move to something like Ywahoo Falls Massacre controversy, but just as clearly (to me) there is enough discussion in reliable sources to warrant keeping the article. The veracity of the event is not necessarily what is in play here. The existence and notability of the legend (true or not) is really at issue; I've seen enough to conclude that this reaches the bar set by WP:GNG and deserves to be kept. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: And to address some misconceptions posted by the nominator:
- He wrote "The SOLE source for the this massacre [was] written by Dan Troxell.." Other sources, sources with which Troxell has no conflict of interest have come forward. Just took looking.[22] Yes, these are referred to as legends, but so what? The legend has coverage.
- He wrote "First, there no Cherokee living in Kentucky in 1810." That statement is incorrect, and reflects lack of research before being shared. In the 1770 "Treaty of Lochaber" the Cherokee had to cede all claims to hunting grounds in central and western Kentucky. And in the 1775 "Treaty of Sycamore Shoals", they received rights to lands west of the Kentucky River (allowing them rights to a great portion of the state).[23][24] These treaties recognize that the Cherokee were in Kentucky prior to 1810. Why have treaties with indigenous peoples if they were not indigenous? The nominator's claim that there were no Cherokee in Kentucky before 1810 is incorrect. Even more to point are the archived treaties themselves, assuring that the Cherokee were indeed there.[25]
- He writes "Second, Doublehead, whose family is well-documented, had no daughter named "Cornblossom", nor did any other Cherokee." Again, the person's existance is not the question... the question is toward whether or not sources make such a claim toward the person's existance, and indeed they do,[26]
- He writes "Gideon Blackburn never had a mission in the Sequatchie Valley". Research seems to throw doubt on his unfounded assertion,[27] when they speak toward Blackburn's work in Kentucky.[28] The nominator makes enough other unfounded statements, that his reasons for nomination fall into question.
While a legend is a legend, and a fact is a fact, either can merit inclusion if supported by sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A story made up ten years or so ago is not a legend. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your comments lack proper sourcing or foundation, and please, as such seem of personal opinion and original research... which are not values upon which Wikipedia relies. Its difficult to give credence to your stating "made up ten years or so ago" when so many of your other arguments hae been refuted in numerous sources... some even going back to the 1700's. Did one person write a book about a family legend? Yes. Is the basis for the information in this person's book itself supported in multiple sources pre-dating his book? Yes. Again, a legend is a legend, and a fact is a fact... and either can merit inclusion if supported by sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Schmidt, there is NO mention of anything of the kind happening anywhere prior to Dan Troxell's attempt to have his fiction published as fact in the mid-1990's. None whatsoever. As to the several other problems with the story, please see the above comments I made on why this could not possibly have taken place.
      - Please show the citations... any citations... that support your conjectures. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regarding your several wildly mistaken assertions above, you clearly know very little accurate information about this area of historical knowledge. That much is clear from your statement about the Cherokee living in Kentucky in 1810 alone. Also, Blackburn's TWO schools are well-documented and neither is in Sequatchie Valley. There are no other sources for the story about the alleged massacre than Dan Troxell or those who are merely repeating him. Those who merely repeat are not additional sources. Throwing temper tantrums does not give your false statements any more validity and is unworthy of Wikipedia. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Natty4bumpo|Chuck Hamilton, the "wild" assertions and "tantrums" are your own, not mine, and I never said the event "happened", only that reliable sources report it as "legend". Your dismissiveness toward the Troxell book's account does not denigrate the other, more respected sources that do speak of the event as a "legend". Further, you continue to make assertions as if your claims were fact, when such unfounded claims would need some sort of support to show them as more than opinion. At least I and other have attempted to support our comments with actual references. For example, I was able to provide links to historical archives of various Cherokee treaties showing Cherokee as being in Kentucky: IE the 1770 "Treaty of Lochaber", and the 1775 "Treaty of Sycamore Shoals", et-al,[29][30][31] while you simply repeat, no they weren't. Are you suggesting that the sources speaking toward these historically documented treaties dealing with the Cherokee in Kentucky are in error? And by what citable authority can you support that claim? You also repeatedly stated that Doublehead nor any other Cherokee had no daughter named Cornblossom, and my own cited rebuttal provides numerous sources that do indeed speak of the Doublehead and Cornblossom legend... sources which predate the Troxell book by decades. Again, Cornblossom's existance is not the question... the question is toward whether or not sources speak toward the person's existance, and indeed they do.[32] Way up above, after reading your opening comments, User:Forteana simply responded "Prove it". I am being far more verbose, but echo his sentiments. Please provide a verifiable authority for your assertions and we can discuss those sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Dude, the fact that you do not realize how radically different the area occupied by the Cherokee in 1770, five years before the Revolutionary War, was from their situation in 1810, forty years and sixteen treaties later, shows how little you know about factual history as opposed to fantasy history. Like Troxell, who doesn't realize that Kentucky was already a state in 1810. And you are correct, there are many online so-called geneaologies that reference "Cornblossom" as one of Doublehead's daughters, but online "geneaologies" are often notoriously unreliable and often as much fantasy as the "Massacre at Yahoo Falls". There are NO actual, factual, hardcopy records of Doublehead having a daughter "Cornblossom", primarily because she never existed. "Cornblossom" was not a Cherokee name, the closest that there is in Cherokee is "Corntassel", which is a name for males. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Dude, you've shown nothing beyond your personal opinion that all Cherokee vanished from Kentucky before 1810, and being an unsourced statement, your opinion itself smacks of fantasy. I imagine the Cherokee themselves would be surprised to learn they all disappeared from Kentucky simply because you say they did. And as no one is using a SPS geneology, please refrain from repeated WAX arguments. I have repeatedly stated to you that I am not asserting that Cornblossom is real... only that the legend of Princess Cornblossom has received coverage, as offered, in multiple reliable sources over a period of years. And all I have asked is that offer even one citation to support your repeated assertions, as repetition is not verifiability. Since you are either unable or unwilling to support any of your claims, please understand that I am hard pressed to think anything other that your unfornded suppositions and conclusions as totaly lacking in validity User:Forteana asked that you "prove it", only to have you respond with an interesting but ultimately unhelpful set of unsourced personal opinion. I ask you to please read WP:POV and WP:V before givng repeated doses of that same unsourced personal opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I've removed the use of a hiking book as a reliable source, and the encyclopedia because I've asked more than once if Schmidt has read the actual entry and had no reply, so I think we can assume he hasn't. Reliability is not default and he can bring these up at RSN if he wishes. There are a lot of links, but I haven't found the pre-1958 ones he claims show the existence of Cornblossom, can someone else please point them out to me? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Your doing so Doug, indicates perhaps a misunderstanding of policy and guideline, as Wikipedia is not about truth, but is rather about verifiability. An article speaks toward a legend and sources support that legend as being writen of... and removing those sources as you did, does not make them non-existant. I read and follow WP:GNG as written, which specifically states that "significant coverage" means the topic need be addressed in detail but need not the main topic of the source. And it instructs that sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. That a book on Kentucky hiking trails may have pertinant information on a legend is specifically allowed, specially as the publication is from a University Press... like it or not. And Bad too, that you chose to remove an encyclopedia as a source because you do not have a copy in your hands. This shows further misunderstanding... as contrary to your actions, guideline encourages that we editors accept, based upon discussions and consensus created over years, that an enclyclopedia as a source, specially an historical tome from a reputable publisher that specializes in preparing research and source material, is indeed suitable. It is enough that it exists and that an editor might seek it out for himself. Since you have empowered yourself to remove reliable sources from an article because you do not have them in your hand... sources specifically encouraged by WP:RS... such as encyclopedias from respected publishers and University Press publications... please understand my feeling rather loath to encourage a continuation of such activity. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit an article, I haven't empowered myself. And you are welcome to go to RSN to ask if a snipped you haven't read is a reliable source, or if a hiking book is a reliable source. The hiking book could be used to demonstrate the existence of the story (not that it is a legend, but that there is a 20th century story). If you want to replace that in the body of the article in a more suitable context, feel free. But where an editor has clearly only used a snippet that is unclear and where the context hasn't been seen by that editor, I'd be very surprised if you get a consensus that it can be used. If you'd been able to come up with a quote from the book things might be different. You should know that we expect editors to actually have read the source. If you can't provide a quote yourself backing your statement, then it shouldn't be there. It is possible of course that when you clicked on the link you saw something I didn't, but as I keep asking you if you've read the excerpt and you don't respond to my question.... I don't know where you got the idea that you could use that. Although you keep trying to suggest I'm saying the book isn't a RSN, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it isn't being used properly. I'm also saying that if you'd read it you might be able to help us if it gave any additional references. I'll add that even the most reliable source in general may not be a reliable source for a specific purpose. I really would appreciate it if instead of continuing to make comments about me you either stop or take your complaints to RSN. As for your complaint below, going to RSN is not edit-warring, it is the appropriate thing to do when a cite is challenged. 'Consensus' would only come in if there had been a discussion on the talk page (I don't think anyone else is backing you here) and I gave specific reasons, so it was clearly not arbitrary, and those reasons are, I believe without our policy and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You empower yourself, when you make an arbitrary decision to remove a proper source so that the result supports your own wish for an article to be deleted. Just as we have the nominator making empty claims with absolutely no foundation... we have you deciding for yourself that a reliable source cannot possibly be reliable because you haven't read it. Yes, anyone can edit an article... but removing proper reliable sources based upon one's personal opinion approaches vandalism. I will not go to RSN and whine about an editor expressing POV and removing an RS that should not have been removed, as it is you who should have taken your concern there, rather than impune another's efforts. I can imagine now though, that as you wish to set a precedent, there may be plenty of sources you may have added to articles throughout the project that may now be summarily removed by any editor who wishes, and for any reason. The "edit warring" would be if I were to return that proper source and you remove it again. But I will not return it... even though it is proper RS... as doing so would only encourage you to again act in your own interests and based upon a personal opinion that such could not possibly be reliable sources, even in the face of guideline explaning how it is, all based upon you haven't personally read it or because you assert or presume I haven't read it. And I know of no editor, including founder Jimmy Wales himself, who has access to every book, magazine, or newspaper that was ever written... so let's be realistic. When you want something removed at all costs, a lack of good faith in others is quite telling of POV. I will not return that source until after this discussion ends with a keep, as I trust a closer to have better understanding of policy than you are showing. What I have, and what has not been in any way refuted, is the topic of this legend meeting WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closer please note: 1) Upon his being asked, the nominator is either unable or unwilling to support any of his suppositions and conclusions. 2) Removal of reliable sources from an article does not mean the sources do not exist... only that they were removed without consensus in an arbitrary manner that contravenes existing policy and guideline. I will not edit war over this point of policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STOP IT, BOTH OF YOU. Thank you. Now, somewhere in here is an encylcopedia article that needs some attention. IMHO, the debate / slanging match above mirrors what seem to be the case in real life - that there are a whole bunch of people who believe that this happened (and who are prepared to erect monuments to the fact), and another bunch who think it was all made up in the 1950s. Why don't we write an encyclpaedia article that reflects that dichotomy, and then people who come here trying to find out about can be presented with details of the alleged massacre and the reasons why people think it didn't happen. I'll do this myself, later, if that's seems agreeable (don't have time right now). Chris (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Chris, for a reasoned, rational, and guideline sanctioned response. And by the by, I do not believe it happened... but I DO contend that as a legend, the alleged incident has received coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and please allow Chris to do his rewrite in peace. Has encyclopedic potential, doesn't do a great job of showing it at present. If necessary, incubate until it's sorted. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A good fatth incubation for Chris's continued work is acceptable to me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is ZERO reference to a "Massacre at Yahoo Falls" prior to Troxell's fictional account. Not even a hint. A myth based on the fantasies of a New Age wannabe Indian in the late 20th century does not deserve an article and having it hurts the crediblity of Wikipedia as a source of accurate information. As to number of people who believe that the "Massacre at Yahoo Falls" really happened, one-fifth of Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim but taht doesn't make it so. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To: Natty4bumpo|Chuck Hamilton, you have made dozens of POV commets with absolutely no citations to back up any of your comments... even after repeated requests that you show something.... anything.. to support what you assert. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, on the grounds you invented above, it is valid for anyone to make up whatever they like about anything under the sun, get enough people to believe it, then write an article about it for Wikipedia. That rationale just doesn't hold up. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bad faith acusation toward an editor trying to improve something to meet guideline. Your continued inability or unwillingness to address requests for sourcing that would support ANY of your comments, indicates that your comments are unsupportable POV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, I don't see that as a problem. If people do believe that this is true and we can prove otherwise, then good for Wikipedia I say. It's not like it was made up specifically for Wikipedia, which is a different Kettle of Fish. Chris (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The legend predats Wikipedia by some decades. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and potentially a hoax. Merge to Yahoo Falls. (see below) Any verifiable information can be added to a new section at Yahoo Falls. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The legend itself IS verifiable as having been written of in a number of relible sources, true event or not, just as has Loch Ness Monster and Chupacabra. That someone decides to remove proper sources from an article, does not mean the sources magically become somehow non-existant. Legends are lengends, and legends, even if not provable as historical fact, are not necessarily hoaxes. Wikipedia understands, even as some editors seem to not, that even a real-world hoax can receive coverage enough to merit an article. IE: Piltdown Man. A hoax event that was not written of in ANY text anywhere until the first report of the "discovery" in 1912. Wikipedia does not concern itself with truth, but with verifiability in relible sources (removed from an article or not) that allow a topic to be seen as notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not, it doesn't. It is not even an urban legend. For starters, the one, the only source for the story is Dan Troxell's tale in the mid-1990's which he offered with no attempt to verify with reliable and valid sources. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That other and far more reliable sources exist, even if some have been removed from the article, shows you to be incorrect. