Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 31

< 30 August	1 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Debate was never transcluded. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aneros

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

Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING, the article seems more focused on promoting the product than providing information. Severely lacks encyclopedic value. --> RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 05:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually has strong sourcing for a consumer product. Our articles on Wheat Thins and The Clapper (the first two consumer products that came to mind) have no sources at all. If the nomination is based on a advertising-like tone to the text, this is a fixable problem that shouldn't be solved by deletion. ike9898 (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The product has been around for a long time and I remember seeing it featured on the Sunday Night Sex Show with Sue Johansson many years ago. The presence of many sources is also good. I also agree that an advertising-like tone should be solved by polishing up the article. Queerwiki (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Close appears to be a bit late. lifebaka 15:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse phase(Game)

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

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

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

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

Non-notable product. Is not released under creative commons (only the text of the website is), recently created, so WP:CRYSTAL on notability. CSD-A7 needs to include a provision for non-notable products. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 14:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article establishes notability. Whether or not the subject is freely licensed has no bearing on the deletion of its article. I'm not sure what "WP:CRYSTAL on notability" means - although the game makes predictions about the future, the article makes none and the game is currently for sale. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I do not see how this is notable. Ghits are primarily blog type announcements of upcoming release. No GNEWS of substance. WP:CRYSTAL applies. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the H Magazine article? Would you please elaborate on your WP:CRYSTAL argument? --Explodicle (T/C) 15:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability needs to be established. As of the current version of the article, notability is not established. On the site, it even says that the game is not out yet (ex Pre-Order information released on 08/23/2009 - 12:53). Besides essentially self-published promotional "citations", there is no notability of the product asserted (besides the removed erroneous statement that it is released under CC), and any speculation on its notability in the future as a basis for notability now is a WP:CRYSTAL failure. Thus, I feel it should be deleted per WP:NOT and WP:NN. On hindsite, ignoring a lack of {{db-a7}} support for NN products, I should have nominated this for {{db-context}} ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article doesn't matter. With regards to your example, if you read the page you'll see that it's a pre-order for the hardcover; they link to where the PDF is available for sale. Which part of the Wikipedia:General notability guideline is not being met here? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion of notability, which is absent from the article. Wikipedia is not a directory/list of everything that exists. It's fine as it is to add it to some "list of article" with the lack of notability as it is, but without asserting notability, it should not have its own article, as stated in WP:NN. As for a rationale of why it is not notable, read the article: {quote|Eclipse Phase is a science fiction role-playing game with transhumanist themes. It is published by Catalyst Game Labs.}}. That's it, nothing else, no GNEWS citations that are barely RS (since nowadays practically everything is reviewed regardless of notability), and the only citation added seems like partially self-promotional (Q&A section). Even the comments (ex "Of course, TH ideas aren't new to science fiction or RPGs: for example, Transhuman Space RPG. How does this compare?") on the page seem to imply non-notability. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 14:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no part of the WP:GNG actually says an "assertion of notability" is required within the article content. You're saying the GNG has a content requirement, but what I'm reading in the lead says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." --Explodicle (T/C) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number or quality of Google hits you get is irrelevant. I'm sure you can find a limitless number of poor sources or search engines that can't find good sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The interview is not self-promotional. H Magazine is not affiliated with Posthuman Studios. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what unverified Nate says. Notability is determined by reliable sources, not their anonymous comments. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it was a content guideline. It is an article guideline. Sure, it can be mentioned in wikipedia, but does it deserve it's own article? Unless it asserts notability, it does not, as stated in WP:NN. Also, in reply to J Milburn below, try to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, Tunnels and Trolls is in because of its age and historical impact. Eclipse Phase isn't even out commercially in retail yet (hardcover), and was released on the 23rd of last month, hardly "historical notability". Tunnels and Trolls article asserts notability (2nd game of genre), this article does not assert notability at all, besides "citing" a Q/A and/or review of the game that basically describes the game, which is de facto going to exist because nowadays, almost all games are reviewed, no matter its notability. We are not a mirror of review sites, as wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An "assertion of notability" (or any text within the article) is content. I can make a whole bunch of "assertions of notability"... that it's licensed under the Creative Commons, or that it explores the concept of swapping out bodies, or that it has been optioned for a movie, but there's no telling if any of those will be good enough to satisfy you. Please quote the exact text of WP:NN that specifies what has to be in the article. --Explodicle (T/C) 00:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seem to be a few decent articles referenced. No, this isn't the first roleplaying game of its type, but so what? Tunnels and Trolls was hardly completely original, and that has its place in the RPG history books... J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At first glance, looks to be adequately sourced, but:
- The first and second links are interviews with the creators. Great for verifiability, but not independent so no good for notability.
- The third says "I was sent a review pdf copy for the game." - not sure where we stand on that sort of thing but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
- The fourth link is a just a few sentences about EP in a much larger convention report - hardly substantial coverage.
- The fifth link is just the license from the creators' website.

so with only one substantial item of independent coverage, the topic fails WP:N and should be deleted per WP:DEL. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Erb? I'm really curious how an interview with the creator by a RS doesn't help with WP:N. The coverage is by an independent source, which is what WP:N is looking for And if getting a review copy/screening of a book/movie/whatever disqualified a review, we'd not have articles on pretty much any movie or book as all RSes tend to be given free copies... Hobit (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interviews seem fine for establishing notability provided that they are published in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. If a source elects to use an interview format, rather than rewrite the words of the person they interviewed into a narrative, then why does that matter. Jll (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order or what have you: Noian's statement that the game is not licensed under the Creative Commons is false. You're free to download the book from Posthuman's official torrent and read the bottom-right corner of page 5, where it states that "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. ... (What this means is that you are free to copy, share, and remix the text and artwork within this book under the following conditions: 1) you do so only for noncommercial purposes; 2) you attribute Posthuman Studios; 3) you license any derivatives under the same license." Say what you will about the notability, but basing even a part of an AfD argument on false statements because you failed to research doesn't do much to support your claim, or your credibility. 68.226.207.5 (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Noteworthy as the first creative commons licensed roleplaying game. (Both the book and the website are CC-licensed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jba29 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC) — Jba29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Came here to make this point. Who cares if it's a new RPG system that hasn't taken off yet? It's still the first one I've heard of that's released under a CC license, which makes it notable in my book. —30 Second Artbomb (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)— 30 Second Artbomb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - While the system may or may not be successful in the long run, it is a SF RPG released by a 2nd tier RPG company and as such deserve an article. User:Akaihyo —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep - Per above. Being extra notable via Creative Commons is lagniappe but not necessary. -- Mindstalk (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — db48x | Talk 23:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Eclipse Phase is significantly covered in several independent secondary sources (H , Game Journal) and therefore meets the requirements for notability. The article as it stands is short and about a recently published RPG that doesn't have a huge following, but brevity and lack of popularity shouldn't be grounds for deletion. LeeColleton (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Granted, the article needs a lot of work, this is a new game with some unique game mechanics and is certainly worthy of a thoughtful Wikipedia article. Give the article a chance to be expanded. Be bold. Buxley Hall (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How is it NN when it hit Slashdot? Taral (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - The game *is* under a CreativeCommons license, has a fairly unique game universe with the transhuman focus. I found out about it via the h article. The PDF can be downloaded from free from Mininova legally ^[1]. It's too new to have a large following yet but that would mean everything new wouldn't get an article. Besides, there can't be that many RPGs around anyway. H3g3m0n (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment FWIW, there are 1600 RPGs that have been added to RPGGeek so far, and more are added every day. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure exactly how notability works, but there are at least 8 threads on RPG.net about Eclipse phase within the first 5 pages. It is released under the CC license, and its the first RPG to do so. It also the first RPG to use the business model of giving away the electronic product and charging for the printed one (that I know of). The fact that there are 10 or 15 people commenting on here to keep also seems like an arguement for its notability to me. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply at all. The game may make predictions about the future, but the article is about the game, not it's predictions. -Simon Goodson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.75.138 (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC) — 70.253.75.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - If BoingBoing plus Slashdot plus a movie option don't equal notability in today's digital age, I'm not entirely certain what does. Phil Bordelon (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The first palette of copies was sold at Gen Con in almost no time. It is a RPG-setting just recently released by an established publishing company, already optioned for film, uses a setting quite different from others in current production and is either the first RPG released under the CC license (or at least one of the first and currently the most publicly noted). It is as notable in my point of view as a new RPG could be. Heiko Oertel (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)— Heiko Oertel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - This RPG is unique in the fact that it is a mainstream (i.e., not indie) and professionally produced book that is offered essentially for free, as the publisher personally seeded the torrent. This takes the opposite approach of Wizards of the Coast, a company that doesn't offer its products digitally, for sale or otherwise. By making this choice, the Eclipse Phase publisher takes the discussion in a new direction. We'll see if others follow suit. In the meantime, the game certainly rates inclusion here. LanceHawvermale (talk • contribs) 21:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Percy Snoodle's source outline and my response there to. Hobit (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Online

Revision as of the AfD

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

No evidence of notability, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Mr.Z-man 23:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7/G11 2 says you, says two 23:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 copyvio e.g. [1] [2] etc Chzz ► 23:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh!. Let the speedy deletion take it. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't

This page was put up for speedy deletion. May I ask why? If it is for the dancing gif, I taged it wrong. There are so many different copyright licenses and none really fit the description for these images. Imagery from this game is usable on web sites. So I'm an using the {{GFDL}} tag.
If it is because the page is missing something, give me a chance I just started working on it. For citations reputable sources are few and far between the game isn't even in commercial yet. It's still open beta.

Chzz where is the copyright violation these images are free under gnu Jasenm222 (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim Take out most of the gameguide information and link to Luna Online Wiki. There are a small bunch of references, but most are probably not reliable. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – I can only find one reliable source in there that provides some coverage, which I don't think is enough to substantiate an article as of yet. But remember, if the article gets deleted, you can still have it userfied where you are still able to work on the page. MuZemike 14:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the developments during the AFD, I still have to stand for deletion at this point. Perhaps when more significant coverage for this MMORPG comes in from reliable sources, we can include it. Not now, however. MuZemike 07:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article needs serious work. Right now it looks like a cheezy fan site - about 99% of the images gotta go, especially anything animated. Probably best to userfied in a sandbox per MuZemike's suggestion until the article can be cleaned, and delete the original. It's not really standing on much at the moment, and I couldn't find much, but that doesn't mean some time in a sandbox can't improve this article and give it more reliable sources to back up why it belongs here at Wikipedia. Long story short: move it to a sandbox to be worked on, delete the public article. --Teancum (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think userfication is really the best idea here. The article, as is, is almost 100% inappropriate for Wikipedia. It basically needs a total rewrite from scratch. Additionally, notability concerns can't really be handled by normal editing. Even the user who is (currently) the main author of the article admits that there are few reliable sources for it. Mr.Z-man 17:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am inclined to agree. If the subject is not notable then it is both unfair, and creating future problems for WP, to hold out false hope to the author. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it should be cut down to something like what it is now _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images must be added for a video games

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games "The Video Games Images department is a working group of individuals dedicated to ensuring that all video game-related articles have images, whether they are boxart, screenshots, or both, as well as the required fair use rationale." The game is cheesy how do I get images that aren't??? I admit I have much more info then most articles. I am moving to user page I'll try to rewrite more Blah. Jasenm222 (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but images don't mean dancing characters. They mean screenshots demonstrating gameplay, and other things that would be useful for an encyclopedia. --Teancum (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third-party, reliable coverage. Every citation is for a press release. Marasmusine (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless reliable sources are located establishing notability. I couldn't find any. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Pollard

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

Possibly a case of BLP1E, as the musicianship appears unsourced and of dubious notability and once you strip the arrest and conviction out we have a generally non-notable individual. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no sources writing about him as a musician. As far as I can determine, none of the bands in which he was a member are notable. Getting a regular gig at Six Flags for a season is a good job, but it isn't notable. The arrest and conviction are not relevant to notability as we aren't a news service. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources to establish notability. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon R. Harris

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

Autobiography by author of print-on-demand books. No real claim in article of meeting WP:BIO. Prod contested by author without showing notability. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages (his books):

Delete all. There is no coverage about this author or his books in reliable sources. The articles that are purportedly on the books are actually the same biography as the author article with no information about the book. Based on the username, it's likely that the articles are created by the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources covering him. The article reads as if it was written by the subject. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Fails notability all the way around. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, WP:CSD#G11 candidate. No evidence of any coverage much less notability. I looked over Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, and author's web site, www.bearmountainscientific.com, on the assumption that he would document those things we'd consider notable. Something of interest, but not WP:N, is the invention of a flushing toilet.^[3] FWIW, the sole editor for all of these pages is User:Vernon R. Harris implying they all are self promotion which lead to the WP:CSD#G11 suggestion. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiha Software

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article's author has admitted on the talk page to creating the page in anticipation of future notability, rather than in response to current notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There is some media coverage, maybe a little thin, but to the point. Paul Allen's involvement probably compensates for the crystal ball aspect. Favonian (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Allen is an extremely wealthy individual, and has probably invested in lots of startups. If the company can show some notability through reliable sources, great. If not, why race to create the article? Wait until the company meets guidelines, and then recreate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've admitted the invalidity of citing future notability. The fact that the Category: United States software company stubs exists does seem to imply usefulness of basic information about small companies such as Kiha Software. This particular company does have some interesting recent media coverage. Keeping the stub and adding more information when there is more publicly available would seem useful. Nedhayes (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. CRYSTAL aside, the only RS appears to be this article. No prejudice against recreation as a neutral article. tedder (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not yet notable. Speedy tag removed by an SPA with no edit summary. Hairhorn (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The coverage is insufficient to establish notability. That there are stubs on wikipedia do not imply that non-notable companies should have an article; it implies that notable companies have articles that need expansion. - Whpq (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It isn't notable. NeoJustin (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is an example of why AfD is not a vote. Let's see here: the discussion on Coldplay Expert's name is irrelevant to the article's merits; it doesn't really matter. Anyways, the keep arguments seem to be: 1) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - The reason that other artists' unreleased songs pages exist is that they are backed by reliable sources. (Or, should they really be deleted because they're not actually notable? As you can see, other pages matter very little. This does not mean that the existence of other stuff makes this non-notable, but rather that it fails to make it notable per se.) 2) WP:EFFORT - WP:POTENTIAL is invoked when an article is in terrible condition but is about a notable subject. Many keep !votes saying that the article needs work have failed to, in addition, demonstrate how the subject is notable. 3) WP:ONLYESSAY - Often, people cite essays because they sum up their arguments well. It is true that violating WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INHERITED are not reasons for deletion; however, reliable sources have not been found. 4) The sources provided by Coldplay Expert have been refuted successfully by Deserted Cities at the end. Note, however, that I am willing to userfy the article if someone wishes to continue working on it and is able to really find reliable sources to support its notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Coldplay songs