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, repeated personal opinion does not equate to WP:V. Perhaps you might consider reviewing WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:GNG. That the legend has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time shows it may merit inclusion as a legend or as an alleged event. And try to understand, please, an event need not be historical fact to merit inclusion if coverage is available (removed from the article or not) that shows the topic as meetig the GNG. Examples of such have been offered: Loch Ness Monster... Chupacabra... Piltdown Man. And please try to understand as well, that it is through their reputations for fact-checking and accuracy in their information gathering and research... even of events surrounding an asserted legend or alleged event, that reliable sources providing the coverage have granted the legend enough coverage to meet inclusion criteria. It does not matter if an event is true or not... only that it had coverage. Please go nominate Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabra, Piltdown Man, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Abominable Snowman, et-al for deletion and see what happens. Might be far more educational than this discussion. It's NOT about truth. It's about continued coverage, no matter where OR WHEN the story first originated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the fiction of the "Massacre at Yahoo Falls" is in nowhere near the same category of any of those that you mention. It's a made-up story by a single individual from the 1990's, not a widely publicized legend believed or utilized by many with an influence across a broad range of human culture that has existed for centuries or even millenia, the sole purpose of which was to buoy up the imaginary legitimacy of the two made-up tribes to which its author claims to belong, the "Mighty Cumberland Plateau Thunderbolt Cherokees" and the "Southern Ky Cumberland River Shawnee". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've rewritten it, referenced everything, and change my opinion to Keep. I've read all the sources, and what I've written is a correct summary of them - there appear to be no written mentions of this before 1975, and everything since is either based on that or propagated by one or other of the Troxall family. This thing is all over the internet, in books and encyclopaedias, and I think it worthy of a small article so long as that article makes it clear that this may not have happened. However, I would recommend that it be moved to Alleged massacre at Ywahoo Falls and this page turned into a redirect. Chris (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the contributors to this debate should be ashamed of the way they have been bickering with each other. I have relisted for discussion of Chris' rewrite. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a hoax, that shouldn't be perpetuated. He iro 07:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax (or, to be more strictly accurate, probably more fiction-assumed-to-be-fact than a true hoax). Not really comparable to folklore like Bigfoot or the Easter Bunny, as in those cases belief is widespread enough as to have iconic cultural notability, which is hardly the case here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE~~, for the reasons given above by the two who have commented since the utterly unnecessary re-listing of this "article", in addition to all my comments above. The rewrite still only uses secondary sources that have as their original source the initial fictitious article. To keep it gives license to anyone who wishes to make up a cute story in order to attempt to provide shaky support for fallacious claims of imaginary entities like the two pretend tribes to which Dan Troxell claims to belong. It is an insult to the credibility of Wikipedia to have this "article". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE I struck your !vote, you are the nominator. Dougweller (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the least bit even remotely credible that anyone at the time in question would establish a school to educate Indians in a narrowly specific, very local area 127.5 miles away. Furthermore, Dan Troxell, does not, I repeat does NOT, qualify as "Cherokee oral history". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle and Keep - "Alleged massacre...." The fact that this deletion request has generated this much heat is indicative to me that it is a subject worth preserving... For those of you believing this purported incident to be a fabrication — wouldn't it make you feel better to have an article up refuting what seems to be a legend of recent creation? Maintaining this article in no way constitutes an endorsement that the incident alleged actually happened, assuming that the article is given a more neutral title. There are enough sources to get this topic over the notability bar, clearly. Much of the heat here seems misdirected. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't an "alleged massacre", this is a story made up by a wannabe New Age Indian who had very little knowledge about the time period of the events he wanted to fabricate. It does not deserve an article in Wikipedia and its presence diminishes Wikipedia's credibility. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sourcing on this article is still insufficient to establish notability of the alleged event or of the controversy surrounding the alleged event per WP:EVENT. We have what amounts to a single reliable secondary source (the WBIR story), which does not satisfy notability requirements for depth of coverage, duration of coverage, and diversity of sources. The event also fails to meet the criteria of WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE. It's a minor controversy that has received minimal local coverage, let alone the national or international coverage necessary to establish notability. I'm not opposed to including a sentence or two describing the controversy in the Yahoo Falls article, but this article fails WP:EVENT in every conceivable way. I stand by my previous vote for deletion. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately Uncle Dick, the reliable sources showing the legend's coverage meeting WP:GNG were removed by an editor who wishes the article deleted. But I do respect your merge that seeks to preserve information. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm going to go ahead and change my official vote from Delete to Merge. I still believe that a separate article is unwarranted per WP:EVENT, but the notability requirements for allegations/legends surrounding this event seem to be met by several reliable secondary sources that were removed and added back to the article. A paragraph or two in the Yahoo Falls article is probably all this event (or non-event) needs or deserves. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle and Keep per User:Carrite. I'm not saying it is true but it is clearly notable under WP:GNG. Its not for us to resolve an academic dispute. Even the governmental Kentucky Heritage Council hosts a chronology by Dr. Tankersley on its server referring to the 1810 massacre NATIVE AMERICANS IN KENTUCKY. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC) By the way, the best source for WP:N and WP:V (as opposed to truth) is Hiking the Big South Fork By Brenda G. Deaver, Howard R. Duncan, Jo Anna Smith which I believe was deleted from the article. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. James Livingood, formerly of University of Tennessee at Chattanooga's history department, promoted the myth of "The Last Battle of the American Revolution" in several books.^{[citation needed]} No serious historian gave the matter any credit,^{[citation needed]} and Raymond Evans, noted ethnohistorian and archaeologist as well as co-founder along with Duane King of the Journal of Cherokee Studies, took the whole idea apart in an article in the journal Tennessee Archaeology.^{[citation needed]} The myth had originated in the 1890's as part of a residential development scheme on the north end of Lookout Mountain. The two developers took an actual encounter, not much of a real battle, that took place in 1788 and set it back in time to 1782. They also reversed the outcome; it was the Cherokee rather than the frontiersmen who won the skirmish.^{[citation needed]} Yahoo Falls has been promoted by the local governments and commercial sector for financial interests, but that does not make the fabrication worthy of an article in an encyclopedia any more than the same does for the equally fictitious "Last Battle of the American Revolution".^{[citation needed]} Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Empty claims. More unsorcable rhetoric created by nominator to support his POV?? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hoax or history, it's notable. Kudos to Chris for his rewrite efforts.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I take Uncle Dick's point about sourcing though, so I put in those couple of extra secondary references mentioned above. In some respects they are why I think this thing should be kept - it's beginning to creep out into mainstream books and so forth. Chris (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Careful. Reliable sources had already been removed from the article by an editor adamant that it be deleted... so yours just might be as well. But I am glad that you found some of the same ones as did I. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ For the reasons given by Uncle Dick, and I agree that a mention in the Yahoo Falls article seems reasonable. I appreciate the replacement of the encyclopedia entry with an url that can now be read. Above people can see my request for information about the contributor, and references, etc that was ignored, but the new link gives those and I've written to the contributor. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. A brief mention in the Yahoo Falls article should be sufficient. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with this as well. Heiro 14:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also agree. Sounds reasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Merge*** with Yahoo Falls making it clear it is an alleged massacre, or failing that, and not as acceptable tome for the same reasons as others, retitle and keep. It should also not be called a legend. As others have said, we have enough sources now for the existence of the story to justify a mention (eg the hiking book, which can't be used as an RS for its historicity but can be used as an RS for the spread of the story). Dougweller (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care any more. I spent some time rewriting this, trying to make it NPOV etc and referenced it properly, only to have somebody else come along and remove all the references on the grounds that he didn't think they were credible. Maybe a hiking book isn't the best source of reference for Cherokee history, but surely that's the whole point here? This thing is being perpetuated, and explaining here why it's untrue goes some way towards trying to stop that. Anyhow, I think removing references from an article listed at AFD because you happen to disagree with them is very bad form. I really don't care whether the article stays or gets merged into Yahoo Falls or deleted - I'm big enough to appreciate that I have to go with consensus - but the way this whole thing has been conducted sucks. This is my last contribution to this debate, and I'm going to stop watching this now. I'm only doing this to try and help WP, and I wish I hadn't. Chris (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chris that these sources should stay in pending the conclusion of the AfD. As has been pointed out above, the point is not whether the event actually happened but that it is notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the three sources I removed is the least bit credible for a historical article. A hiking book? Please. The "article" by the Tankersley, allegedly a PhD in history, is the worst of the three, utter trash; if he'd turned in a paper that poorly sourced in college he would never have been awarded his bachelor's or had it taken away. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for how this has been conducted, this way this process has been handled in this case is a violation of Wikipedia rules. It was originally nominated for deletion nearly three weeks ago and was first relisted because no one gave enough of a damn to comment. This drek should have been gone two weeks ago. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You dilute your good arguments with weak ones that border on WP:BLP violations: the "allegedly a PhD" Kenneth Tankersley is easily verified as an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology at University of Cincinnati with a PhD from Indiana University (dissertation: Late Pleistocene Lithic Exploitation and Human Settlement in the Midwestern United States) [33]. As for how this process is being handled, the only violation I see is that you have !voted twice and repeatedly removed references from the article under discussion because you don't like them. Let me also congratulate Chris on a good re-write. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is crap, however well it's been rewritten. The story for the source has a single source from the mid-1990's, and all other mentions of it are exclusively or at least ultimately derivative of that. As for my comments about Dr. Tankersley, well, if he's on faculty at KSU, he no doubt has his doctorate, what I am questioning, and have every right to question, is whether he deserves it. His "sources" for the article he wrote in support of the fallacious claims about the nonexistent massacre in question are among the least credible possible. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chris has done a bang-up job, in my opinion, of cutting through the spin (either direction) and presenting what the reliable sources say about the subject. The fact that he has cited so many reliable sources with regard to the subject indicates to me that WP:GNG has been met, regardless of the truth or fiction of Troxell's account. The tenor of this debate and the borderline bully tactics used by some here to justify deletion are well beneath the lofty ideals of Wikipedia. I don't blame Chris for his withdrawal from the debate after his good faith efforts were tossed aside, and I plan for this to be my final comment on the matter as well, although I will continue watching the debate to see how it ends. At minimum, the information should be preserved in the Yahoo Falls article, but I really favor keeping it as-is, except for an appropriate title change. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not exist, period. The story behind it is NOT CREDIBLE, is NOT VERIFIABLE, and is NOT NOTABLE. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retitle While it appears clear that this didn't actually happen, the story that it happened has wound up in reliable sources, so we should report the story, rather than the (non-existent) event.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original source is not credible, neither is Dr. Tankersley, at least not his article in this case. The most the story deserves is a one or two line mention in the article on Yahoo Falls. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you've said. And said. And said. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because folks with little knowledge of this area keep arguing and arguing and arguing, with nothing to substantiate or support. The story's fabrication and complete lack of evidence should have been more than enough for it to have been deleted two weeks ago. But since I nominated it for deletion, I have to answer assertion to the contrary. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As for "reliable", not one single source for the "article" meets Wikipedia standards of reliability. I can quote those here, in full, if you like. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Even a popular history ought to pay some little regard to truth." - Theodore Roosevelt, in his series The Winning of the West, 1889. His remarks were addressed in particular to the fictitious "last battle of the American Revolution" alleged to have been fought on the lower slopes of Lookout Mountain near Chattanooga, the made-up account of which appeared in Edmund Kirke's imaginative The Rear Guard of the Revolution in 1886. If he was appalled by Kirke's fiction, I imagine the future president would have been disgusted with the "Massacre at Ywahoo Falls". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO RELIABILITY: One of the persons on this thread referred me to the Wiki page on reliability standards, but may not have read it because the sources the persons claims are reliable fail on all counts. The original source for the "Massacre at Ywahoo Falls" fails the credibility test on the grounds of being questionable, with no fact-checking and no editorial oversight. In fact, since the Kentucky Historical Society never published the account, it amounts to a self-published work. Dr. Tankersley, formerly with Northern Kentucky U. (formerly as of 2007) based his article on Dan Troxell's self-published work, Thomas Troxell's admittedly fictitious self-published work, and interviews with both Troxells. The hiking book is not a peer-reviewed scholarly work and does therefore not fall into Wikipedia's "reliabile" category. The other sources for the article are those which rebut the occurence of Troxell's invented massacre. This article does not belong in Wikipedia because there are NOT reliable sources for it. DELETE Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ON SECOND THOUGHT, after further examination, while I realize the story of the massacre is a farce, it was printed in a history of Daniel Boone National Forest written for the Forest Service (though without vetting for accuracy), and was a source of local interest, as spurious as the account is. In addition, the anonymous, and illegal, erection of the monument followed quickly by its removal by the USFS make the story at least somewhat noteworthy, as long as the full story is told rather than just a summation of the alleged massacre itself. I'm not withdrawing my nomination for its deletion but will be satisfied with whatever the concensus decides. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there ya go. No one who opined a keep says the story is true, only that coverage in what Wikipedia (if not yourself) defines as reliable sources merits an inclusion. And you are quite welcome to expand the article and set the allegation or legend in context, as long as you avoid battling over content and add the sources there that you did not offer here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There article is much changed now from what it was. It's now more focused on what was reported and how that effected the local community. So now, it fits. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of One Life to Live cast members with no prejudice against spinning it back of if/when better sources are available. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shenell Edmonds

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

Non-notable per WP:ENT. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 22:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She only has 1 role. WP:ENT requires multiple, significant roles. Lionel (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's had more than one significant role. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Within the scope of notability, the subject must meet one or more of the criteria in a particular category. As such, she clearly meets the second criteria of WP:ENT. The other criteria, in my opinion, are subjective. What may be significant, unique, prolific or innovative is not defined and varies with each editor according to their own understanding of the term. The subject has a large fan base, as well as a fan club, where members pay $65 for each event. Another event charged people $175 each and sold out. Cindamuse (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Clearly meets WP:ENT. Edmonds is one of the youngest contract actors on a network (ABC) soap opera with an extensive fan base.[34][35][36][37][38][39] These links barely touch the surface of her fan base and popularity. Cindamuse (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those links do not show that she has either a significantly large fan base or a cult following. They're nothing more than routine IMDB-like listings focusing on soaps. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those are soap "fan" and soap magazine sites. She is there because she has a large fan base. If she didn't have fans, she wouldn't be there. Cindamuse (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A perfect point well made. Non-notable cast members do not have the following that does she, nor the coverage on so many OLTL fan pages. And "fan pages" are eaxctly where one finds fans. No mystery there. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep (upped from weak per Cindamuse's observations) While hesitant to suggest a "keep" for a chld actor with essentially two roles, it must be noted that two is "multiple" not singular and that she had a significant role in each project... third billing in Couples Only and a significant role in (so far) 92 episodes of One Life to Live... playing a character which has had coverage in multiple reliable sources... showing that as Destiny Evans she has a fan/cult following. WP:ENT is met. Time to expand and add sources through regular editing, not delete because it has not (yet) been done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