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

Although it's obvious that Coldplay is notable, this article isn't, as I feel it violates WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INHERITED. And although the article has twelve sources, only one (the eleventh source) is slightly reliable; the twelfth source doesn't mention what's stated in the article, and the other ten are linked to WikiColdplay, an unsourced wiki about the band. It also doesn't help that the article was created by User:Coldplay Expert. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't help that the article was created by User:Coldplay Expert. What difference does that make? - just so long as he lives up to what the name suggests. The article is notable enough and Coldplay are a band of whom we do know a lot about songs they haven't released. I think perhaps the article needs a bit of refinement some how and to be as comprehensive as possible. However, it's a good idea for an article and shouldn't be dismissed just because it's the first of its kind. Much more needs to be written about the Coldplay songs on here as not even all of the singles have pages or any amount of information written about them. Officially Mr X (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that a name like that might make other users wonder just how neutral his/her edits will be. And the article being "the first of its kind" (where's the proof of that?) isn't what I stated as the reason for deletion. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources for any of these. Maybe it should be moved back to userspace, but the article definitly needs sources that aren't from the band's site. Perhaps the list is appropriate for the Coldplay Wiki, but not the real wiki. Deserted Cities 22:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL, how dare you say that my edits are not neutral. The only thing that I have edited so far is coldplay articles because I like them. Im not some fanboy or something like that OK? and do you know where I got the idea from? Unreleased Pink Floyd. That article has only 4 sources. Look I tried my best and If you and everyone else thinks that this is not satifactory then Ill take it back and work on it some more OK? But that comment about me not being neutral is a lie. I do admit that this article needs some work and Ill will try my hardest to keep this page up and running with reliable resources. Think about all of the other articles when they were first created. They are small and may only have a few sources. This is no exeption. In fact the reason that I made it up is because I thought to myself "hmm, I have no idea what the song Idot is or A Ghost, I know ill make my own article on it." I am begging you to please reconsider your desision to get rid of this article.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, ALL of my edits are not for the good of Coldplay, its for the ggod of wikipedia and the people who are curiopus about this subjectMy edits on Coldplay are actually usefull and contain sources unlike other people like guitarherochristopher. I try my hardest to make sure that all of my edits are up to wiki's standards. (trust me i learned the hard way!)--Coldplay Expert (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you need to calm down. I didn't say your edits aren't neutral; I said your name might suggest to others that they aren't neutral. If you think you can make the article encyclopedic, more power to you, but I hope you understand that even though you created the article, it isn't yours. (As for the Pink Floyd article you pointed out (which I'm moving to List of unreleased Pink Floyd songs), that and the similar List of unreleased ABBA songs are borderline notable because they seem to have reliable sources. But I can just feel the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument coming on...) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You implied that my edits are not neutral. And i belive that you are a member of the "Others" that you said might think that im not neutral. I never said that this article is mine. EVER OK? and further more, I would defend this article even if you made it. I belive that this article is a good idea and if there is an entire article on Pink Floyd unreleased songs then there should be one on Coldplay. After all we do know a considerable amount of info on them. (whether or not it is on this article is up for debate). yes i know that this needs work but the overal idea of this article is a good one and deserves a chance. Yes Other stuff does exist--Coldplay Expert (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you don't realize it, but you just proved my point. Anyway, let's just see what other users have to say. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. Solely due to the fact that other artists have got their own "X Unreleased" pages (or similar). EDIT: Although it doesn't make any difference, I want to change my vote to a full keep. - И i m b u s a n i a talk 07:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's good value information for an article. And by the way I've come across other editors who seem to work in the same way as THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL and believe me you are hardly ever right although you put your points across in a very 'falsely authoritive' way. That is all. Officially Mr X (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikis are not reliable sources. And calling yourself "Coldplay Expert" is virtually saying "I'm an SPA", I agree with TAM in that just because other crap exists it doesn't mean we make more crap, if you think another article exists with the same poor references then put that article up for deletion, don't create more like it. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea is there, it just needs to be worked on a little bit.--Orangesodakid (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article is in its infancy and needs a ton of more work but over all it is s good idea. And by the way, Darrenhusted I take offence to what you said. It isnt crap. Its just an article that needs more attention.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is offensive then take it up here. And if it needs work then userfy it and bring out out of the sandbox when it is fully formed, mainspace is not a sandbox. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here's some sources

Bucket For a Crown-[4]

Minning on the Moon/The Fall of Man/Bucket For a Crown-[5]

And this one could be used for some of the songs that have never been heard [6] --Coldplay Expert (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If those sources can be added to the article and all the WikiColdplay stuff can be done away with, I'll be fine with a keep. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? that would be great! but I cant seem to add any sources to the article can someone else. One more thing, why does the wikicoldplay stuff need to be thrown away...it has alot of info for sone of the songs.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is because it is a fan site, as well as a wiki, and these can't be trusted as much as verified sources such as news and magazine articles, written by professional writers and journalists. Fan sites and wikis can be added to by anyone in any country with little or no knowledge of the topic. They may be reliable, but it's not worth the risk of getting information wrong by citing an unreliable or incorrect sources. See WP:FANSITE, No. 11 and 12. - И i m b u s a n i a talk 11:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there are still some issues with referencing its clear that this can become a good standard article on a notable topic Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's original author has indicated that there are reliable sources available, and I'm willing to give him a chance to add them. This is a viable article subject. Patience is needed while sources can be located. Additionally, I'm uncomfortable with the tone of this nomination. First, an article cannot "[violate] WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INHERITED" since, as essays, they are no more binding upon the community than an op-ed in The New York Times. Second, I don't like the implication that Coldplay Expert's contributions "don't help" solely because of his name. I'm a fan of the band U2. I've seen them in concert twice. And I'd hope that if I edited under the username "U2 Fan", my contributions would be just as valued as they are under my current username. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

So has a concensus been reached yet? By the way thanks Hemlock Martinis--Coldplay Expert (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions generally run for seven days to give time for a consensus to be reached. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright so on the 7th a consensus sould be reached.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks reliable sources to show notability. Coldplay is notable, but these songs don't appear to be.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are most of the List of unreleased Pink Floyd songs but we still have them.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world does :WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS help you or even hurt my argument? Also, I belive that you and Darrenhusted are the only people opposing the existance of this article now. It it obviously a good idea and im pretty sure that every source (with the exeption of wikicoldplay) is reliable. Once again Keep--Coldplay Expert (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you can't simply say "band x has an article on unreleased songs, so band y should have one too". And I still support deletion too, per all the points mentioned above. Deserted Cities 21:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does this article lack reliable sources? With the exeption of wikicoldplay, I think that this article has pretty reliable ones.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Coldplayzone.it is a fansite, so its out as well. The Coldplay site doesn't count either, as the sources need to be independent of the subject. So your left with a blog on eonline, and contact music, which also seems to be a blog. Try looking for stuff on rolling stone or spin, that's what you should aim for. Deserted Cities 01:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Main concern of the nomination appears to be that the article is lacking in sources, rather than notability. As stated by the keep votes below (ex. Technohead and Daniel), sources can indeed be found, even though the subject was mentioned by BBC Radio one. Cheers, I'^mperator 16:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one indie hits of 2009 (UK)

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

Delete. There is no such chart as the "Indie hits" chart by The Official Charts Company, it is simply a playlist composed by BBC Radio One. As there are no archives of what charted and when, this is pure WP:OR with a lack of WP:RS to prove WP:N. Dale 20:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Also listed:[reply]

List of number-one indie hits of 2000 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 2001 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 2002 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 2003 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 2004 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 2005 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 2006 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 2007 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 2008 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 1980 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 1981 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 1982 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 1983 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 1984 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 1985 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 1986 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 1987 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 1988 (UK)
List of number-one indie hits of 1989 (UK)
UK Indie Chart
Strongest possible keep of UK Indie Chart. This has been the subject of a dedicated book - cited in the article. There certainly was an indie chart during the 1980s that was seperately and professionally compiled. The 1980s lists can easily be sourced from Barry Lazell's book. There is also currently an indie chart that is compiled by the Official Charts Company [7] and is the top 40 singles by sales on independent labels, or are we supposed to believe that the BBC is just making this up? All in all, I find this AFD somewhat bizarre.--Michig (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep. The chart is genuine and notable (gets many hits in Google Books and even a few in Google Scholar). At the foot of the Radio 1 page it clearly says "Top 30 Independent Label Singles is compiled by The Official UK Charts Company" and it is very obviously not a playlist chart just from its contents. In case anybody thinks that the BBC is lying about this, The Official UK Chart Company website confirms that they produce Indie charts ([8]) although they do not actually make them available on the site. So the only real problem is verifiability due to the lack of a reliable source of past chart data. Archive.org is only of limited help: [9]. We need to find out where these charts are published (perhaps in the NME?) and use that as the reference. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UK Indie Chart - "There is no such chart as the "Indie hits" chart by The Official Charts Company". There is, actually - the ChartPlus newsletter has several charts supplied by the Official Charts Company. One of them is the Indie Chart. Neutral about the number ones by years, though. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UK Indie Chart for sure. Notable and verifiable topic, no problem. Not many sources in the article but many can be found. Neutral on the list articles. --Tikilounge (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination for deletion is wrong. The chart is not a playlist compiled by radio 1; it is an official chart published by the Official Charts Company and appears in publications such as Music Week and Charts Plus. Technohead1980 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Roche (footballer)

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

Article was originally PRODed with the rationale "Footballer who does not meet the WP:ATHLETE and WP:N guidelines", then the PROD was subsequentially removed with no explanation. A brief Google search does not seem to bring up any substantial news hits other than general sports reports, which do not confer notabailty as per WP:NTEMP. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 19:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 19:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer Spiderone 12:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable footballer.--EchetusXe 15:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Non-notable footballer" doesn't quite cut it. If he is competing "at the fully professional level of a sport" he passes WP:ATHLETE and the article should be kept, regardless if he has done anything to distinguish himself on the field. Michael Roche plays for the Kildare County FC, a League of Ireland First Division team. The Premier Divison is above the First Division. These two divisions are the highest ranking classes of football teams in Ireland. Wouldn't this qualify the Kildare County FC as a professional football team? If they are a professional football team then the subject passes WP:ATHLETE. I admit I don't understand fully how the sport is set up and what is or is not considered a professional league of play, so I don't know if he actually passes WP:ATHLETE. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A full-time professional footballer is one who is under a full-time contract with a football club. Most clubs in Ireland (all but three, as far as I know) are part-time (or semi-professional), with the players in full-time employment elsewhere and usually paid by their clubs on a per-game basis. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 07:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plays for a non-professional team and fails WP:ATHLETE. Narthring (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOVEL PHARMACEUTICAL APPLICATIONS OF HYDROTROPY

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

Appears to be a scientific paper rather than an encyclopedia article. Original research. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Obvious WP:OR and what is "novel" anyway? It appears to me someone wants to promote their work with this article. --Kimon^talk 20:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty clear case of WP:OR, unencyclopedic. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, pretty clear this one, reads just as a scientific research paper. Athe Weatherman 07:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gently. We do not have an article about hydrotropy, unless it's better known under a different name; the concept seems to be relatively important; see Carl Neuberg for slightly more information. But this text is not an encyclopedia article and can't be made into one easily by a non-specialist in its current state. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain The 'NOVEL' and other caps put me off, but a lot of the article looks good. Unfortunately, it's written (as others have pointed out) in the form of a research paper or university paper rather than a Wikipedia article. It does appear to me to give information that Solubility doesn't - information that's not necessarily OR. There is an impressive reference list that is not confined to or primarily from one particular source. I'd like to see a rewrite by the author (with help - from someone with more time than I've got!). Peridon (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author of the article has admitted that this article is a new synthesis by his professor of information existing in published journals. As a new synthesis, this constitutes original research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very priceless ,because nowadays their are number of clinical problems are studied due to the less bioavaliabity of drugs due to the solubilization problems. So this i think that the hydrotrophy phenomenon can solve this problem at a greater extent. this article can provide us information about the new strategies of solubilization,so this article should not be removed because it will work as the knowledge expansion for the researchers. User:Monarch jagdhari Comment moved from talk page by User:DJ Clayworth. This is User:Monarch jagdhari's first edit on Wikipedia.
- Nobody is going to argue with you that it is an important area but, Wikipedia has a policy of not publishing original research. Please read the relevant policy. --Kimon^talk 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very ecofriendly and cost-effective method of enhanceing the solubility of poorly water soluble drugs. As the conc of hydrotrope doesnot interfere with the in vitro analysis of drugs and also the conc used is safe for biological tissues and membranes. So this concept can be effectively utilised for the development of new drug delivery systems,esp with the drugs of class II, classIII and classIV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archana agrawal (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC) This is User:Archana agrawal's first edit on Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object the deletion of this article and like to give JUSTIFICATION for every thing here

the article is not a research article in original becoz the research article is specifically pointed towards one or some molecules with special application of any technology, for example if one says "use of nanotechnology for xyz gene transfer" it may be the research article, but some thing written for NANOTECHNOLOGY is not a research article.