The WP:ENT multiple–appearance rule is "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Couples Only appears to be nothing more than a non-notable student film (the director won a "Best Student Film" award for a film made a year later). Plainly does not meet that criteria, even if "multiple" is understood to mean "more than one." — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Cindamuse clearly points out, WP:ENT has more than one criteria that may be met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only one notable role and no other reliable secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:ENT. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nom is using a rather narrow interpretation, while guideline actually encourages a broader view when they all specifically instruct "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply"... specially if there is an ultimate good for the project... and this does not mean it has to be right now, if improvement over time is possible. OH... I might've tended to agree if she had been a lead in the one film and then in only 3 or 6 episodes of a notable series. Such could be more easily arguable as not meeting the spirit of WP:ENT. But what we have, apart from her lead role in Couple Only (and it does not matter that it does not yet have an article), is her being a major character in 96 (so far) episodes of OLTL (even if only since last year).... and the quantity is difficult to dismiss, and seem far more pertinant toward notability and meeting the spirir of WP:ENT. If she had been in three or four marginally notable films in the same period of time, the article'd probably be kept... though there'd be discussions about just what creates notability for films that do not yet have articles. She is getting (just) enough coverage in reliable sources to push at WP:GNG. She has a large and growing fanbase based upon her work on OLTL. She is young and her career is still growing. These seem decent enough reasons for allowing this article to remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one significant role, and she's played that since last year. In soap-opera terms, when some shows run decades, that's not much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from her lead role in Couple Only, her 96 (so far) episodes of OLTL, even if only since last year, are nothing to sneeze about. Seems perhaps a bit more pertinant that if she was in three or four marginally notable films in the same period of time. She is getting enough coverage in reliable sources to push at WP:GNG, and while she is young, her career is still growing. That seems a decent enough reason for allowing this article to remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant roles are only one criteria that can be used to establish notability. She clearly meets the second criteria of WP:ENT with a large fan base and fan club. Cindamuse (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The argument to keep seems to be based on the "extensive fan base" aspect of WP:ENT, but nothing in the sources provided indicate that notability. Of the six links provided in this discussion, one is her official bio from the ABC website, another points to Soap Opera Digest articles which merely mention her but are not about her (the "OLTL Fan Club Weekend" is about the show, and is not "her" fan club... she is mentioned once in the whole article), and the rest merely show she exists and plays a role on the show. Unless something more specific can be provided, WP:ENT does not appear to have been met. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from meeting the spirit of WP:ENT, Cindamuse's argument is quite valid. In doing a search for looking for "Shenell Edmonds" + fan club and "Destiny Evans" + fan club one can see this individual does indeed have a large and active fan base, both as herself and in relationship to her character. That many of her the fan clubs are also fans of One Life to Live is to be expected... as it is would be impossible to seperate the individual from what gained her the fan base. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to use the Google test to assess of notability, then let's analyze the results a little more closely rather than simply saying "one can see" the fanbase. Many of the links are user pages on Myspace, etc.. and indeed, the OLTL fan club page links to a Myspace fan club for Shenell Edmonds, which is a private page for which the number of "fans" cannot even be determined. Nor is there any critical commentary about the allegedly large fanbase... indeed, if an actor is notable because of a fanbase/cult following, such a thing would likely have some corroboration somewhere, which this does not. Beyond the first page of results, most of the results start becoming irrelevant. So we have no actual "proof" of an "extensive" fan base... just that there are some fans out there, which does not meet WP:ENT, in my opinion. If there is a legitimate source, then add it to the article. Also, to say that many of her fans are also fans of the show is legitimate; however, without actual evidence about a fan club that is specifically for her, to argue that a fan of the show is automatically a fan of hers is an illogical argument. On another note, the search results do indicate that someone posted a link to this Wikipedia article on the soapcentral.com forums, ostensibly advocating for people to come and !vote on this matter. WP:SPA would apply in that case. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion of a narowest possible interpretation of ENT is not universal, nor per guideline... else all guidelines would not first begin by encouraging editor's use of common sense and their acknowledging the occasional exception. As for SPAs... well, then we'll be on the look out for !votes from new editors, won't we? None so far though. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the subject meets WP:GNG from coverage in secondary sources, these sources should be added to the article. Please note that my concerns about why the sources provided in this discussion do not constitute WP:RS have been aired above. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with 700+ results to look through, please pardon me if it does not happen in the next few minutes. I comment from my own having a reasonable presumption of notability. And I was unaware of any guideline that states that sources must be immediately added to the article. Could you share it? And also, how do you figure it best to determine if someone has a "cult following" or "fanbase" if not looking to fansites themselves for verification? ENT speaks toward such as being an indicator of notability, but is not exactly clear on how a determination is affirmed once a presumption is made. All I have for deteminination are those Wikipedia articles on what comprises each. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say it yourself: how do you figure it best to determine if someone has a "cult following" or "fanbase" if not looking to fansites themselves for verification? Easy: please provide me a fansite which indicates such a thing. And my point is that this discussion has been going on for six days and, despite having made a good faith effort, I haven't been able to find anything which shows how the subject meets WP:GNG, nor has the article been improved to include any WP:RS indicating such. And if we're going to discuss "presumption"... the text of WP:GNG says: [I]f 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. I do not see the WP:RS, so my presumption that this is a notable subject has not been sufficiently met. I would hope that, as someone who seems to advocate keeping this article, you would be willing to add some WP:RS to the article rather than making ad hominem attacks about my common sense. And please refrain from the sarcasm... it is wholly unnecessary and only serves to undermine your position. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm? Not mine, certainly. Attack on your common sense? Nope... just offering a clarification of guideline for those who might think yours is the only way to interpret them... as it is not. Per consensus and many discussions in many forums and about many articles, it is determined that the GNG does not over-rule the SNGs nor vice-versa... either or both may apply, else there would be no need for any subsidary guidelines to exist at all. Had the GNG been met out the gate, there would still be arguments inre interpretations of ENT, even in the face of GNG. As for fansites, many pertinent to this actor and her character in relationship to the series for which she has a following have been offered. Since The New York Times and Washington Post do not operate "fansites", one need look to the fansites themselves. And of the 700+ g-hits, a very minimum are networking sites such as Myspace or Facebook. Soap Opera Network (1), Soaps.SheKnows, Soap Opera Digest (1), TVmagasite, Daytime Royalty, Soapbox, ABC, Soap Opera Digest (2), Daytime Confidential, Michael Fairman, Soap Central, Soap Opera Digest (3), OLTL Fanclub, Soap Opera Digest (4), Soap Opera Network (2), Soaptown USA, and many, many more... are indicative... some in generally reliable (for what is being asserted) sites, and others in fan-centric websites... that the young woman has coverage and has a fan following. It's an insistance that sources must be in the article immediately, that falters in the face of guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of the links you have provided, some do not mention the subject of this article, some are cast lists or cast/character bio pages (which do not convey notability, just her existence and role on the show, including the one on ABC.com, which can be considered a primary source), one is a forum (not WP:RS), one appears to be a blog (same issue), and some are generically about OLTL. None of these sites seem to be about the subject of the article, nor are they indicative of meeting any criteria of WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Look, I've made a good faith attempt to ask for reliable sources. If the best you can do is provide generic links to soap opera websites, then I feel quite justified in my position. You say that it is determined that the GNG does not over-rule the SNGs nor vice-versa... in this case, neither appears to be satisfied. And no, there is no insistence that sources must be in the article immediately, but if they exist, someone should be able to find them, and one would think that someone with an interest in preserving this article would make it a point to add them to the article rather than posting irrelevant links here. For what it's worth, I'm recusing myself from the remainder of this decision, because I feel I sufficiently asked for sources which might alter my position, but have not been satisfied. I trust other editors to make a determination based on the lack of sources and the discussion provided herein. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferrred to look at whatever links you might yourself have thought to offer this discussion, specially as I have only so far gone through the first few dozen or so of the 700+ links available in a g-search. I am more convinced than ever that it serves the project for this article on this young actor to remain and grow over time. A reasonable expectation is that her coverage will continue to increase as career grows, and not diminish or evaporate. Your "good faith" but dismissive generality in regards sources leaves an incorrect impression to others, recuse yourself or no, as any proper BLP is dependent on support from many sources.. and not all are required to be substantive. And even if a few only offer only slight support, they offer support. When ENT is satisfied on several levels, as it is in this case, by the numerous sources speaking toward her fanbase, toward her directly, and the significance of her role in 92+ episodes, there are enough available, even piecemeal thrugh these sources, to properly support her BLP, and guideline is indeed thus met. While yes, some mention this person in lessor manner, not all do. She is spoken of in a soap column in context with her performance at the "First Night Gala" on December 31, 2009,[40] and is interviewed in-depth.[41] Why would anyone write of her performance if it was not of note? And Soap Opera Digest is widely accepted as a reliable source for news inre soaps. That she is written of there is indicative that she is of note and that she has a fanbase.[42][43] And while always wise to be cautious on sources, her bio on the ABC site provides vetted information suitable for building the required background for her BLP,[44] specially as her notability is not dependendent on that bio. Soap Central provides required birthdate and birthplace.[45] Both Michael Fairman and Daytime Confidential verify her as having been put under contract.[46][47] The OLTL Fanpage shows her fan base and fan sites.[48] Soap Opera Digest announced the "2010 OLTL Fan Club Weekend!" and something called "1st ever Shenell Edmonds Dance Party", where her fans will pay $65 each to be with her at the event,[49] which event is metioned at Soaptown USA.[50] Soap Opera Network has a mention of Shenell Edmonds' fan club manager and an announcement he made regarding her 16th birthday and her expanding role on OLTL (more evidence of a fanbase).[51] While acknowledging your having an opinion, I do not share it. We had the same links available to us and drew diametrical opposite conclusions. But yes, I fully expect that others will actually look at the sources above, and the others available with searches, and decide for themselves if they represent a grwing career and a fan base. My own conclusion is that while this article will take some while before it builds further, her career meets several criteria of ENT, and her coverage otherwise is beginning to push nicely at GNG. And there is reasonable expectation of continued coverage. The article remaining, and growing over time and through regular editing, serves the project AND its readers. An immediate demand for perfection, when such potential is there, is not per guideline. As for editing the article and adding the sources... I might hope someone more versed in Soap Operas will come forward and work from what has been offered here. Now... if you'll excuse me... there's another 650+ search results to dig through. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that this does not meet ENT or GNG, but I have to agree with Schmidt that the article is just shy of meeting one or the other, ENT by a broader significant career and GNG by some additional substantial sources (the interview noted above is a good one). (In regard to the proof of a large fan base, however, it cannot be gainsaid that there is more than adequate proof that a fan club exists, but ENT requires "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following", and frequent mentions of a fan club can be explained away by causes other than the size of the fan base — a small but highly active group of fans, for example, or the use by the studio of the mere existence of a fan club as a publicity tool for the series as a whole. Indeed, it is the "explained" part that is troubling here: I don't think that any of the specific references so far can be used in the article to prove a large fan base without that assertion requiring original research.) The question then becomes, as Schmidt has pointed out, whether the notability principle that GNG "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" should apply. I think it is worth noting that the links on "common sense" and "occasional exceptions" point back to IAR:"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This debate, then comes back to this question: Does the retention of this article about a minor actor which comes close to meeting, but does not yet meet, specific notability guidelines improve Wikipedia? Here's my two cents: While PAPER justifies a greater coverage of topics, including entertainment, than can be covered by a paper encyclopedia, I don't think that it justifies them being covered in as much depth as the types of subject which would be covered in a traditional paper encyclopedia and that implies, at least, that the inclusion criteria, i.e. the notability guidelines, should be applied more strictly in those non–traditional–encyclopedia areas than they are in the more traditional–encyclopedia areas. Thus, in this case, my feeling is that the encyclopedia is not improved by inclusion of this article and my "vote" is still, if I may analogize to RfA, NOTNOW. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More results to dig through, certainly. Your comments are appreciated, and while we disagree about whether or not this young actress has enough notability, or whether it serves the project to allow this very new article remain and grow over time and through regular editing, the manner of your response was quite courteous. You underscore a weakness where guideline actually seems to encourage original research when it speaks toward "large fanbase or cult following", when "large" and "fan" are subjective terms. Those who orchestrated that section of ENT should have attempted to give a more objective means by which editors might quantify those terms. And your "two cents" underscores a point I had not considered, in that as a paperless encyclopedia, Wikipedia should strive to be "more" than her paperbound breathren, not less... and certainly not a mere imitation. And we do agree, her notability is very close to that line of ready or not ready. I just think it's slightly on the plus side and will grow, not diminish. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to Merge and Redirect (by nominator) - Per Schmidt's proposal here. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to a possible merge and redirect to List of One Life to Live cast members as long as we can spin her back out if/when she wins an award or gets another notable gig, as per User:Cindamuse she does have qualities strongly approaching WP:ENT. I believe this compromise reasonable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, Edmonds was already appropriately added to the list in February 2009. Cindamuse (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's reasonable. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just want to add that while the merge has already been done, I would certainly support a redirect, over a deletion, any day. (But I still think the subject's notability has been established for a stand alone article.) ; ) Cindamuse (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject of this article clearly meets notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The notability criteria includes a large fan base. The two most appropriate places for fan clubs and development of a fan base are on the Facebook and MySpace social networking sites. However, Wikipedia fails to recognize this source. Unbelievable. I think this ~~policy~~ guideline needs to be revisited in order to accurately establish notability of persons based on existence of a large fan base according to WP:ENT. What constitutes a "large" fan base to one person may not reflect the opinions of another individual. This has gone way beyond subjective in determining this individual's notability. Subjective criteria, factors, and opinions to determine notability. Highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Cindamuse (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of One Life to Live cast members, or Delete. I'm not convinced that this person meets WP:ENT or WP:BIO at this time. Robofish (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 03:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marorka