SIMILARLY the hydrtropy is a generalized concept like solubility, infact its a kind of solubility but having different approach of solubility, every article is new untill its unknown to people and may be the writing pattern of this article make it research article in first sight.

one of my friend comment as word NOVEL , i like to say that, in applications section i just mention the application in one line because, i m very well known of wikipedia policy and rules , not to direct put any research article, as all applications are novel from perception of its own kind of work by different users at different part of the world., In order to not to violate the rules of wikipedia i just make external links of full article available "free to access" on internet to give the students a idea about the research work going on by using this technology.
The word PHARMACEUTICAL APPLICATIONS is used mainly because i have found the data mainly from pharmaceutical background and major work is done in pharmaceuticals, and the drugs are the moieties faces the solubility problem Majorly.
It is stated by my friends that it is non-encyclopedic, because I m writing this article first time and i write it in cut-to-cut point wise directly to fulfill the needs of curious students, i think not to write article in elaborate bookish way and some thing which is completly point wise and sicentific may seems as research paper to many users.
I m requesting all users to please edit this article in the way an wikipedia article to be exist, i m not very much expertise in this, now itself u may notice that my justifications are also looks like pointwise because i just know this only.
The main objective of writing this article is to provide the students who has to use harsh and hazardous chemicals just to solubilize the compound for anlaytical or formulation of their material, to replace all such harsh chemicals with ecofriendly method.
This topic seems to be new for me too a year back and i have search a lot on web , but there is no direct source to provide huge material for this topic, so after one year i have find this material by tough efforts, and i think no student or resercher require to wait for one year to find such concept by reading 50's of research article and applying brain to understood the confusing twisting language of reserch papers to get those tough concepts.

This is just a general topic written to make aware students about availability of one of the technique to solve their problem. And i use wikipedia and thankful from the depth of my heart for providing me such platform.

The article seems to be research article because of scientific REFERENCES quoted at last of the article,

I KNOW THAT WIKIPEDIA REMOVES THE CONTENT IF IT HAVES NO PROPER REFERENCES, so i think that if any one who wants to know detail of technology must go through the references and he may find what he/she search for.

HERE i also like to say this technology is not in-sole research of my proffessor, and he dont seek to promote his own work by this article because he already publish 150 national and international research paper, i just seek his help because i m not a expert for writing such article, At the same time any wrong information about technology confuse the users and students

The ONLY MOTTO of writing this article to nourish a new technology to develop it to grasshood level that it become as common as solubility and like SOLUBILITY article on wiki no body request to delete such important article And thats why i think i justified each question requested for deletion of this article. The ANGLE OF PERCEPTION changes every thing, and now itself i m requesting all friends (The Wiki Users) to edit this article in format as u wish to be look compatible but this material is no doubt eligible to be exist on wiki -- Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandan.chandna (talk • contribs) 16:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) — Chandan.chandna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

do not delete the article provides solubility enhancement by hydrotropes in a nutshell.compendious summary of hydrotropes and drugs is gainful.Selection of the the title may be unfitting to the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshianshu (talk • contribs) — Joshianshu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Regretful Delete WP:OR is pretty clear. Perhaps the contributor should look at this? Irbisgreif (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article must not be deleted because it provide a revolutionary concept to enhance the solubility (a major problem with pharmaceutical moeities) of substance(s). Increase in solubility is directly related to absorption (bioavailability)which inturn decrease the dosage regimen and improve patient compliance. It provides a platform to researcher to explore the exact mechanism of solubility enhancement through hydrotropy. According to me very few people are aware of this novel technique, so let the wikipedia make change happen and contribute to the pharmaceutical sector facing major problem of solubility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitkumarjain.mcops (talk • contribs) 07:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC) — Sumitkumarjain.mcops (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All of the SPA accounts that have come to make their voice heard here have missed the point. The information may be very important, but it is still WP:OR and Wikipedia is not the forum to publish it. If the information is that important, it should be published in a reputable scientific journal and given the peer review it deserves. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trundu

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

Article was created by single-purpose account (literally, the only edit), named User:Trundu. Has been unreferenced and orphaned for two years. I can't find anything that looks relevant on the web so am suspecting a hoax or in-universe fiction. However, I know sometimes archaeological cultures don't show up well so I thought I'd list it here and see if anybody has heard of it. Rigadoun (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax or irrelevant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wow, a hoax on Wikipedia for two years. Joe Chill (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Boom World Tour

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

There is no such thing as the Sonic Boom World Tour. All content in this article is reffering to the Kiss Alive/35 World Tour. Such information can be found on the bands official website: kissonline.com Ckulas (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not sure if this is a hoax, a rumour or a misunderstanding but Google News has nothing on this alleged tour and neither does its alleged source, CBC. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete just change the name to alive-35 tour sense thats what it is. there problem solved. just change the name. User:F4280 (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An article with that name already exists (as linked to in the nomination). Joe Chill (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Kids

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

Non-notable film. No notable cast members or producers/directors. No major studio or distributor. No independent coverage at all. Suspected spam. Contested PROD, removed by original author. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I was able to find this listing in Variety but it is a directory of films that accepts submissions for inclusion. There is no evidence of any critical reviews or awards or anything to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fear Dark

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

Non-notable record label. No significant independent coverage at all. ^Bongo_matic 17:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I will admit that it's a small record label, I will contest that due to the roster of notable artist that were under the label until its demise makes it worth some notability.Green Runner 0 00:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. I would hope Greenrunner can provide some kind of keep argument based on guidelines and policies, rather than one that relies on the idea that notability is inherited, which it is not. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was oblivious to that policy, sorry. Yeah, I'm having a hard time of coming up with sources. I would very much like to keep it, so if some good sources could be found, I'd think it appropriate, but as it currently stands: DeleteGreen Runner 0 04:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism

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

There is no evidence that this book ever received any mainstream attention. The article cites no reliable, third-party sources — indeed, no sources at all. It was created in March 2007 by a a now-banned user who repeatedly engaged in anti-Muslim POV pushing. The lack of mainstream attention means that it is not only impossible to meet verifiability, but also impossible to write a neutral article as our policies require. Any article would invariably give undue weight to fringe anti-Islam sources. *** Crotalus *** 17:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - there's no evidence in the article that WP:BK is met and no reason to assume that a book like this would meet it. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. I've got both books requested from my local library, so I'll read them and see if the criticisms of the book(s) are correct. This isn't the first request to delete this page, so I don't see any urgency. Tangurena (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that the book isn't notable. As such, reliable sources which provide significant coverage of the book are needed. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm forced to concur with Nick-D; it does not appear likely that this subject will meet the requirements of WP:BK. A book can exist and still not meet our criteria for inclusion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletein addition to lack of third party refs, this author has debatable notability, and the publisher is considered a type of vanity press in the bookselling world. considering the subject matter, if this book had any substance it would have been debated vociferously by both pro and anti-Said intellectuals. since its not, its not notable to anyone but the publisher and author.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iaoco

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

Non-notable organization. No google news hits. Only google web hits are to the organization itself, web rating services, or press releases from chiropractors who have been "honored". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing any substantial reliable source coverage in my good faith searches. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, full name gives 65 Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 08:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This article appears to be self-promotion in contravention of Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines (WP:COI). Moreover, it and its associated articles (i.e., Dr. Stephen J. Press and Sports chiropractic) appear to also be self-promotion in that they promote the field in which the subject of the related autobiograpy earns his livelihood also in contravention of WP:COI. There is an interconnectedness between these three articles that raises a red flag as regards Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines. Alternatively, the article does not establish notability as per WP:ORG. Further, inasmuch as it cites anything, it seems to cite self-published sources, and the organization it purports to be about in contravention of WP:SELFPUB and perhaps even WP:CIRCULAR. Finally, in order to retain the article, it desperately needs reliable, verifiable, properly cited, third-party sources. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JVS Limited

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

Non-notable person. (the title is JVS Limited but its actually a biography written by Jvslimited (talk · contribs)) —SpaceFlight89 17:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. No RS for 'JVS Limited' [10]. Search made more difficult as the names 'JVS Limited', 'Julie Nguyen', and 'Julisita' are quite common.. and none have notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per MQS (something I don't get to say often enough). Niteshift36 (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is spam. NeoJustin (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Morientes

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

I can't source this opinion piece. ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 17:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable young footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. It seems whoever wrote this doesn't know their European geography all that well. A Serbian international with a Spanish name who's playing for a Croatian club despite living in Bucherest all his life? And a total lack of sources despite a big money move to Arsenal in the offing? I smell a hoax here. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a probable hoax. no sources whatsoever can be found on this bloke Spiderone 08:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 22:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Necronomicon (album)

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood of Angels, this album has very little notability it its own right, lacks significant coverage, etc. Chzz ► 00:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did find this review from Horror Magazine, which as a print magazine is possibly a valid reliable source.--Michig (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Chzz has been kindly warned [11] about making excessive many Deletion Prods on articles. This is another example of the witch hunt that this user has been campaigning for against this band. Chzz is systematically removing all the Nox Arcana albums, having just removed the Darklore Manor album last week without getting consensus, and falsely claiming it ref'd self-pub sources (Fangoria and other music magazines are not published by the band, they are 3rd party sources). The Necronomicon album is certainly noteworthy and the sources are reliable. Nox Arcana itself has charted on Billboard in the Top Ten in the Holiday Charts. The Necronomicon album is mentioned in a book, Strange Sound of Cthulhu, in reference to Lovecraft inspirations, it has been featured on TV and used in several indie films and at major theme parks like Busche Gardens and Universal Studios. It is also the subject of 2 lawsuits for copyright infringement for other bands copying Nox Arcana's music (1. listed here on Google News, and 2. listed here on Fangoria, a long standing and reliable publication for horror entertainment news. I recommend a strong keep for this article and a warning to Chzz on further attempts to remove the other Nox Arcana albums. Ebonyskye (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reasoning that Chzz uses for Blood of Angels does not apply here. This is a different album. AND, the Blood of Angels album was NOT removed, it was kept. Ebonyskye (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am always prepared to put up a defence for articles on fringe or cult subjects where it can be shown that there is a substantial cult interest, even if the sources are not conventionally considered "reliable". If there are plenty of sources, and the sources are amongst the more notable of the particular fringe, then I will support. Having looked at the sources given in the article, and then gone on a hunt for some more, I was disappointed at how few I could find. I was, for a while prepared to make a stand on the evidence of the book cited, as it devotes an entire chapter to the album. But I lost faith in that when I read that the cover was designed by one of the band members, and that the book is self-published. Essentially, this article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability requirements as the sources are not "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I recommend that the main elements of the article are used to create a short section within the parent Nox Arcana article, and Necronomicon (album) is deleted and consideration given to if "Necronomicon (album)" is a likely search term to warrant a redirect. SilkTork *^YES! 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting because another discussion long ago had suggested breaking up the main article into separate discography pages. Another admin had said the main article was too long so someone started the discography for Darklore Manor and I guess it got expanded after that. As for the Cthulhu book, it was not published by the band but by another publisher and covers a variety of topics of books, music and many other things devoted to Lovecraft. It is not self-published. It was published by a music magazine called Music Street Journal. And I think that the book uses Nox Arcana's Necronomicon CD cover says something about the notability of the album itself. I don't see any other bands who got featured on a book. Ebonyskye (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you search using the proper terms... The search terms I used "Nox Arcana, Necronomicon" brought up a bunch of listings, and "Nox Arcana vs Bushido" brought up many pages about that issue, and the sources are not self-published. If all you are searching is "Necronomicon (album)" only wiki comes up because no other site lists it that way (with the parens) and if you search just the title it brings up other books on the subject, which we all know is Lovecraft's creation. Searching YouTube brought up 768 videos for Necronomicon. Ebonyskye (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "very little notability" is not the same as no notability. There have never been exact quantitative values for what qualifies as "significant coverage", and for good reason. For music that is not part of the mainstream, just about any coverage is significant. And in this case it appears there is coverage. Additionally, it has not been demonstrated how keeping this entry hinders or disrupts the goal or purpose of the wiki, nor how removing the entry aids or strengthens that goal.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 16:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Band appears to be notable and this album has received some coverage, so I don't see a benefit to deleting the article.--Michig (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Music#Albums for Notability of the band and international coverage of the album. Secondly, per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists the album should be kept for Consistency in terms of providing a consistant and well-organized discography — the album pages have been in place for several years and is part of Wiki Music Project, with new additions being added as they are released (Nox Arcana currently has 11 albums). Until now, this was not a problem.

To further support, I proded two album articles and a book recently for lack of notability, and the prods were removed 1 and 2, 3. Editors claim that the band/book was notable, yet one of the bands has disbanded, and one album is not charted, nor is it covered in the press, and neither article contained references. The book is not notable and only one review was posted in response to the Prod. It should be noted that Chzz, the same editor who Afd'd this album, supports keeping his book article based on adding a few reviews and a link to an online bookstore, but nothing that specifically indicates notability of the book itself.

So, if the aforementioned three editors' rationale "(band or author is notable, therefore album or book is worthy of an article)" is accepted for 1, 2 and 3, then the same is true in this case. Keep. Ebonyskye (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Album is by a notable band (they have their own article); it is on a notable label; it has at least one reference on it to back up its notability; they have ten other album articles. Can I please urge people to consider starting merge discussions on the article talk page rather than bringing them here for outright deletion. That is what it says at both WP:MUSIC and WP:ALBUM if you really don't want to see artists have an article per album. – B.hotep •talk• 09:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect As Bubba hotep points out, an AfD discussion is not warranted for any album by a notable artist - if it doesn't have its own article it should be covered in the artists article and a redirect put in place. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Bubba hotep and SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy. Rlendog (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo day

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

Insufficient reliable support for a concrete, established, recurring "day" with this name. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part of a campaign by a group at galileoday.com to try to create interest in making February 15 an annual "Galileo Day". Even now in the International Year of Astronomy, which was chosen because it's the 400th anniversary of Galileo's discoveries, February 15 seems to have come and gone without notice. Other problems, like "Galilei Galileo" and confusing "GeorgiA LIbrary LEarning Online" with the astronomer, need no explanation. Mandsford (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. -- Drappel (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Herida

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. This link [12] implies that he hasn't made an appearance in a league that isn't even pro. Spiderone 15:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 15:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG failure. --Angelo (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable footballer.--EchetusXe 15:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no google news hits and no indication that he has played pro football. Jogurney (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Fellah

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

No assertion of notability as he doesn't play in a professional league. Most Google searches tend to come up with the basketball player. This site [13] says he hasn't made an appearance anyway. Spiderone 15:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 15:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG failure --Angelo (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable footballer.--EchetusXe 15:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Somian

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played in a professional competition. Lack of sources on the subject. Spiderone 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG failure. --Angelo (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable footballer.--EchetusXe 15:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Anti-cliché. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man bites dog trope

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

Indiscernible bogus article. Nuberger13 (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought that at first but [14] appears to suggest it is a figure of speech. There is also a reference here [15] Francium12 (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't TV Tropes. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does TV have to do with anything? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this site, a wiki about tropes, which indecently doesn't have an entry on this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX taken just a step further? — DroEsperanto (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Del337 I think this is a prank/joke set up by Chinese students who are barely proficient with English - read it, and note that it looks like it's gone through the Chinese->English translator verbatim. We've have problems with this before (like "murky buartsimmoon", or however it was spelled). This is obviously not a serious article. Nuberger13 (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of opportunity to expand it into an indiscrimate list accompanied by some original research on origins and significance, perhaps based on passing mentions in trivial third party sources. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title needs works but under a better title, such as Comic inversion, there is ample scope for improvement, per our editing policy. Title changes are made by move, not deletion, and so no admin action is required. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to anti-cliche. Much of this would be useful in that article, which has a better title. Besides, as illustrated by the existing article man bites dog (journalism), this phrase has been popularly used for decades to describe an unusual news story. Mandsford (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anti-cliché per Mandsford. This could be a new section there (though the language does need cleaning up, as noted by Nuberger13). Cnilep (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford. Agree that there is some cleaning to be done, but a merger to Anti-cliché seems to be the best option. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No good GHits and nothing in news, books, or scholar. The examples may be worth adding to another article, but there's no indication that this trope has ever been called the "man bites dog trope" by anyone except the article creator. — DroEsperanto (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into one of the above articles. Francium12's sources seem legit, but since it seems to be basically the same as one of the above (or a subset thereof) it might be better off as a section of one of those articles. If that section gets large enough it can be split off into its own article again. — DroEsperanto (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Anti-cliché per Mansford. This is the best alternative to deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

87.9 FM Saucier

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

Unlicensed part 15 radio station, no references in reliable third-party sources to meet verifiability or notability thresholds. As an unlicensed radio station, does not enjoy the general notability of FCC-licensed broadcast radio stations. Article's author has repeatedly altered the article to claim Class D status but per the FCC database there is no licensed radio station in the entire state of Mississippi on 87.9 FM. -- Dravecky (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per the creator's talk page, this is the latest in a lengthy string of similar articles deleted by speedy deletion, prod, or AfD over the last two years. The most recent AfD discussions are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/89X, Saucier New Rock Alternative and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power 89.5, Saucier Hit Music Channel. - Dravecky (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable Part 15 station. As stated in nom, doesn't enjoy the notablity as other station do. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and remove its entry from Template:Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula Radio. Unlicensed and no indication of notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Removed from Template:Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula Radio. Shouldn't have been there to begin with. Good catch. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just another low power non-licensed pirate station with no notability. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 14:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet notability guidelines either through licensing or references RadioFan (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this online radio station. Joe Chill (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fruit preserves. JForget 22:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apple jam

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

Spam article about an upstart company. Redirect to Fruit preserves. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and protect the redirect if required. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self promotional - no sign of notablility. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redir per nom - I've removed the spamlinks and warned the author. 7 14:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Hairhorn (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Stephen J. Press

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

Non-notable person. Also an autobiography. Prod denied by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This article appears to be an autobiography in contravention of WP:AUTOBIO. Moreover, it and its associated articles (i.e., International Federation of Sports Chiropractic and Sports chiropractic) appear to be self-promotion in that they promote the field in which the subject of the autobiograpy earns his livelihood, as well as the practitioner himself, in contravention of WP:COI. The conflict of interest issues are all the more apparent when one notices that the category listing, of which the autobiography forms a part, has the effect of directing Wikipedians to the autobiography and its subject’s associated articles, to each of which the subject of the autobiography is a major contributor. There is an interconnectedness between these three articles and the category listing collecting them all that raises a red flag as regards Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines. — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good faith searches do not turn up evidence of notability. Only book attributed to him is self-published. COI, while proving nothing, appears to be the only reason for inclusion. ^Bongo_matic 01:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional. Abductive (reasoning) 05:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Unconvincing arguments all round, suggest a merge/redirect discussion be initiated at the article talkpage. Skomorokh 12:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Molotov Cocktease

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

Non-notable bit character in The Venture Bros. who's article consists of unsourced original research and unsubstantiated claims. Basically a fanpage. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better, very well written fictional biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
better? — it's completely unreferenced. Jack Merridew 06:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into the character list. I would not say that it's a bit character. In any event, it's a valid search term. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the LOC: non-notable character, no real world significance, no reason for a spinout. Eusebeus (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It even has commons cat. Philly jawn (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the character list. The commons bit is apparently just two girls in the outfit with the caption "geek girls".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
…which I just removed as inappropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable character. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Faithful Companions of Jesus Cheers, I'^mperator 16:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Companions of Jesus

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

It is not clear how this subect meets the notability criteria, and I wasn't able to find independent sources to confirm this organization's notability. In addition, the article is written in a distinctly promotional tone, and appears to be written by someone with a conflict of interest. Recreated by original creator after {prod} deletion. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Alternatively, Redirect to Faithful Companions of Jesus which is a notable organization of women. News searches of this phrase either turn up the FCJ, or an acting troupe in New Mexico, but I found no mention of the "servant companions of Jesus". Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mansford. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Google will give plenty of false positives, and even with the specification, "Bexhill-on-Sea," most of the handful of ghits are false positives too. Non-notable organization. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, agree with User:Blanchardb. I first wondered whether this was a hoax ("inter-denominatonal community of Franciscans"?) but it appears to exist, albeit it has not yet received the sort of coverage needed for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Dave

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

Doesnt meet the notability(people) criteria. A personal bio page? Has anyone ever herd of this chef? All refs point to his own webpages. Gallytrain (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. No apparent notability, no apparent coverage, no significant awards, no networked show. Jamie Oliver he ain't.--ClubOranje^T 12:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources and doesn't claim to have won any significant awards or other distinctions (coming third in "Europe's Sexiest Vegetarian 2009" and appearing in part of a TV show don't count). Hut 8.5 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this chef. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDumbization

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

Neologism, completely unreferenced, seems to be something invented by "a forum user". Stephenb (Talk) 11:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No google hits apart from the article. Also the username of the article creator is the same as the person who invented the word. Fails WP:MADEUP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acb314 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Made Up. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distressed Infants Society

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

Non-notable unsigned band: fails WP:BAND. Speedy deletion template removed without explanation by an editor with the same name as one of the "associated acts". I42 (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 11:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy A7. not notable, onlys sources are myspace and a nonexistant A-Z. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount Group

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

Contested PROD and declined. Considered that fails WP:COMPANY and WP:N. Some sources are unverifiable. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 22:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your commments and considerations. I'm busy reading through the guidelines. I do however wish to stipulate that the reason that company is not publicitly written about on notable resources and news related sites is due to them being under closed covers for many many years. My entire thesis is an attempt to bring this company to light as they were involved with arms deals (positive and negative publicity), manufacturers of some of the world's largest "fighter jets". "tanks" and arms.

I will write this article in a more factualy manner if this will assist? I will also provide history, timelines etc, in no attempt at all to promote this company.

Let me know. Southwiki (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nomination was incomplete. Missing steps 1 and 3. It is listed now. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 10:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you mentioned missing steps 1 and 3. Please could you stipulate which steps those are. Sorry I'm so confused with all the rules and guidelines. Learning :) Southwiki (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these missing steps are how to nominate an article for deletion which is the article is nominated for deletion. See Template:AfD in 3 steps. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an International Group of companies that specialises in the provision of Financed Turnkey Solutions for Defence, Peacekeeping and Internal Security. The Eccentric Capitalization is a Sure Sign of a non-Notable business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, written like an advertisement, non-notable company Little Professor (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed steps as requested.I've also added citations and references Southwiki (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmin Sánchez

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

Article placed by a WP:SPA about a potential candidate in an upcoming election. With no refs to show notability this article fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:POLITICIAN. I42 (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 11:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 11:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, an article about someone who *might* run for a local council and isn't mentioned in secondary sources is definitely not notable. Valenciano (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI spam article, also NN per above. Triplestop x3 20:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be further discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Scissor Sisters

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

The article can easily be merged into the main article, as it will barely make the article bigger, and can fit into the article easily. It is currently a content fork, which violates [WP:LISTS]]. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 09:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why not directly propose a merge? Hekerui (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought AfD was for merges too... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 09:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is Articles for Deletion, not Articles I think Should Be Merged. The page is referenced and is large enough to stand alone. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, don't bite. As for the delete/merge thing, sometimes people at AFD will vote "merge" if they think that's a better alternative to deletion, but I think that if you believe a merge is appropriate it's better just to do it with a proposed merge template and a discussion at the article's talk page since AFD is just another level of bureaucracy that isn't particularly needed. That being said, while the article appears long, most of that is artificially boostered up by the section headings and the descriptions of the awards. If they were just merged into one table and the unnecessary repetition of the table information in prose form that now makes up the lead were eliminated, it would easily fit in the main article, so my vote is merge if this indeed stays here.— DroEsperanto (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly fine list. Lugnuts (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Borderline WP:SIZE-required split. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the article's author, my vote may not count, but I think the article is certainly large enough to stand alone. I will continue watching the article and make sure it remains up to date. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if the topic warrants being a stand-alone list, but this isn't the correct venue. See Help:Merging for the process. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be further discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple

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

The article is currently a content fork, and can easily be merged into the main article, which is Fiona Apple. The reason for merging is because the awards section could fit perfectly into the article, and will not make the article a lot bigger, but by just a little. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 09:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is Articles for Deletion, not Articles I think Should Be Merged. The page is referenced and is large enough to stand alone. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly fine list. Lugnuts (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to parent article until the latter is expanded to WP:SIZE limits. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is not a content fork, that implies that we have two or more articles about the same subject, which is not true. Claims the content could be merged into the parent article are not sufficient to delete it. Hut 8.5 15:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the article's author, my vote may not count, but I think the article is certainly large enough to stand alone. I will continue watching the article and make sure it remains up to date. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redeemer University

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

Usually I'm all for inclusion, but I think this is one of those cases where you just have to give up and start over. At first glance, it seems like it would be easy to fix; just get rid of the formatting errors, etc. But I started trying to edit it, and I gave it a good 15 minutes before I stopped pulling out my hair and headed over here. In some places, I have no idea what's being said. Most of this is a cut-and-paste job. The article is not properly named (it says Redeemer's University all through the article, and that's actually the correct way). I suspect a COI, but this article is the only activity the user's ever had on Wikipedia, so I can't tell for sure. You could throw up a notability flag here too, though I'm all for every school having an article. There's several weasel words, portions are like an advertisement, etc. None of these are reasons for deletion in themselves, but in combination they're disasterous. So, I'm nominating this for deletion. At the very least, I'm hoping someone will see this nomination and fix up the article themselves. Skittleys (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my nomination...: I've read the appropriate notability criteria more thoroughly, and am now certain that it fails. I have used several search engines, and the results beyond its own website don't give any information about the institution itself. This also brings up WP:SOURCES. I also tried checking Google News, and found no results (note: you have to do this with "Redeemer's University" in quotes; otherwise, you get results for other universities of the same name). The WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY policies should also be noted. — Skittleys (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix but keep. Yes, as Skittleys (the nominator, OK?) wrote it will be a tough job, but I don't see the point in deleting just to recreate. It could be adjusted (hopefully by the creator, who has a deeper knowledge of the topic) to make it an acceptable stub in order to build from there. McMarcoP (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and tag for improvement. A Google news search for the correct name shows coverage although it is premium content. If the current content is irredeemable, it can be at least stubbed. -- Whpq (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - universities are deem d notable. Stub not deletion is the solution to this type, of content. TerriersFan (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus suggests that this individual is not notable enough for inclusion; the arguments for keeping the article merely assert that she is notable, without much evidence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharyn Booth (Comedian)

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

Non-notable individual lacking substantial GHits and lacking any GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:ENT. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i disagree and don't believe that this page needs to be deleted. It contains acurate information, strong sources and is properly referenced. It is about a real figure heavily involved and known in the Melbourne and national comedy scene and isnt hurting anybody. Timmyjob (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)— Timmyjob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Please help us understand how the article meets the criteria in WP:ENT. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

-1.Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions:The page clearly shows a major role in multiple stage performances

2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Significant following from not only the local and national comedy community but the comedy going public

3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment: has made multiple contributions to the feild of the comedy through writing and performing the mentioned festival shows and ongoing involvement in the industry as not only a performer and producing regular comedy nights in Melbourne Curryyeah (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)— Curryyeah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment –

1-Not sure this meets the criteria. Two solo acts and a trio? I do not see any evidence of major performances outside of festivals.

2-No evidence of a large base or a significant "cult" following. Large and significant are the keys words.