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company received important industrial awards, which was noted by reliable media. I found an article published by Iceland Review, and another one (in Icelandic) by the Federation of Icelandic Industries. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per Vejvančický. Johnfos (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Vejvančický. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vejvančický. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Karlsen (talk • contribs) 23:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a mixed bag (see below).

The general policy based consensus is to

(1) Keep Bogdan Stoyanov, Aleksandar Mitushev and Krasimir Durchov as they meet WP:ATHLETE.

(2) Delete all the others as they do not meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG.

Also, it appears that some of these players could pass our notability criteria in the future; at that point and the articles should be restored/recreated at that point.—SpacemanSpiff 14:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todor Dankov and associated pages

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

This article, and all those bundled here, are all articles relating to footballers playing below the top division of football in Bulgaria, or to players who play in the top division but have not made an appearance. This fails WP:ATHLETE; add to the fact that many of these are unreferenced BLPs, and the user who created them has been warned about this in the past but ignored it, I say delete ~~all~~. Strange Passerby (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Jogurney below, keep Bogdan Stoyanov, Aleksandar Mitushev and Krasimir Durchov; but still delete all others. Strange Passerby (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages (this list largely taken from the 45 articles at User talk:Gandev88#Unreferenced BLPs, although I have left those about players who've played in a PFL which have since had one citation added to them):