3-I am sorry, this does not even come close. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note. None of the cited sources (in the "References" section) are reliable per Wikipedia guidelines, either. Either they're promotional in nature or self-published.147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE The site referenced is infact a respected national comedy news and gig information site aimed at comedy fans. It has not direct link to this entertainer in terms of its publishing. The official Melb comedy festival website, although promotional in nature, is also a credible source to prove the exisitence of their work. Curryyeah (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously, I would like this page to stay for the same reasons as mentioned above. Otherwise, I would had never felt the need to create it. Thank You. Curryyeah (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)— Curryyeah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NOTE The criteria states multiple works, and that is exactly what has been shown. The level of its significance or required amount isn't clearly measured or indicated. The size and signficance of the following or contribution of a person is also not clearly measured here. Curryyeah (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you really look at the list of Austrlaian comedians, there a many pages with people of the same level and contribution that have had their page kept with no hassel. Why would this be made an exception? Timmyjob (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. This is not a deletion discussion of the entire list of Australian comedians; this is a discussion on one particular article and its merits and weaknesses. —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of multiple, in-depth reliable sources. I did find this article from The Age, but that's the only coverage I have been able to uncover. One review does not a WP:BLP make. Cunard (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seems to be a level of notability in Australia, and Melbourne in particular, which indicates a niche popularity and recognition. While I do not buy into the argument of "other subjects of similar notability", it does elicit the types of responses shown above. The article should be tagged for improvements and allowed to stay. --Stormbay (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Stormbay might be right about niche popularity, the problem is that it isn't clearly verifiable. The review in The Age was too short to stand on its own in support of her. There certainly aren't enough sources to meet WP:GNG, and the panning in The Age doesn't get her over the WP:ENT hurdle. If additional sources are discovered, I am willing to reconsider this recommendation. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage for GNG, lacks any roles in notable productions, no real evidence of any popularity and no suggestion of any unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wine weed wednesday

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

The result was speedy deleted under A7 as a non-notable, made-up "holiday." PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wine weed wednesday

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

Fails WP:N \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Non-notable group under A7 or non-notable local "holiday". ttonyb1 (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily gone. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James wright (writer)

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and with no GNEWS. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications that WP:BIO is met Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Roisterer (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus here that the subject meets WP:ENT and that the article ought to be kept as a result. Skomorokh 12:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rich McNanna

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

Non-notable autobiography. He's had several voice acting roles on television shows, but they are all dubbing jobs, doing English versions of Japanese programs. The only third party coverage I can find is mentions, and it's for theatre work, presumably it's the same person, but none of it establishes notability. Hairhorn (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - As someone who regularly works on English voice actor articles, this one is particularly weak, and I'm not finding information int he places I'd normally expect to see it. The actor doesn't really have a large body of work, and doesn't appear to have any coverage by indpendent sources, except maybe an interview in the RightStuf podcast which was mentioned in a ANN press release. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

changed to Weak keep - appears to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OTOH, he has voiced the lead roles of Kujibiki Unbalance (2006 series), To Heart, and Gravitation. On the face of it, that's enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As best I can determine, McNanna's other roles have all been minor, but these three lead roles are readily verifiable from reliable sources. I note that the current state of the article -- pretty crappy -- is irrelevant to a deletion discussion as an AFD is supposed to be about the potential of the topic. Per past precedent in other AFDs, voice acting counts as much as any other kind of acting as far as WP:ENTERTAINER is concerned. Three is not a huge number of roles, but these were all series protagonists, and as such I think we should be keep this article. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with voice acting being on par with on-screen acting, except when it comes to dubbing work, which to my mind is less notable. Hairhorn (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main problem here is notability and if or if not this passes WP:ENTERTAINER. If Quasirandom is correct and there are reliable references for the things he has voiced the lead roles of than yes this would pass WP:ENTERTAINER for notable people. Btw people who dub in english and voice in english can and have been notable. I would just go ahead and place the references in the article now. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2009 (AT)

So what you're saying is "keep if sources can be found"? Because I've looked for sources and not come up with much. Hairhorn (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So there are little references for his work on the dubs and voice acting he did? I had seen someone mention that he voiced the lead roles of Kujibiki Unbalance (2006 series), To Heart, and Gravitation, Yes my keep is based on references and if it does pass WP:ENTERTAINER if the notability isnt found then I dont see much future for the article. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2009 (AT)

Keep Has voiced the lead in multiple notable series. Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has dubbed voices in American versions of several notable series, not quite the same thing, that's kinda the whole point of the AfD nomination. Hairhorn (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you're talking about a voice actor who dubs japanese shows, you're looking for their dub roles. Dub actors should not be held as less important than the original japanese voice actor simply because they're not in the original cast. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Voice actors help create a character. Dubbing actors do little more than read lines; they rarely even get rehearsal time. Hairhorn (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may have been true in the past, but these days, for major roles, actors are given better background and are usually given little more room to be creative. They are a part of the translation processes just as much as the person who translated the script. Adapting anime for a different language isn't an exact science. At any rate, we don't require a higher threshold for notability when dealing with voice actors who happen to do dub work; there's nothing like that in any of the inclusion criteria. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement pretty much shows your bias. A Japanese voice actor no more contribute to a character's portrayal than an English voice actor. How much an actor gets to rehears depends on the director. I know that some ADR directors prefer to capture the dialog on a "cold read" as that suppose to create a more natural vocal reaction. I wouldn't be surprised if some Japanese directors work the same way. However, because of the way anime is produced, its all dub work, both in Japanese and in English. The voice actor's only input into the character's portrayal is through their vocal performance. Everything else is decided by other people. --Farix (Talk) 00:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Las Virgenes Unified School District. No prejudice against keeping if sources are later found establishing independent notability. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. E. Wright Middle School

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

Article does not establish notability of school to have own article might be better to delete this and redirct/move this to Las Virgenes Unified School District? Oo7565 (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and replace with redirect to the appropriate school district. In short, to answer the nom's question: yes. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Las Virgenes Unified School District per usual practice. This could just have been done as an editorial action. TerriersFan (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment how could one do that i would like to know how to do thatOo7565 (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:MM details the process for merging.-SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 07:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:BEFORE and WP:BITE are also relevant. TerriersFan (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Las Virgenes Unified School District per usual practice.-SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 07:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fix; independent notability e.g. E. Wright Middle School&cf=all Google news] Chzz ► 00:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Las Virgenes Unified School District. Too short for a separate article. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is evidently notable. Redirection is not achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to explain to us how it's "evidently notable"? I see no evidence of notability. I challenge you, sir, change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Las Virgenes Unified School District. I fourth this motion. Zacqary Adam Green (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Merge. From all I can tell, middle schools and elementary schools are default not notable on wikipedia, and subject to merger into the article about their school district, which articles are by default inherently notable. Not saying that's perfect, but I agree with consistency unless the particular notability of this middle school is shown. --Milowent (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 22:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A la Carte (Triumvirat album)

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

Since no assertion exists that his album is generally noteworthy Oo7565 (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Album is by a notable band (they have their own article); it is on a notable label; it has at least one reference on it to back up its notability; they have five other album articles. Can I please urge people to consider starting merge discussions on the article talk page rather than bringing them here for outright deletion. That is what it says at both WP:MUSIC and WP:ALBUM if you really don't want to see artists have an article per album. – B.hotep •talk• 20:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Or redirect, but definitely not a delete - it's an album by a notable artist so therefore should redirect to the artist if insufficient information is available is available for a stand alone article. I couldn't find any reviews apart from a panning by allmusic and a few bloggy bits, but I'm sure they are out there, I didn't look that hard. Keep and improve is my opinion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What B.hotep said. – iride scent 14:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Official album by a notable group, has at least one review in a {WWP:RS]], meets WP:ALBUM. Even if it didn't, as B.hotep states, a redirect rather than delete would have been appropriate, with no need for AfD. Rlendog (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I judge there to be consensus here that the known sources do not satisfy community norms concerning inclusion. Skomorokh 12:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect guest house, Jalalabad

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

fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. Guest houses are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and should not be treated as if they are. Note that contrary to claims by certain users on similar AfDs I have no idealogical feelings I'm trying to push, and I am not trying to censor the wiki - I simply want to demand of these articles the same standards we demand for everything else. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform Damnatio memoriae and introduce deletionist censorship into WP, not for the purpose of maintaining a higher-standard encyclopaedia, but because they bear a personal dislike of the article's subject and feel it is "unworthy" to merit an article - while they have never suggested (per this example) that one of the ~40 USMC bases, or any of the Category:United States military bases of the Vietnam War merit deletion; instead they just find the military bases, military leaders and military history of their ideological "enemies" and suggest they all be deleted. WP:NOTPAPER assures us that there is no limit to the number of articles that can exist, and an article like this one - although a stub right now - will one day include information on who started the base, when the Americans (or others) attacked it, how many died, whether it affected the outcome of any battles, and the like. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. It is notable now, and the article will be complete in the future...just like millions of other stubs. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, this again. Please withdraw your unwarranted personal attacks. Ironholds (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to me that this article rests precariously on only primary sources, which, given that they call the guest houses "suspected" can't really be said to be reliable. So there is a WP:Verifiability problem. Also, the article says nothing more than "[person we have an article on] may have stayed in [ad hoc name] guest house". If we had an article on a mafiosi snitch, and somebody made an article entitled Suspected safe house, Baltimore, which stated that, prior to his testimony, the mafiosi stayed in an FBI safe house somewhere in Baltimore, such an article would be deleted without mercy. Abductive (reasoning) 16:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, are you sure that the summary of evidence memos drafted for the Guantanamo captives' review proceedings should be considered primary sources? An interrogation log is a primary source. A transcript is a primary source. But these memos were drafted by author who reviewed, interpreted and summarized multiple documents from at least half a dozen military and civilian agencies. I think that documents that summarize, collate, and interpret multiple documents are the canonical examples of secondary sources. The Baltimore safe house analogy is so strained I don't think it is useful to address here -- so I will comment on it elsewhere. Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, these memos are primary sources. They are DoD legal documents that are allegedly findings of fact, not analytical. Abductive (reasoning) 08:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry. No offense, but you are absolutely incorrect, on several points. First, you call the references "DoD legal documents". The DoD's official position was that the Guantanamo CSR Tribunals and annual reviews were not legal procedures -- many captives asked why they weren't allowed legal counsel at the Tribunals, and they were all routinely told they weren't provided with lawyers because they were "administrative procedures". Second,, you write that the references are "allegedly findings of fact, not analytical." Please read the affidavit written by Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Abraham. Abraham is a reservists called up for a hitch with the OARDEC. Although he is a lawyer in civilian life he is an intelligence analyst when on duty. Read his affidavit, and you will see, again and again, how the summaries were flawed because those tasked to analyze and summarize a large volume of documents from other agencies lacked the training and experience to perform that analysis effectively. Here is the master list of documents. The full unclassified dossiers from 179 captives' CSR Tribunals have been published. Those dossiers each contain a decision memo, which summarizes the documents that were analyzed, collated and summarized. The corresponding decision memos from several hundred of the annual reviews have been published. You need only review a couple of those to verify for yourself that the authors of the OARDEC memos reviewed, analyzed and summarized documents from the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, the Criminal Investigation Task Force, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, the FBI, Southern Command, the Office of Military Commissions, in addition to the Joint Task Force Guantanamo. Geo Swan (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm taken aback at the vehemence of Sherurcij's Keep argument, which throws up a good deal of rhetoric flying in the teeth of WP:AGF without actually addressing the nom's argument. I am astonished that an editor of longstanding has racked up over 30,000 edits without being aware that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, or that - far from being optional - WP:V is the fundamental, irreducible value of the encyclopedia. It is not remotely enough, as Sherurcij ought to know, to assert that someday reliable sources might exist which satisfy the requirement of multiple, third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail. They must be present now, and so far they are not. Failing that, policy holds that an article cannot be sustained. RGTraynor 17:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but I'd like to suggest you are misquoting the requirements for the references we need. WRT "third party", if this article cited brochures published by these guesthouses, or the guesthouses online web-pages, those citations would not be third party references. Newspaper references would be third party, as would UN reports, or reports from a country like the USA. FWIW I have found a handful of Afghan guesthouses -- those that cater to foreign journalists or aid workers -- that do have web-sites. WRT "reliable sources" in all other articles government sources are taken as reliable -- reliable in that whatever they assert is the government's official position. You mention WP:V, a very important policy. If we are going to comply with WP:V we have to set aside our own personal interpretation of the credibility of what our references state. No offense, but it seems to me that your challenge to the reliability of these references is really a challenge to the credibility of what the references assert, and, as such, a lapse from WP:V. I am sure it is an inadvertent lapse however. Geo Swan (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not challenging the reliability of the sources. I am challenging whether they are "Reliable Sources" per WP:RS, when the definition of a "reliable sources" is a source that substantively discusses the subject in question. It has long been held, and you have been around long enough to know this full well, that (using this article as an example) a sentence saying no more than "The detainee stayed in a Uighur guesthouse in Jalalabad" does not constitute substantive discussion of much of anything at all. Is this source about a particular "suspect guest house" in Jalalabad? No. Is this source about "suspect guest houses" at all? No. Do any of the sources discuss "suspect guest houses" in any substantive detail? No. Do the sources then qualify under WP:RS? No. I hope and trust you've rethought your inadvertent lapse. RGTraynor 02:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sherurcij and I don't generally agree on conclusions, but I do agree that these pages are notable and merit keeping. The notability concern is misplaced, and the Google search is wrong. This obviously isn't about some ordinary person seeking free publicity.

First, the above suggested Google search for "Suspect guest house, Jalalabad" is incomplete. Not everyone who looks at this topic is going to think it's a "guest house" or that it's merely "suspected." I'd go with safehouse Jalalabad, which yields considerably more.

Second, the Google search on the "find sources" script used by the nominator puts quotes around the phrase. That makes it work only if the title is notable.

Moreover, this information is of value today. When news about a detainee comes out (such as finding that an ex-detainee is now out fighting again), it should be extremely interesting to find out which other detainees were at the same safe house, and whether they're also already out or being pushed for release.

I think Abductive is mistaken in his view of the word "suspected." They are definitely suspected of having been safehouses. That is true regardless whether those suspicions were considered reasonable by others. Even if lightning strikes and all the "guests" were suddenly proved innocent sheepherders, it should still be remembered that they were at one time suspected of being safehouses.

While secondary sources are a test for notability, they're only one test of the guideline. The guideline itself even includes "reports by government agencies." That's what this is anyway. The CSRTs are compilations of data for legal review, and not the original intelligence report. -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This obviously isn't about some ordinary person seeking free publicity." - yup, never suggested it was. Your argument hasn't addressed the key point - that this article fails WP:GNG. If the page is, as you suggest, notable, it should be able to pass the basic standard of being covered by multiple independent, third-party sources in significant detail. It does not; it is covered by multiple independent, third-party sources in brief mentions. Ironholds (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have addressed it when I said, "While secondary sources are a test for notability, they're only one test of the guideline. The guideline itself even includes 'reports by government agencies.'" (Those last four words are a quote from the GNG guideline's footnotes.)