It is likely that there are more articles like this which are not nominated here because they aren't currently tagged as unreferenced BLPs. Strange Passerby (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No chances of expanding any of them into something like a biography - unless, of course, they advance to a different league. But not now. East of Borschov 11:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bogdan Stoyanov, Aleksandar Mitushev and Krasimir Durchov, Delete all others. I agree with the nominator's rationale (and I have left messages for Gandev88 about notability/sourcing which went unanswered), however, you need to be careful as Stoyanov, Mitushev and Durchov have all played in the A PFG (I added cites to the articles which verify this). Also, while I agree that the other players are not currently notable, some are on the books of A PFG clubs (e.g., Kiril Ognyanov), so the articles should be able to be re-created when (if) they play in that level. Jogurney (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - For full disclosure, I did raise a question at ANI in the past about the creator of these articles, which was satisfactorily answered. Jogurney (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - thanks for double-checking my list for me; I have changed my opinion to keep the three who meet WP:ATHLETE (but will leave them listed to see if others feel the same). Strange Passerby (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Haven't checked the whole list and won't be able to tonight, but http://www.footballdatabase.eu/football.joueurs.ivailo.radencov.78165.en.html lists Ivailo Radencov as having four starts in A PFG. Because I came to this in passing and in a rush, you should double-check that I'm reading that right before believing me. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a lot of hard work to add many footballers who are playing in the bulgarian football in wikipedia.And now you tell me that they will be deleted, just because there is a rule in wikipedia, that only players from first division should be submitted.Well I thought the idea of wikipedia was to grow as online encyclopedy, not a website full of rules.You can tell me that I'm wrong if I submitted wrong information, but all I have done is contributing to this site so that when a person living in a town with 10000 people in there can go to wikipedia and see information for all the football players playing in his small town.This was what I wanted to say.If you delete the articles I have contributed to this site and I will never come back to wikipedia and to add articles, just because of a stupid rule! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandev88 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be that the Bulgarian Wikipedia has different guidelines on this; you're free to ask there, but on English Wikipedia these articles simply don't meet requirements. Your passion for Bulgarian lower-league football, as well as your original goal (if misguided), is commendable. I hope you'll consider asking at bg.wiki whether these articles have a place there. Strange Passerby (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gandev88, all of these articles can be kept if they pass the general notability guideline regardless of whether the person is playing football in the first division. The problem is that almost all of these articles consist of one sentence, an infobox and a link for footballdatabase.eu. If you look at better quality articles like Hristo Stoichkov you can see that articles about footballers ought to describe why they are notable (showing information about career accomplishments, etc) and provide reliable sources (I'm not sure whether footballdatabase.eu meets the standard, but most Bulgarian language newspapers would). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps these would be more suited for the Bulgarian Wikipedia? Tangurena (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / delete as per Jogurney. Giant Snowman 17:29, 31 August 2010 (UT C)
Delete all, even the three that have played in the first division. Not one of them makes so much as a tentative claim of meeting the general notability guideline. --W F C-- 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WFC Sandman888 (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all~~. Keep three. Bogdan Stoyanov, Aleksandar Mitushev and Krasimir Durchov. They appear to meet the criteria. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it's unwise to delete the three that have played in the A PFG. I did a very quick google search and found dozens of articles (albeit most of them brief) covering Aleksandar Mitushev in the Bulgarian sport magazines and press. I have to believe Bogdan Stoyanov and Krasimir Durchov would also pass the GNG quite easily, I just don't have the time at the moment to expand the articles/add cites. Jogurney (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, some of these players are clearly notable, the AFD seems to be poorly researched. We've discussed previously that these mass deletion of articles is unwise, as it doesn't allow for proper research of each person. No prejudice against relisting some of the articles individually. Nfitz (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow. Keep for sure, it goes against the spirit of the wiki to destroy so many of one man's edits. I'm open to relisting them one by one and taking each article on its own merits. But this just stinks of persecution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDublin (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument is flawed; we would "destroy one man's edits" en masse if they were speedy-able. A vast majority of articles listed here are currently failing GNG; there's absolutely no reason these articles should be kept just because we'd "destroy" the edits if we don't keep. Strange Passerby (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not the spirit of the wiki. There are specific guidelines about favouring contructive edits rather than destructive edits. I think this is an outrage that the Bulgarian players have all been singled out like this. You guys will do what you guys like, but you will lose a passionate for football wiki editor and in my opinion that's a bad thing. It's better to edit the pages and bring them up to standard rather than delete them en masse. This is especially true since some of these players clearly meet your defined WP:ATH criteria. btw the Bulgarian wiki is for the Bulgarian language. The English wiki is not geographic specific - it should not discriminate against countries because they have their own language. It is not an acceptable alternative to ask this man to move his edits there. DavidDublin (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think we should keep any article because the creator threatens to quit Wikipedia if it's deleted (essentially what Gandev88 has done here). We can try and bring the articles up to our notability standards (I took a crack at 1 of 3 that are likely to make it), but this particular user has struggled to follow our policy. I think it's just a lack of technical know-how (as evidenced by the ANI I linked above), but he could certainly take the lead on improving the articles if he's so desperate for them to be kept. Jogurney (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all with the exception of the three mentioned above who meet WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete per Jogurney. Some of the others may also satisfy WP:ATHLETE but it's difficult to tell unless you can read Bulgarian. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is a clear consensus to that effect. Mkativerata (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kabbalistic definition of God

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

It looks like a lot of WP:OR or at the very least, unsourced research from several years ago with a long, possibly COPYVIO section. It would be better to delete and start over. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article reads like an unreferenced essay, while there is the very well-referenced Kabbalah#Kabbalistic understanding of God. No need or purpose for this fork. First Light (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced WP:FORK of the main Kaballah article. Without any references, definitely looks like synthesis or, worse yet, a copyvio; hence, nothing to merge back into Kaballah. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree. Bad essay, nothing to merge. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced essay. Carrite (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to either Names of God in Judaism where whatever can be salvaged will get attention from expert editors quite quickly or to the main Kaballah article of which this is but a WP:CFORK. IZAK (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rapper Ditch

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

I'm looking at WP:BAND and I don't see how this article would fit here at Wikipedia. If I removed all the unsourced material and blogs/zines, there would really be nothing left. Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing the coverage in reliable sources that would be needed for an article.--Michig (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remove/edit material once I've nominated it? Maybe that's a wiki COI? Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can, though be careful to avoid being in a position where any edits could be construed as trying to make it more deleteable.--Michig (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst I can find plenty of self published sources about this rapper, I cannot find significant coverage in multiple sources that would be required for inclusion. Smartse (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources found for this artist. Allmusic and Billboard searches return nothing. Mattg82 (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That the most significant coverage coverage of this person is in "Obscene Magazine" tells us about all we need to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Karlsen (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article was originally the work of a paid publicist and a contested speedy delete from March. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Springman Records

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep record label is notable, has been there for years and carries bands from all around the U.S.A. Terveetkadet (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep large roster of notable artists including Andrew Jackson Jihad, Big D and the Kids Table, and The Phenomenauts. A culturally significant label, of the type WP:MUSIC refers to as "one of the more important indie labels". Chubbles (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant label from the 1990s second wave of American punk. Sufficient total releases to constitute inclusion-worthiness.,. A good source of in-links for band articles, may I add... Carrite (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deply unsourced but (assuming it can be verif8ied) does seem to have a large number of notable artist on its list. But that is they key all this needs to be verified.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^confabulate 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A record company is notable if it has notable musicians signed to it. Dream Focus 21:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have gone ahead and added a number of references to the article. There is a lot more sourcing that needs to be done, but for now, I am entirely convinced of its notability due to the people and groups that it has signed. Silver seren^C 00:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems that some of the material is now sourced, they do publish some notable bands.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfied with the sourcing here. Certainly enough to WP:verify notability of the label during its time. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Isle of Anglesey. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sport in Anglesey

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

Unsourced list with no clear criteria for inclusion. Probably WP:OR. Eeekster (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Potentially a notable article within the context of the Island Games,[52][53] but needs to be rewritten.--Pondle (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrators are not article writing services. Any editor opining in an AFD discussion that an ordinary editorial action needs to be done is implicitly volunteering to exercise xyr own editing tool to take that action. Uncle G (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. OK, OK, I'm just saying that the article is potentially useful... the community should try to improve it before deletion.--Pondle (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Article rescue has a long and honourable tradition. If you think that you can improve this to the standard of, say, Sport in Cardiff as the AFD discussion progresses, then have at it! Some people might even be willing to help you with the writing. Uncle G (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge what's appropriate into Isle of Anglesey. No objection to proper expansion of the article. Any volunteers? East of Borschov 12:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge As there is no mention of sport on the Isle of Anglesey page, this should be re-written and added to that page, only if it becomes to large for that article should it then be farmed of into its own article. FruitMonkey (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be verified as above, as is standard practice for information about towns or very local areas. As it stands, this amount of information would fit ideally into a wider article. Should more information be added, it can always be split off again. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Article is barely referenced and topic not sufficently notable. What remains should be merged into Isle of Anglesey. Welshleprechaun 12:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egon H. Einoder

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

WP:N, WP:V. Lack of independent sources, a copy of one of the author's papers is listed by Google Scholar but there's no independent sources available via Gweb/Gnews search, meeting WP:ACADEMIC seems unlikely. A couple passing mentions in references in Gbooks but nothing non-trivial that I was able to find. Unreferenced (save for self-pub'd website) for about a year. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A confused and unsalvageable jumble of mostly unverifiable information and WP:OR. I tried to do some basic google-searching (GNews,GScholar,GBooks) but found almost nothing of relevance. Nothing verifiable to show passing WP:PROF or WP:BIO and very little verifiable info of any kind. In the unlikely event that the subject is notable, the text looks unsalvageable to me anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A page not really passing any quality standards, and anyway has a great lack of sources and citations. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are hints in some of the assertions in the article and in the (Spanish language) Google news archive hits for him that he might (barely) pass notability. But as it stands the article is an unsalvageable mess. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Question