Your argument used the exact text of this article's name to imply this isn't a common topic. That's not a fair test because this article title is a compromise. In reality, there are plenty of safehouses in Jalalabad, but nobody calls them "Suspect guest house, Jalalabad."

Google returns 15,900 hits for "safehouse Jalalabad" (but without the quotes).

Furthermore, we have a number of links to this article. It's not an orphan.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"google has hits" is straight out of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and the number of links to the article is completely irrelevant to its notability. You're misunderstanding my argument - the problem isn't that it isn't covered by sources, either primary or secondary - the problem is that it isn't covered in significant detail. The government reports make throwaway mentions while discussing things entirely separate from the guest house, and the information we do have consists entirely of "things people did at a guest house in jalalabad", because at no point is the guest house directly discussed. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was you, with your "Find sources" link, who used the number of Google hits to say why you think it should be deleted. It's still right there at the top.

You also say U.S. government docs do not meet the requirement, and clearly they do.

Not every article on WP has or needs the detail you want. We have plenty of lists and timelines, and WP is better for it. This article is no different.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that link is automatically created by twinkle when making an AfD page - I didn't chose to include it. Secondly, it's for suggesting a source of sources, as it were - it is not saying that lots of google hits = notability. Please read my concern more closely; I am not saying that US government docs do not meet the requirement, and I am not saying that lists are not useful, or worthy of inclusion - I am saying that these US government docs do not meet the requirements of "significant" coverage per WP:GNG as at no point do they address the subject in any kind of detail (or even directly) and that this is evidenced by the fact that a list of things done at this/these house(s) is all we can include. I would respectfully ask you to read my critique more carefully in future. Ironholds (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sorry that I just assumed the Google results were intentional. But I read the guideline again, and still disagree on notability.

Your mistake is in thinking this is trivial information. It may seem that way to you, but it's not.

It would indeed be trivial if we had the raw original interrogation logs, and we took from that the types of meals the detainees were fed during their sessions. But these sources are concise legal reports. Everything they put in there was there for a good reason.

It's an important part of the "Summary of Evidence" used to decide whether or not someone should be held in GTMO for another year. They don't put trivia into them. There are probably some detainees who could have been released if not what it said in that field.

On the flip side, there are probably some people now dead because a detainee was released when that field had a less unsavory name in it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're missing the point. It isn't that these sources are "trivial" generally; they're often multi-hundred page documents. But these documents are not about the safe houses. In terms of the safe houses alone, they are indeed "trivial mentions" as Wikipedia defines them: they do not state where the houses are, they state no facts whatsoever about them except that terrorists are claimed to have stayed at a generic "guest" or "safe" house in X city. In order to qualify as a reliable source, a source must discuss the subject in "significant" detail. In any of these sources, where is the significant detail about these guest houses? Not about the terrorists, not about their activities, about the houses themselves? Nowhere. RGTraynor 03:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a better point if the Summary of Evidence documents were often multi-hundred page documents. That would indicate they're a minor detail. But these are typically only one page. The PDF itself may have hundreds of pages, but that's because they're combined with those of other detainees.

In other words, judging by the size of this detail, it's more significant than you thought.

FWIW: The safe house info applies to 24% of detainees' CSRTs. The U.S. military believes it to be significant.

It's true that this article doesn't describe the quality of the accommodations, but that's not what this article is about. As I said, it's more like a list or timeline article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A single mention in a single line of a one-page document doesn't pass "significant" any more than it would if it was a multiple-page document. The article isn't a list, though - it's an article about the guest house, it's being portrayed as an article about the guest house, and at no point does it properly discuss the guest house. If the article was "list of things people did at a suspected guest house in jalalabad" then the references would be sufficient. Ironholds (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comparative size of the document clearly matters. The footnote on significant coverage compares books about a topic to a one sentence mention in a biography.

But this isn't only a single mention in a single line of one one-page document. It's a field used for every detainee known to have been in a safe house. In other words, it's multiple mentions throughout the detainee records that were used by the U.S. government to make these cases. You may not think it matters, but they do.

I don't care about a name change, but you can suggest one if you like. The term "Suspect guest house" was likely a compromise for giving a detainee some degree of presumption of innocence. No one came here expecting to find help making reservations.

We need to consider the ultimate users of this section of WP. You may not have an interest in the government's case, but others do. A lot of people believe GTMO detainees were simply taken off the streets for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If people genuinely want to know the reasons why detainees were held, they'll want a balanced picture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a flying fig about what the US government cares about, or what people care about. We do not include non-notable content just because some people may find it useful, or because one person subjectively believes it's required to give a balanced view to a situation. The sources altogether add up to about 20 pages, of which we've got maybe a line every two pages that actually references a safe house. I'd say that falls into "plainly trivial", particularly since at no point is the guest house actually the subject. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are here for those who do care. This reminds me of when someone deleted an entire section on the Order of Battle in a Vietnam War operation, with names of participating ships and carrier wings, because it was "uninteresting" to him.

I don't particularly care about ceramics but that doesn't mean I go into the associated articles and look for stuff to delete based upon what I think isn't important. I leave it for those interested in ceramics to decide what should be here.

It's notable. It's just not notable to you.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely misunderstanding my point. I don't give a flying fig if you, the US Government and the entire Playboy calendar think it's notable if it doesn't pass WP:N. This was clearly set out in the comment you're replying to - again, I urge you to read what I write and actually answer my concern, to whit - it does not pass WP:GNG. Twelve lines in twenty pages is not enough for "significant", particularly when the twelve lines don't even have the guest house as the subject. Ironholds (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I get what you're saying now. I just don't agree that it doesn't pass WP:N. Those are 12 lines in short summary documents.

Admittedly, it is subjective. The guidelines only show extreme examples. I guess they decided to allow some wiggle room so that people who actually care about the subject can make their own determinations.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admitting to some bias? :P. 12 lines in short summary documents - 12 lines in 20 pages worth of short summary documents. 12 lines in 20 pages, none of which deal with the subject directly. Please explain how 12 lines discussing things that happened at the guest house, spread over 20 pages of report and transcript, is "significant coverage" of the safe house, particularly (and this is the crux of the matter) when not a single source directly addresses the house. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "significant coverage" of the safe house itself. It is "significant coverage" of the safe house in relation to the detainees. The guidelines use a single line in a book as their obvious example of non-notability. This exceeds that.

The only thing in doubt is whether you think this topic is important without detailing the accommodations. I think it's important as it is.