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

A student comedy group that appears non-notable; no sources present demonstrating notability by anything like the Wikipedia:Notability (music) standard for music groups, which might be the most relevant notability guideline. Not every student group needs/deserves a Wikipedia article. Tagged for merger into Yale University for more than a year, but it would seem inappropriate to mention this small comedy group in the university article. Quick google search yielded trivial coverage in the sense described at wp:MUSIC, i.e., little that seems independent from the group's own promotion. doncram (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GNG. Truthsort (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I've tried looking up information on this particular group and have found little in non-yale sources. In my opinion, the article should be truncated and added to a new Comedy at Yale article, which would include the Red Hot Poker (Yale), Ex!t Players & The Purple Crayon as well. The various groups aren't particularly notable independently, but as a whole would make a good article. Markvs88 (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should delete them all. Those other articles have no significant sources either, and appear not notable. I am not familiar with how to set up a combo AFD discussion, if there is such a thing. Otherwise, do we proceed by opening separate AFDs on each of them? But for here, now, the question is whether to delete this article on Viola Question. I think that the existence of other articles does not change the appropriateness of deleting this one, as i proposed. --doncram (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect on that, Doncram. The VQ article has a citation from Yale, which is verifiable. The other articles (mostly) do have citations. It makes more sense to merge them into one article with sections than to just erase them, as the four would make an article with several good citations. I would say we create the Yale Comedy page and put merge notices on all of them. I think that since all four articles are basically the same topic (comedy troops at Yale), they all relate to one another. Markvs88 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm incorrect in my thinking we should delete them? That is my current opinion. Let's hope that some others will comment. Process-wise, I don't think this AFD forum suffices to be a deciding point for merging of all those other articles into one new article. Perhaps notice of this AFD should be given at each of their Talk pages though. --doncram (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant that they mostly do have significant sources, I was not commenting about your opinion. Yes, that is a good idea. Markvs88 (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I would have said Merge to Yale University#Student organizations, but Yale has so many of these groups that they can't even mention them all at the main Yale article; there is a separate article called List of Yale University student organizations. The present article could be redirected to that list, if desired; otherwise delete. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most of the article is unsourced and, perhaps more importantly, unsourceable. The only substantive information I can find is from primary or near-primary sources such Yale Daily News articles, which is to be expected (and per WP:GNG, should be considered a single source regardless), press release-style content, etc. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

454 Life Entertainment

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

Record label. The creator claims that, since the label has big projects whose existence can be verified from its website, it is notable. That would violate WP:CRYSTAL, which is very clear in that the reliable third-party coverage must come before the Wikipedia article, not the other way around. Currently, Google News returns nothing. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - SPA generated cruff. Racepacket (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The creator claims "the media has not gotten around to cover them." tedder (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saints in Hell

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

Non-notable band. No sources provided and I can't find any either. If you're interested, look through the article history before I got to it--but you may not find anything there that makes this band notable, not even the pyrotechnics mishap or the bathroom 'incident'. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep per 7th notability criteria for bands (Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But can we even verify that fact? Drmies (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails almost all criteria for bands, except #7, which isn't verifiable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Band features three notable members and is important in since that's where the people who would later form Cinderella started. Terveetkadet (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultimately this assertion needs verification, which is lacking. Good-faith attempts to do so seem to have failed. I'm not advocating one way or the other, pending further research, but at the same time, if it's unverifiable, it needs to go. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I remember reading about Saints in Hell and the "bathroom incident" in Circus Magazine back in the day in some articles related to Cinderealla but can't find the magazine... Will post the references if I get ahold of it. It's likely that there is more print sources available that haven't been made available online given the era in which the band were active. 24.122.252.160 (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added some references... In the circumstances of a band from 1980, 1981, 1982, I think it's good. More references exist in printed metal magazines from the '80's. If you have them, post them. Cause this band is notable for featuring many future members of Cinderella and Britny Fox. 24.122.252.160 (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Armbrust. GregJackP Boomer! 03:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidacne of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^speak 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Armbrust. Clearly not notable. Article is completely unwikified and reads like a copyvio. SnottyWong ^speak 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Sexey

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

He was a successful local businessman, but does he rise to notability? I don't think he's Sexey enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this is an honorable presentation of an individual's life, notability is neither indicated nor established through the content or sources provided. It appears that available sources are genealogical forums fleshing out the ancestry and descendancy of members of the subject's family. Cindamuse (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an excellent example of a time when it is best to Apply Common Sense — that is, in Wikipedia jargon, to Ignore All Rules. This is a fine little historical biography. Deleting it would needlessly destroy information and would accomplish nothing of value. Carrite (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tend to agree with Carrite - what good would deleting it do? It's not promotional in any way, and is the kind of nugget that adds a lot of unquantifiable value to Wikipedia. ///—Brichcja/// 07:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. As Sexey as Sexey could be. Even if Oliphant's story of runaway kids is a legend, it already made it into mainsteram literature. However, I am concerned with OR and copyright - this reads like something lifted from a heritage club website. East of Borschov 12:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a copyright issue here. I just Google searched 5 unique phrases in the article and got clean returns to the WP article or pages derived from the WP article (AskJeeves, etc.). The issue here is one of verifiability — it's not footnoted right. Is that reason enough to kill it? Not a BLP, so technically no. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Apart from what is said above, it records early pakeha history of New Zealand when there weren't many Europeans around, and nothing much was recorded. For that reason alone, it's worth keeping.
comment - it would appear that on 8 April 2007 this article was deleted once before, as per this entry. Looking at the article's history, it was recreated the following day as 'Charles E Sexey' (i.e. without the full stop after the middle initial) and moved in 2008 to its current (and previous) article name. Schwede 66 19:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above comment, content looks to be copied from previously deleted article. No additional sources and only minor additional content which adds nothing to justify the article. Seems like an attempt to get around a deletion of an insufficiently notable individual. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Original research (reference citations such as "US Census for 1860 and 1870 listing Charles Sexey" and "Marysville Library for newspaper index references to Charles Sexey"). Non-neutral ("What is tragic about this (estate) judgement is that those who were entitled to receive the money, Charles Sexey’s four children in New Zealand, never received a penny of their father’s wealth or ever derived any benefit from it."). Although the subject is claimed to be an important citizen of Marysville, California, he is not mentioned in the article about Marysville. It's not a hoax - there are a few online sources [54] [55] that give him a bare mention in connection with Marysville - but overall his significance is not established. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my mind to Weak keep. I decided that my "original research" comment is mistaken. The author consulting references like the census and the library, is not really original research; it is establishing sources. This guy may not have been the most important citizen any of the places he lived, but he left a trail of achievement that is not trivial. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMS - Superb Mini Server

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

PRODed for "Despite massive gHits, I couldn't find any book, news, or any reference which provided any more than trivial coverage." PROD was removed by initial author (and single purpose account) User:Gerasimos h with no reason stated.

User:Gerasimos h also present a conflict of interest as he appears to have a stake in software: (look at the bottom of the page) [56] [57].

Deletion nomination is for lack of notability. Odie5533 (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: one hit in Gnews, but just not notable; therefore per nom. Dewritech (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Massive ghits but most seem to be download sites/etc. WP:N/Per nom. Would need to be moved to Superb Mini Server anyways, yes? OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 00:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drew H. Cohen

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

Subject is not notable. Cookiehead (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - need independent secondary sources, more than incidental coverage. Racepacket (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rather empty little stub bio that does not demonstrate notability. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. no consensus on WP:N after three weeks JForget 00:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Jameson

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

Appears to have been written primarily by one of the people in it, going by the Discussion page. Linked to by two articles, including the person's home town. Most of the sources appear to be self-published. Vanity page. --STUART (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as originator of this article, i noted it was being considered for deletion. in an effort to keep it encyclopedic in nature, i have removed all information that might appear superfluous; keeping only strict, historical facts. several sources from websites and periodicals that pertain to meher baba have been used as reference since this artist is very widely known among followers of the spiritual teacher, meher baba. and i ask Stuart and anyone else to help by citing anything left in the article that is not appropriate for a wikipedia article. Huma irani (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — Huma irani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

every link to any of jameson's personal web sites has been deleted from this article so that he can not use this article for self promotion.Huma irani (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jameson is considered by the community of meher baba followers to be the most popular artist currently illustrating the figure of meher baba. meher baba declared himself to be the reincarnation of mohammed, jesus, budha, krishna, zoroaster and others. meher baba has several thousand followers world-wide. several links to meher baba periodicals and publications have been sited in the article on jameson as reliable, third-party sources verifying jameson's public art works.Huma irani (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There are tons of references - the creator has worked very hard on this page and it looks great - but virtually all the references are from online sources or trivial publications. At Google News I did find one detailed article about him from a Reliable Source, but it's his hometown paper so I'm not sure how much it adds to his notability. Lots of prizes listed but they all seem pretty minor. One interview on a local TV show claimed. All in all, the author has made the best case possible for this artist but I just don't think it adds up to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if you google Steve Jameson, you should also include his painting names by which he is even better known. They are Wodin and Cedar. He is most best found by searching under Meher Baba Wodin since he is currently a primary illustrator of the image of the spiritual master Meher Baba.Huma irani (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

under paragraph 2.1 in the article on jameson, i added information on his notoriety as the most popular artist among the world-wide disciples of Avatar Meher Baba for his illustrations of Meher Baba's physical form. This is no small matter as Meher Baba is recognized by many in the spiritual world to be the most recent incarnation of the Avatar. He declared that in previous incarnations He was Jesus, Mohammad, Zoaster, Buddha, Krishna, Ram, etc. Jameson was also chosen by Meher Baba's sister Mani Irani to illustrate her only 2 illustrated books. And he was chosen by Meher Baba's disciple, Kati Irani to illustrate her only book as well.Huma irani (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Meher Baba may be notable, but that doesn't mean that his illustrator is notable. Notability is not inherited. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In reply to MelanieN; I agree that to simply illustrate a notable person does not bestow notability on the illustrator. Anyone can do such a thing as that.

But that is not what I was saying in my previous paragraph. I was referring to the fact that Jameson is the most popular painter of Avatar Meher Baba among His many world-wide followers. And i proved that with many references and notes to articles illustrating that fact in Newspapers and Magazines published regarding Meher Baba. He is the most well-known, most purchased, most collected, most displayed artist of Meher Baba's image in the Meher Baba community. He is so popular that he has been chosen to illustrate more books by Meher Baba's close, intimate Mandali (disciples) than any other artist. That is the point i was making. That was why i considered him to be notable enough to create this article.Huma irani (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —fetch ·comms 00:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale Article is a BLP. —fetch ·comms 00:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep due to plenty of sources (at least fourty listed as of this comment). If this is deleted though, I would greatly ask for the article to be moved into my user space so I can work on it. Nilocia (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:RELIST (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 06:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Chef

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

Non-notable DJ, All sources are either self published or about a documentary that "featured" him. Ridernyc (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to say keep here as Chef is an important player in the dubstep scene, but the coverage is probably not sufficient for an article. I found these, in case anyone can add any more: XLR8R, New York Magazine (describing him as a 'scene heavyweight'), Radio Srbija.--Michig (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2010 (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, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GNG is clearly satisfied (I just added a bit using the XLR8R reference; the Austrian TV interview linked in the article also adds to the notability evidence.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2010 (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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is about a 21 year old disk jockey. There is not enough independent secondary coverage from reliable sources to justify inclusion. Racepacket (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J8ded

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

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - completely meets WP:WEB; a google search turns up 15,500 results, at least three of which are independent print publications running articles on this show (including but not limited to The Cincinnati Examiner, The Middletown Journal, and The Star-Ledger (New Jersey). Completely meets WP:GNG; these sources address the series directly and in detail, are reliable regional newspapers, and have no affiliation with the series. Article also does not fall into WP:NOT. Series stars multi-platinum-selling recording artist, which only adds to notability and interest/importance. CouplandForever (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of reprints of press releases and some local "this guy says he's gonna be on the show" stuff. Google hits are not a measure of notability. The attachment of a particular person to the project does not make the series notable as notability is not inherited. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2010 (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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete WP is not an advertising platform. scope_creep (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to strongly refute your reasoning here. There is nothing about the content of this article the way it is currently written that indicates it is utilizing Wikipedia as an attempt to promote or advertise the topic. CouplandForever (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T2 SDE

AfDs for this article:

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

I G4'd it, but there's a claim sufficient sources are available, so I'm sending for another AfD. I personally have no opinion about the notability at this point. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concerns from first AfD have not been addressed, there does not appear to be any significant coverage in independent sources of this product. Codf1977 (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a potential reference for those looking for distribution build tools, the article is ideal. scope_creep (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not a WP:ITSUSEFUL based argument, the issue is that it does not appear to be notable. Codf1977 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2010 (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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from Exactcode.com, the sources used are download sites and forums. I wasn't able to locate anything else. Exactcode.com looked promising at first, but turned out to be a primary source as the software's main sponsor (or perhaps the only one, I haven't checked). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominico Venetucci

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

Declined A7 speedy nominee, but still appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2010 (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, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The man has been feeding 30k per year for 54 years and it does not make him notable. It maybe a curio, but clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But with no sources to substantiate that notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage in the single secondary source is not sufficient to establish notability per WP:BIO. Much of the article remains unsourced. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Venetucci The Pumpkin Man was notable enough to have a statue of his likeness erected in Colorado Springs, Colorado — LINK. That's pretty darned good indication that we are dealing with a notable individual here. The article needs to be wikified and the footnotes put into form, but this is a case of "fix it — don't nix it." Carrite (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's ANOTHER LINK for more on The Pumpkin Man. Carrite (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that The Pumpkin Man is also namesake of a school in Colorado Springs. Another link. Carrite (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's another one, a story on examiner.com on the Venetucci farm... All sorts of sources for The Pumpkin Man, regardless of the quality of the current article, he's very clearly over the notability bar... Carrite (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you craving something from the Mainstream Media, here's a story in the Colorado Springs Gazette: LINK. Carrite (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm working... Carrite (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, I'm out of gas for the evening. There are 3 separate mainstream news stories showing, as well as documentation that there is a statue in Venetucci's honor, a school named after him, and a beer named after him. The story in The Reader's Digest and coverage by Kuralt's "On the Road" remain "in the long grass," so to speak, but this is an individual who very clearly meets the General Notability Guidelines. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second wind... The Reader's Digest story appeared in 1985; now have a page cite up for mention in Kuralt's book. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on now. It sits with 4 independent mainstream media news stories, all footnoted, statue, school, and beer named after him, Reader's Digest article dated, Kuralt book cited, with 3 in-links to the page established. Needs to have the title changed to "Nick Venetucci" as soon as AfD closes. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

===DELETE===Not worthy of inclusion in encyclopedia^{[according to whom?]}

Keep. The rancher has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.--Stepheng3 (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael_Gallagher_(journalist)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael Gallagher (journalist)

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

Article is about one incident (Chiquita) and is not biographical. Subject appears otherwise not notable Cookiehead (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply here as it involves a story that opened a can of worms involving journalistic ethics, a large corporation suing to neuter a story and a major American newspaper making an unheard of apology about a story and removing those responsible. The article is well-cited and there is no cause for deletion here. Nate • (chatter) 05:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle or Merge As both the nominator and the "keep" advocate said above, this article is not about the reporter but about the incident. If there is not already an article on it then retitle this one. An alternative is to make it a section in the main article on Chiquita. Borock (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2010 (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, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and split. I think his biography is notable enough for a single article. Remove the BLP information and create a separate article for him. Once that is done, rename the present article to suitable name, then cleanup, wikify and link.scope_creep (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the claims to notability are unsupportable by reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Morgan Sweeney

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

No reliable sources, no evidence of any notability whatsoever on Google. Teapotgeorge^Talk 09:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If he is the software architect of the first credit card authorization system, then he is clearly notable and is part of computing history like Turing and Cerf. Finding good sources will be critical. scope_creep (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The claim is rather dubious. And doubly so when there are absolutely no sources to back it up. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete search of sources found nothing under "Francis Morgan Sweeney" or "Francis Sweeney" that could be identified as relating to the claims in this article, although it looked like it might be possible to create a "Francis Sweeny (judge)" and "Francis Sweeny (artist)" article. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, therefore fails WP:V. Tassedethe (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 85.211.127.253 (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WILD Flavors Inc

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

WP:NN company. Despite references listed, none seem to satisfy WP:CORP Toddst1 (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A simplistic Google search reveals that WILD flavors has seen lots of press coverage. Admittedly a lot of them are press releases, but there are also some reliable sources which seem to indicate notability as a corporation. -Marcusmax(speak) 17:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, plenty of mentions in g-hits. Couldn't find in-depth coverage though. Toddst1 (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is more so with the current content in the article, but the company appears to have some notability as a business. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Marcusmax, but overall the article sounds like an advertisement, especially the "Proprietary Technologies" section. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 23:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They are one of the smaller players in the F&F field, but they are not insignificant. It's hard to find in-depth information on any company in the F&F field because they are business-to-business not business-to-consumer and their work is usually highly confidential (Coke doesn't want Pepsi to know where they get their flavors). Wjousts (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A merge with Wild (company) might also be worth considering. They are currently in the process of restructuring ([58]) with the aim of an eventual IPO, so maybe it'll make more sense to wait until they unveil their new structure. Wjousts (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs major work but that's no reason to delete. The company keeps a low-profile (deliberately, like all flavor manufacturers) but they're a significant player in a significant field. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well established, if low key company, with few articles of this type in WP. The article is fairly decent, if slightly attention seeking. Remove the advertising and it will be fine. scope_creep (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Piznarski

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

No non-trivial sources. Only hits online said nothing more than "Mark Piznarski directed x," with absolutely no BLP info found anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ENT. Should have more sources added, though. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 23:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I didn't find anything on Google about him other a few videos he directed and a few pictures. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the above comment that Piznarski is lacking in sources... which could be reason for deletion. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 02:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable director who easily passes WP:ENT. In addition to his long resume, there are plenty of Google news hits showing reviews of his films in notable publications. --Crunch (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well versed film director, active for a good few years, with a good number of ghits. I'd say he is notable. scope_creep (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenton Eric Clark

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kenton Eric Clark

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

Non-notable high school basketball coach and educator SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The State Senate memorial cited in the footnotes gets him close. Ultimately, this is a long-time HS basketball coach who won a state championship, and that seems short of the mark under sports notability guidelines. It might be possible to dig up independent sources to get this one over the hump, though, so delete without prejudice against possible future recreation... Carrite (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd say that a state legislature bill memorializing a person is one of those actions that provides some sort of recognition of people who did "some sort of good" (for lack of a better phrase), but ultimately isn't an indicator of notability. A quick search shows that many individuals are memorialized as such... see [59]. In the end it's one of those little things government does to pander to its constituents. Looking at the length of this list of resolutions, I'm surprised Indiana's Senate gets any actual legislating of value done. Ha. All right, I'll get off the soapbox now. :P --Kinu ^t/_c 19:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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