I'll add that it would be satisfactory to me if we combined all the safe house lists into one. Of course, whatever annoys you about this article would probably annoy you just as much if it was combined. You obviously don't share my perspective on these things.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "annoyed" by the article, nor am I interested in sharing your perspective - unlike you, I prefer not to bring a bias and preconceived ideas about importance to the table. That's an incredibly poor argument - "the article gives one sentence in a book as an example of non-notability, this isn't a single sentence in a book, therefore it's notable"? So would two sentences in a book be acceptable, then? It doesn't give a hard-and-fast rule, and it isn't meant to. You're admitting that there's no significant coverage directed at the safe house, it's all about the detainees - so split this article, add the relevant sentences to the articles on the detainees and delete this. Ironholds (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability of this subject is a matter being established by original research on the page. It does that fairly well, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Shii (tock) 21:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but I think there is an important distinction between simple collation, which is allowed and encouraged by our policies, and original research. If this article inserted original conclusions, not present in the original references, it would lapsing from the policy on Original research. If it tried to draw a conclusion between two or more referenced facts, not present in the articles references, that would be original research by synthesis. This article might be more interesting or more informative, if it had done either of those two things, but it would lapse from policy. I believe a useful policy compliant article is possible, without inserting original conclusions, or inserting an unreferenced synthesis. I believe this current version of this article doesn't lapse. Even if, for the sake of argument, I am blind to some portion of this document that did lapse from those two policies, the policy compliant response would be amend or remove the offending passages, not to delete the whole article. Suppose you were to start an article entitled something like World records set at the modern Olympics, and to write it you had to go to a bunch of WP:RS, and find the world records set at each Olympics. Selecting those races, and listing them all in one place would not be original research. If you were then to add your own personal interpretation, like "Fewer records were set at the Mexico and Peking Olympics because air pollution impaired athelete's performance -- but something for which there were no WP:RS, that would be original research. Geo Swan (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The guantanamo documents justify the continued detention with hundreds of allegations that captives had stayed at suspicious guesthouses. Those allegations name dozens of specific guesthouses. We could try to cover all those dozens of guesthouses with a single article. But I am sure that would be of much less value to the legitimate and policy compliant needs of our readers. Consider the Uyghur guest house, one of the guesthouses addressed here, it was one of the key allegations leveled at the Uyghur captives in Guantanamo, used to justify their detention from 2001 through 2008. Ten months ago, after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Boumediene v. Bush restored habeas corpus to the captives, forced the executive branch to provide real evidence to back up their allegation, the Department of Justice quietly announced it would not try to provide that evidence, and would no longer try to defend the assertion that the Uyghur captives were "enemy combatants". Our readers are, I believe, entitled to look to us for what is known about the Uyghur guesthouse. Geo Swan (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Splendid. Please feel free to include any sources which say anything about these guesthouses other than that they exist. RGTraynor 02:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article built solely on primary sources. There is pretty much no encyclopaedic content to the page - it is just a list of references to guest houses by US intelligience. If there was coverage in independent sources on the US stance of using staying at guesthouses as evidence against suspected terrorists, then there should be an article, but that hasn't been shown. Quantpole (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would encourage people to take a brief look at Najim Jihad, a similar article dealing with a safehouse in Jalalabad; through piecing together different reports - none of which acknowledge the other's existence, and some of which refuse to use the "accepted" name of the safehouse, we are able to host an article that sources FBI affadavits, CSRT/ARB tribunal proceedings, CNN, TIME Magazine, the Toronto Star, and other sources. While this article is not yet at that level of completeness, it is on its way there, even if it takes six months or six years to reach that point - we do not delete WP articles because they are "incomplete" - the subject is notable, even if we are currently lacking secondary sources. Take for example, the issue of if a previously-unknown lawyer is suddenly announced to be appointed to the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice; now there may not be any secondary sources we've yet been able to find giving his biography, but someone may add a WP article piecing together what can be found in primary sources about him - as long as the article is neutral and referenced - we will simply have to wait for a book about the man to be published in five years..but we won't delete the article in the meantime as he meets the threshold of notability. An article's subject is either notable or is not notable, the amount of secondary sources is irrelevant - if I were to publish my memoirs and devote a chapter to my next-door neightbour growing up...he is not suddenly notable and worthy of a WP article even though there are "secondary sources" - likewise if an article is created about Crispin Sorhaindo, the former President of Dominica in the 1990s...the fact there are no "secondary sources" about his life would not mean his article merits deletion since he is notable. Again, these articles will incorporate details about who stayed at them, when they were destroyed, whether people were killed in the bombing/raid, and similar details - but the details do take time to filter out of places like Guantanamo into mainstream press. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is by definition not notable because it fails the most basic test of notability. "it will be notable in six months or six years" is directly addressed in "arguments to avoid", and should not be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Ironholds (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm in the page being recreated at a later point if adequate sourcing does become apparent. In the meantime, we shouldn't rely on a synthesis of primary sources to create a topic. I agree, on a personal level, that the subject does seem an important one. However, we don't judge importance by personal feelings about a matter, but on whether the sources exist to write an encylopaedic entry. The history can always be undeleted at a later point, so it isn't permanently lost. Quantpole (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, I'm with Quantpole. Subjects aren't notable because we want them to be. They qualify for articles on Wikipedia if they pass the consensus criteria for inclusion, which includes WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:GNG. Is the subject of safe houses generally important? Yes, indeed, and there's an article already on them: Al-Qaeda safe house. RGTraynor 08:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue of course is that the article is not about guest houses or safe houses. A more accurate title would be Detention of Guantanamo captives based on residence at suspect guest houses, but that's a bit wordy! Quantpole (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. *** Crotalus *** 17:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Enough sources to add up to an article, but Ironholds does have a point about incidental mention--judging whether they are in toto substantial enough is not that easy. but I think it would be better if they were combined. In my opinion, Sherurcij is not quite correct that any subject is clearly "notable or not notable"--there are various degrees, and for subject that fall on the borderline, combining into a single article is a suitable way to go. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably fails WP:N. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, and quit copy-pasting deletion/keep rationale! Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Our nominator has claimed that: "Twelve lines in twenty pages is not enough for "significant", particularly when the twelve lines don't even have the guest house as the subject." I am not challenging our nominator's good faith, but I believe his or her characterization of what the references say is highly misleading. Consider what Binyam Mohammed's third annual status review says about his stay in a Jalalbad guest house. Binyam Mohammed was one of the first captives to face charges before a military commission. He was alleged to have been part of a plot to explode dirty bombs in the USA. He faced two allegations, drafted in 2008, published in 2009, which says he stayed at a Jalalabad guest house that provided an explosives course. I dispute any characterization that this passage is "trivial", or a passing mention Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The detainee stated he arrived in Islamabad, Pakistan and contacted an associate of the head of the Algerian Training Camp outside of Jalalabad, Afghanistan. The detainee and the associate then traveled together to the Algerian guest house in Jalalabad.
- "The Algerian guest house in Jalalabad , Afghanistan is known to have hosted an explosives course. The course involved training on the theory of electronic circuitry involved in explosives."
Comment -- 220 of the 572 captives' who have had documents made public have references to Jalalabad. Some of those references to Jalalabad are not to guest houses in Jalalabad. And some of them are only passing references. Binyam Mohammed's was not. I believe other references clearly are not trivial passing mentions. In other similar {{afd}} our nominator initiated at the same time as this one I addressed a concern I thought our nominator was making that collating significant details from multiple references constituted "original research". I suggested that it would only be original research if novel and unpublished interpretations were offered. Our nominator seemed to accept that point. I believe that collating significant and different details from multiple references can fulfill the requirement in WP:GNG for substantial coverage, and I believe the significant and different details collated from multiple reference here in this article fulfill that requirement. Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I tried to make the point in some of the other {{afd}} our nominator initiated at the same time they initiated this one that we can start articles on topics where our knowledge is incomplete. I offered the example of string theory and sub-atomic particles. I have written a couple of essays that address this issue, using the first sockpuppet to be unmasked as a starting point. "Substantial coverage" does not mean readers won't realize there are unanswered questions about the topic. Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: And that's an irrelevancy. Whether or not knowledge is "complete" here isn't the point. Whether people have questions generally about terrorism in the Middle East isn't the point. It's that none of these sources discuss any of these "guest houses" in any detail whatsoever. Binyam Mohammed's notability is not at issue, and I see he already has an article of his own. Claiming over and over again, in filibustering detail, that sources discuss in detail the subject that is the focus of this AfD when not a single one of them do is scarcely convincing. I'd recommend WP:KEEPCONCISE, myself. RGTraynor 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incompleteness was raised as an issue at the other similar {{afd}} our nominator initiated at the same time as this one. I think that makes it a point worth addressing here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WRT to your comment about Binyam Mohammed's notability. Unfortunately the wikipedia has very weak attempt to address a fundamental design idea. This comes up at {{afd}}s all the time -- and is routinely ignored. No offense but I believe your comment reflects one far from optimal design philosophy. WP:NOTPAPER. Yes, Binyam Mohammed has an article. So does the dirty bomb plot. At least three other individuals are alleged to have a role in the dirty bomb plot, Majid Khan, Jose Padilla and Abu Zubaydah. They all have articles too. It would be a mistak to try to shoehorn what we know about the dirty bomb plot into any of the articles on the individuals alleged to have been involved in it. And it would be a mistake to try to merge the articles on those individuals into the article on the dirty bomb plot. Abu Zubaydah was the registrar of the Khalden training camp. It would be a mistake to try to shoehorn what we know about him into the article about the camp, or vice versa. Ibn Al Sheikh Al Libi was also an officer of the Khalden camp. Have you ever had to try to get information from the raw dump of a database that has crashed? It is possible. All the basic information is in there. And if you are prepared to spend hours manually following the pointers, you can get at info that you could get at within seconds, if the database hadn't crashed. What that shows is that half or more of the value of that information lies in the links between the information in the database, not in the raw information itself. And exactly the same holds true for the wikipedia. The real power of the wikipedia lies in its wikilinks. Yes, Binyam Mohammed has an article, and yes, that article should have some mention of the connection between him, and Jalalabad guest houses. But to suggest, as you seem to be doing, that all the information about Jalalabad guest houses should be in the article about Binyam Mohammed would be a grave disservice to our readers, because the Jalalabad guest houses are notable for other reasons beyond the alleged bomb training courses available to Binyam Mohammed. At least one of the houses is alleged to have been run by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. At least one is alleged to have been run by the Tunisians. At least one is alleged to have been run by Algerians. At least one is alleged to have been run by Uyghurs. And at least one is alleged to have been run by "Arabs" (Afghans, Pakistanis and Iranians, while muslims, aren't Arabs). At least one is alleged to have been a Taliban transit house. The allegations also state that military training took place at at least one Jalalabad house. The allegations also state that at least one Jalalabad house was used to house graduates of the Al Farouq training camp. Please explain why you do not recognize this as substantial coverage. I suggest that the dozen or so articles I mentioned in this comment should all have a link to an article about Jalalabad guest houses. Trying to put the information about the connection between each of those other topics and its Jalalabad guest house(s) would deny our readers of the knowledge of the other Jalalabad guest houses. I frankly don't understand how you can justify denying our readers access to that information. Geo Swan (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the information doesn't fulfil WP:GNG. Frankly it's sad to see a long-standing wikipedian resort to subjective "but it's important for our readers to have access to this!" arguments. Give Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions a read. Ironholds (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You called on me to re-read the WP:ATA essay. When was the last time you re-read WP:ATA#Arguments to the person? I made several points, which you have avoided addressing, and the one counter-argument you offered is based on a misinterpretation of my meaning. I am going to offer you the courtesy of assuming that your mischaracterization of my comment above was a good faith mistake. I encourage you to respond with civil, meaningful, substantive responses to comments on content issues, and to avoid offering judgments on others' personalities. If you can't do that perhaps it would be best if you simply kept your judgments of others to yourself? Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your counterpoint was that the sources indeed fulfil the "significant" requirement - that was my main concern, and that was your main response. Since you made that response I've repeatedly argued that your counter-argument is ineffective. Your various points have either a) not been directed at the main concern or b) been directed at the main concern, but are not, in my opinion, persuasive arguments. Either way I have responded to your comments - the only one who's avoided addressing arguments is you, who has repeatedly brought up the idea that I find the article not being "complete" a problem, something I've never said. We obviously aren't going to agree on the "significant" point, as I've repeatedly said, so unless you have an explanation about where you found the "it doesn't cover everything" argument I'd suggest we leave it. Ironholds (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but your counter-arguments have alternated between tacitly acknowledging that my counter-arguments to your points were valid, but then claiming those points I effectively rebutted weren't your main point -- or claiming I was avoiding answering your main point -- or making what my pure math buddies would call a "proof by assertion", that is, your point was valid because you said it was valid. You assert the article lapses from WP:GNG without clearly saying why. If your secondary points aren't that important, just don't raise them.When you run out of counter-arguments say: "I felt strongly about this, but since I have run out of counter-arguments, so maybe I was wrong". Or when you run out of counter-arguments, say: "I can't explain why, but I still feel strongly this article should be deleted". When they run out of counter-arguments many wikipedia contributors just walk away. That is not ideal, but it is better than stooping to WP:ADHOM arguments. When you have run out counter-arguments don't stoop to WP:ADHOM. Geo Swan (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At no point has the lack of completeness been an issue. Stop filibustering and deal with the heart of the matter here. Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "heart of the matter"? Your initial nomination(s) asserted a failure to fulfill the requirements of WP:GNG. It is I addressed. Some other respondents here have repeated your assertion, without addressing my counter-arguments. I don't consider it "filibustering" to offer civil and meaningful response to challenges. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The counter-arguments were insufficient, hence my long-standing rejection of them. At what point was the article not being "complete" a problem? Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone past mere bullshit and approaches the surreal. Bothering to read (never mind respond to) this filibustering flurry of irrelevancies and obfustications is certainly doing me no good and does the encyclopedia no good. I'll leave this to the closing admin to sort through. RGTraynor 16:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is so incomplete and so dependent on a single series of sources that I don't know how it can be repaired. First of all, the article is about Suspect guest houses, Jalalabad, not about a single house. Second, the article repeatedly states that various detainees faced allegations that they stayed in certain guest houses, but there is nothing to indicate what the detainees said in response to that -- "I never stayed there"? "Yes, I stayed there, but it's an ordinary guest house, not a terrorism house"? "There is no such house in Jalalabad"? Nor do we get any indication of where in Jalalabad these houses are located, how big they are, how many people they can accommodate at once, or anything else that would help identify or describe the houses themselves. The point of this article seems to be to discredit the U.S. government's claims about these houses, and I don't know how to improve it to achieve a neutral point of view. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but I believe all of the concerns you have expressed here are content or editorial concerns, which, more properly, should be discussed on the talk page. (1) Should the name of the article refer to "houses" in the plural? Sure. That was a (minor) lapse on the part of the person who started the article (me), and it is one that can be trivially fixed. (2) Should this article offer the captives' response to the allegation that they stayed in the guest house? Maybe. Or maybe that kind of response, which could be lengthy, belongs in the article on the captive. Again, I think this is a content concern, and that the appropriate place to discuss this would be on the talk page, not in an {{afd}} -- and I do not believe this kind of concern should be grounds for deletion. (3) WRT to where in Jalalabad the houses were, what they looked like, how many people they were capable of housing... These are all good questions. But when did we start nominating articles for deletion because our references leave unanswered questions? (4) As to whether the current version of the article "discredits the U.S. government's claims"... When our articles are neutrally written the conclusions our readers come to are never the "wrong" conclusions. Drawing their own conclusions from neutrally written material is what is supposed to happen when readers read wikipedia articles. I honestly believe that this article complies with both the letter and the spirit of all the wikipedia's policies. In particular I believe the article contains zero editorializing. Our deletion policies contain various recommendations for how we should respond when we perceive a bias. Deletion is not one of the recommended responses. Expressing one's concern on the talk page is always a good first step. In some other discussions some contributors have argued for the deletion of material not because they could make a case it wasn't neutrally written, but because readers might draw the "wrong" conclusion from it. I would be very interested in having a meaningful discussion with anyone who thinks they can point to specific aspects of this article that lapse from neutrality. But, no offense, I think anyone who wants to delete neutrally written and otherwise policy compliant material because they are concerned what conclusions our readers will draw from it is engaging in a form of editorializing. Geo Swan (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - One significant aspect of the article that violates NPOV is the paragraph from the lead that states: "American counter-terrorism analysts routinely conflated the concept of a guest house, a place for the open accommodation of visitors and travelers with that of a safe house, a place for hiding fugitives, or for hiding the travel of spies or criminals." I don't see any source for this statement, which implies either that the American counterterrorism analysts either didn't know the difference between a regular traveler guest house and a criminal/terrorist safe house, or that they did know the difference but brought allegations against detainees for staying at ordinary traveler guest houses to make it sound like those places were criminal/terrorist safe houses. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That assertion isn't sourced. That is a valid criticism. But that kind of concern is not grounds for deletion. Do American intelligence analysts know the difference between a regular traveler guest house and a criminal/terrorist safe house? I don't think this is the correct place to address that question in detail. Briefly, I read all the allegation memos, and all the transcripts. I routinely came across references to "al Qaeda safehouses" in Afghanistan prior to 9-11 -- that is at a time when the Taliban was in firm control of Afghanistan, and al Qaeda members and recruits could travel openly. And I came across references to "al Qaeda guesthouses" in Pakistan, where al Qaeda members and recruits would have to travel clandestinely. You are correct that it was a lapse on my part to use that wording, without a reference. I trust you will assume this was an inadvertent lapse. Alternatives are (1) rewrite that passage; (2) find a reference. The deletion policies do not support deletion of the whole article based on the wording of this passage. I think I can find a reference to support that wording, or something like it -- but not in the time remaining before this {{afd}} closes. Geo Swan (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I reworded the passage that concerned you. I only took a couple of minutes doing so, and it reads awkwardly. But the {{afd}} is close to closure, and I didn't want to take more time. Geo Swan (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The main point which you still have not addressed, is that this is all primary sources with no adequate sourcing for the assertions that are made. There is zero sourcing for the lead of the article, and it seems to be OR. I've already stated that this article appears to cover an important subject, but until it is written about in reliable sources we shouldn't be putting stuff together. At present this is an essay piece, and I can't see how it can be anything else, unless the independent sources are found. Quantpole (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I think the assertion that the article relies solely on primary sources is a very serious misconception -- one I think I addressed on September 2nd. If you are interested in seriously discussing this concern, could you please address the comments explaining why the Summary of Evidence memos should be considered secondary sources I made then? Geo Swan (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I explained why I thought the OARDEC Summary of Evidence memos should be considered primary sources as to establishing the notability of Guantanamo detainees in [16]. Now, here, the memos are being used as our sole source of coverage not of a detainee, but of a kind of building incidentally mentioned in the memos about multiple detainees. This article relies 100% on documents issued by a single body within the U.S. government which are not even primarily about the article subject (the houses) but are mostly about some people who are alleged (among other allegations against them) to have stayed in those houses. There are no newspaper articles, no magazine articles, no books cited -- nothing but the OARDEC Summary of Evidence memos, and they don't actually have a lot of content about the subject -- they just mention it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rgtrayonot and metropolitan90. There's nothing that can be added to any arguments at this point. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM. WP:NOTAVOTE. I have offered civil, meaningful replies to their concerns. I think the wikipedia deserves participants in {{afd}} discussions to only offer civil, meaningful responses. Geo Swan (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or one admin who is brave enough to enforce the policy against Original Research and put this article out of its misery. Abductive (reasoning) 07:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per metropolitan90 and RGTraynor. I appreciate the time you have put into this discussion Geo Swan. The discussion is now already multiply times longer then the article and arguments have been addressed. IQinn (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary sources and per Met90. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/525R.com

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

The result was speedy delete. G11'd by me, by accident because I didn't read the tags. But the discussion is moot now. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

525R.com

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

Promotional and poorly written article about a non-notable website. Repeatedly recreated and finally salted at 525r.com and now here. Speedy has been declined due to assertion of notability. I am not convinced that being the world's 2 millionth most popular website is really a claim to notability and I propose that we delete and salt this article, speedily if at all possible. DanielRigal (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would like a speedy, but I can see where they assert some notability. Defiantly not notable.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of a speedy as spam? --DanielRigal (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could very well try. It is obvious that the creator wishes to be destructive, as he is removing the afd tag repeatedly and is about to get himself blocked. We could probably try a tag for spam/vandalism.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion – No GNEWS to support article. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it. Like a dope I didn't check the tags or the history before doing so. Please read the deletion policy, if an article is at AfD, don't speedy it. Let the AfD conclude. This may take more time but it will result in a community decision which can be enforced via CSD-G4. Also, don't template new articles to death. If there really are fixable problems with the article, then use {{Article issues}}. If an article is going to get deleted anyway regardless of superficial edits, then don't mark that it has copy-edit problems. Protonk (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Sunrise Diamond

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

Alright, so there's no indication of notability aside from the Arkansas release and the JCK article. I'm not a diamond expert, but there doesn't seem to be much setting this diamond apart from others. Also nominating article about the finder, Glenn Worthington, based on the fact that he has no notability outside the diamond's discovery. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The diamond is pretty but 2 carats is not a notable size. Its finder does not seem notable as an author. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easter Sunrise Diamond. Sources are mediocre at best, no indication of notability. Also delete Glenn Worthington as it should have already been deleted as per previously established consensus. — DroEsperanto (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with DroEsperanto, above; the sources for the Diamond are lacking severely. If the articles were not already under AFD, I'd be bold and merge Glenn Worthington to Easter Sunrise Diamond, as that appears to have been the consensus previously. If there is more independent coverage I am unaware of, I'll re-evaluate, but I'm unable to find any at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The burden of proof is on editors favouring retention of the article to show that the topic is notable. Here, we have only arguments to the effect that the topic might meet the WP:GNG (if we kept every article on possibly notable topics, well...). Closing without prejudice against recreation should significant coverage in independent reliable sources be found, feel free also to request undeletion for userfication. Skomorokh 12:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Love You, I'm Sorry, and I'll Never Do It Again

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

A user contested the prod and added a link to IMDB, a blog, and the official website. I can't find significant coverage for this. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With no intention at all to be argumentative (I didn't even know the page existed), I've looked at the guidelines and I'm still not clear on what's notable. The film before this one, CREDO, was worthy of two articles in RECORDING magazine for how the accompaniment was created after the on-set a capella singing. This film expands that technique; to my knowledge, it's the most complex musical created in this way. If that's not notable, and its writer/director/composer being a well-reviewed but not particularly famous mystery novelist also isn't, then I agree it probably shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. Thanks. Noteon (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This article does not even come close to meeting the Wikipedia:Notability (films) criteria … even the "official" site is just vanispamcruftisement. Happy Editing! — 138.88.43.201 (talk · contribs) _{21:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

No, the official site isn't vanispamcruftisement.

It was nice to see this article appear, but if it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, happy deleting! Noteon (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable short film. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - not spam, but only weakly notable. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it weakly notable? Joe Chill (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be verifiable information about the film, and there are a few sites available, but a quick perview does not convince me that this short film has reliable sources to prove it its, in fact, notable. I assume things are notable unless proven otherwise - thus "weak keep." I'll take another look. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Eluchil404 (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand and further source. The film has been in over 16 festivals. Finding information in genre sources should not be too difficult with some digging... as not everything is listed on google news. Wikipedia does not demand immediate improvement, nor does it demand that every article BE perfect. Since Wikipedia is a Work In Progress and is far from being complete, I believe the article can be further improved with normal editing over a course of time. So it's not pretty enough or sourced enough at this very minute?? Time to fix it, not delete it. Just takes a little wiki-love. And PS: Blogcritics (odd name chosen by that online magazine) is a reliable source for this article. The Blogcritics magazine has itself been written up in other RS, has received acclaim, recognition, and awards. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The site is not Blogcritics. The site is Blogspot. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, Blogcritics is not Blogspot. Sory for any confusion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see the link now. That was added after my comment. I was talking about Blogspot. Joe Chill (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just saw that you added a Blogcritics link today. Did you somehow confuse the Blogspot link as Blogcritics when you added a Blogcritics link even though I said that Blogspot was a blog on August 24? Or something? Joe Chill (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I added the reference after you made your remark. Yes, Blogcritics is not Blogspot. They chose an unfortunate name for the online magazine. Sorry for any confusion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - " So it's not pretty enough or sourced enough at this very minute??" Why don't you use that comment on every AFD? I've even seen you say that about articles that have been around for two years or more. Maybe you choose to use comments like that randomly. I hate it when inclusionists use that type of insulting comments in AFD. As for this very minute, it's more like a full 7 days. Wikipedia doesn't demand people to go by essays. "nor does it demand that every article BE perfect" You're right, but it demands notability. "Finding information in genre sources should not be too difficult with some digging" Another annoying comment. It's might and not should. Joe Chill (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may disagree with my opinions, but your personal attack is unacceptable. Please cease. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - What is a personal attack? I was told that someone calling me a troll wasn't a personal attack or someone saying that I wasn't smart because I didn't agree with their opinion wasn't a personal attack. My comment was not a personal attack and it's easy to assume that your comment is because of the many inclusionist comments that assumes bad faith on anyone that disagrees with their opinion and they still continue even when multiple users complain about it or when it gets taken to ANI. If calling someone stupid, calling someone a troll, saying that someone is attracted to feces, and assuming bad faith for no reason can be considered as not a personal attack, then maybe the whole civil rule doesn't matter much. Joe Chill (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please temper that anger when responding to people in AfD discussions. Both you and MichaelQSchmidt contribute to AfD discussions regularly, so obviously you're bound to disagree on some articles. Your earlier comment could easily be construed as a personal attack, and was at the very least incivil. Maybe go have a cup of coffe and a cigarette before posting your reply next time you start getting angry. Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "Maybe go have a cup of coffee and a cigarette before posting your reply next time you start getting angry." I'm 16. Also, multiple users including admins said that saying that I was stupid, saying that I'm a troll, and saying that I'm attracted to feces weren't personal attacks. What the heck is up with that? The rules obviously don't apply to everyone. Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I haven't seen those comments made against you, but hopefully someone has warned them about their incivility too. "Coffee and cigarette" was just my way of saying take five minutes away from wikipedia so that any agression or anger is less likely to arrive on the page in a rash moment. This is a good idea for everyone, and certainly not targeted solely at you. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        They weren't warned. A few of the users that said personal attacks to me were RHaworth (feces), Michig (troll), and Edison (stupid). Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Replied on your talk page Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I fail to see how either of the blog postings listed as "references" can be considered reliable sources … Alan Gary's merely mentions it in passing, which is not even close to "significant coverage"! — 138.88.43.201 (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To the anonymous IP: Blogcritics Magazine is not itself a blog... just an unfortunate magazine name. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is the fact that the short musical itself can be found on various websites, and the script can also be located on the internet mean anything in regards to notification that it exists? A plot by Keith Snyder himself can be found at [17]. --Coin945 (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its existence has never been an issue … its lack of notability is the problem … Keith Snyder's blog is immaterial, because (a) it is a primary source, and (b) blogs are not considered to be WP:RS. — 138.88.43.201 (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 01:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film is only 14 minutes, not notable enough. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael, appearing in many festivals and with many links makes it notable enough for inclusion. Ikip (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The length of a film has absolutely nothing to do with notability, compare Un chien andalou which lasts all of 16 minutes. The article admittedly needs some work, but given the festival recognition it deserves a chance. Favonian (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: Uhh… where are the WP:RS {{cite}} tags for this alleged "festival recognition"? — 138.88.43.201 (talk · contribs) _{17:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
  - Grumbling reply: You may have a point :) The best I could find was the ACEFEST 2007, which lists the movie as a participant, though not as a winner. Favonian (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why does it matter whether the film won or if it just participated? It gets the same coverage...--Coin945 (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But is that "significant coverage" or just a "mention"? — 138.88.43.201 (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revengemail.com

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

The result was speedy delete under A7 speedy criterion. Specifically, the website doesn't assert any real notability. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revengemail.com

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

In my opinion does not assert notability beyond trinket self-published/aggrandizing claims. Unreferenced. (speedy was removed, and since I have no idea about the notability of this, decided to start AfD) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional and unreferenced. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rose (TV series)

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

The result was Keep. The article can be redirected or merged to The Rose (Taiwanese Drama) on the basis of a subsequent talk page discussion, but it's apparent that there is no consensus to delete the article. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The Rose (TV series)

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

This article is about the same subject as The Rose (Taiwanese Drama), which is an older article. I am proposing a deletion of the former so that the latter can be redirected into the "The Rose (TV series)" namespace to comply with the Manual of Style for article naming. Arsonal (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge into this article The Rose (Taiwanese Drama) - as per nomination. McMarcoP (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge per McMarcoP, I don't see why we actually have to delete anything - a merge would do the trick. Cerebellum (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 01:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above in a previous listing. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna Mildred Hill

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

unremarkable person. Coverage, yes - coverage in one line in an article on confidence tricks in a non-notable blog. Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a confidence trickster from the 1940's sourcing may be a bit difficult and much of that sourcing may be offline. This Charlotte Observer article calls her "the most famous practitioner of the so-called Lonely Hearts scam", and The Nation from Thailand also provides some coverage of her and the Lonely Hearts scam. This book also provides coverage about her. -- Whpq (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unreferenced stub and has been for four years. Obviously no one gives enough of a damn about it to do anything with it. Drawn Some (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Stubs are perfectly valid articles if the subject is notable. We don't know who, when, or why somebody might come along to improve the article, but it's hard to build upon on an artcile if we insist on deleting it because it hasn't been worked on for a while. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 01:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whpq has shown reliable sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gary Wood (filmmaker). NW (Talk) 03:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Mic'rs

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Open Mic'rs

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

A single-theatre film isn't particularly notable. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly written article on a not notable film. Mention on IMDB alone doesn't make notability. McMarcoP (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Gary Wood (filmmaker). ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gary Wood (filmmaker). Ckulas (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 01:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. consensus that he fails WP:N/and/or WP:POLITICIAN JForget 22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zane Carpenter

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

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

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

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

Anonymous political figure in a vanishingly small party. Recently created by a editor who admits that he is a member of said party. Same editor silently removed my prod tag, so here we are Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am slowly but surely adding references to the said article. It's up to the standard of very many other pieces on Wikipedia. So, here we are! Troublemaker1949 (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even come close to meeting WP:POLITICIAN and general notability standards - coverage is trivial at best. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the POLITICIAN tag as it didn't meet the criteria, sorry about that. Troublemaker1949 (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 self published sources, a mocking mention in a light hearted piece and then a statement that he did, in fact, stand for election. This is as trivial as it gets in my view. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've removed the offending tag and anyway, references to "vanishingly small" are so subjective. Have you looked at the British communist movement recently?Troublemaker1949 (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True -- there are lots of parties that are as small or smaller (although the CPB has 900 and the SWP possibly even more). I doubt Brar would claim more than 30. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for this pearl of wisdom? Troublemaker1949 (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im being generous -- the only documented evidence is that there are three per Brar's submissions to the UK electoral authorities. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's so little about British communists who are active today that this piece is rather welcome. However, it's a bit sparse so I'd like to see more information added, but, nevertheless, keep it. PhillyDelphia (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC) — PhillyDelphia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That seems a thin reason for keeping. See [[18]]. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside -- there are plenty of (in my view) quite notable figures from the communist left in the UK with no (Sid French, Mick Costello) or very poor articles (Monty Goldman). You might create on of those or ginger up an existing one(!). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, you seem to be such an expert, so why don't you get on with creating those articles or adding to the already existing ones rather than acting as some petty censor and rubbing out ones you don't like!Troublemaker1949 (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely not a notable political figure. Only two blog posts even mention him, and no news or book sources except that aside in an FT blog. p.s. As for getting 151 votes as a Socialist Labour Party candidate in Birmingham in a general election, I got more votes than that as a paper candidate in a local council election. Fences&Windows 19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Few articles about communists? Tough luck. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I might also point out that if Zane Carpenter was instead a member of a mainstream party, he would still fail notability miserably. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well references now. Meets notability standards. Ikip (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 self published sources (you do realise Lalkar is self-published right), 1 blog, a mocking mention in a light hearted piece and then a statement that he did, in fact, stand for election -- this is well-referenced?! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I think that, by now even the most biased among us would have to concede that it's fairly well-referenced. So here we are. Troublemaker1949 (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the General Notability Guideline?? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have struck the duplicate vote. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? This is NOT a majority vote, it doesn't count anyway, so it's pretty pointless to do this. Troublemaker1949 (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep*Keep*Keep*Keep*Keep*Keep~~ Are you going to strike these too? Troublemaker1949 (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh*. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In the interests of disclosure, User:Troublemaker1949 is the creator the article and states that he is a member of the party with which Zane is associated. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, is not that not allowed, so sorry. Troublemaker1949 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The man isn't notable. The most promising references (ie from the BBC and the Guardian newspaper) turn out to only say how many votes he got in the election he stood for. Which was 151 - hardly an indication of notability. The other most promising one, the Washington Post is a one-paragraph mention which fails the multiple, non-trivial standard we require. Like Chris Neville-Smith points out, it doesn't matter whether we agree with his politics or not, he's not notable enough to be in a credible encyclopedia. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever said Wikipedia was a "credible" encyclopedia?Troublemaker1949 (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think Wikipedia is a credible encyclopaedia, why do you want an article on Zane Carpenter so badly in the first place? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troublemaker1949, we are trying to build a credible encyclopedia, which is why we have AfD discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 23:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised Troublemaker1949s behaviout here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 16:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per nom and reasons mentioned above.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Google news: 12, Google books: 7, Google scholar: 0 Ikip (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is someone else by that name. Only getting a hundred or so votes, out of millions of voters, doesn't make someone notable. The news stories covering him are mostly mentioning nude cyclists and others. Do the books cover him, or the guy he was named after? Dream Focus 14:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom and DreamFocus, this guy doesn't meet our notability criteria. Verbal chat 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per Snowball delete JForget 22:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Austin

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

Non-notable footballer. Contested PROD. Prod reason was "Given the club's league level, it is unlikely that its players can be considered automatically notable. There is nothing here to indicate individual notability". This is still the case. The subject does get hits in Google News but it all seems to be local coverage. I don't think he meets WP:ATHLETE. DanielRigal (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable player for a non-notable club. If he ends up playing (and not only trialling, not even just signing would be enough) for a pro club, then the article can be created. McMarcoP (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Edited to fix own mistype McMarcoP (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:Athlete. The player needs to have played in a fully professional league to warrrant an article in the encyclopedia, which in England means the Premier League or the Football League. The Wessex League Premier Division where Poole Town F.C. plays is a long way below that level. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer Spiderone 15:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delte - not notable at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE & WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 21:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE however I expect that it is only a matter of time before this article will need to be recreated. He has already had two trials with AFC Bournemouth, and is currently playing for their reserve team as well as Poole Town. It seems that Bournemouth's transfer embargo is the only thing stopping him from signing as a first team player. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

It gets re-added, because Ghost Rider is the most famous police chase motorcyclist, and his videos are selling over the Internet and motorcycle shops. If you can point to another police chase video as more popular, then you can say its not Notable. But this is like saying UserX doesnt exist, because I dont personally know him. Notable in the field as given, is Notable. And its not a hoax. --IronWolve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.100.148 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Rider (motorcycle stuntman)

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G4 by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Rider (motorcycle stuntman)

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

Fails WP:Notability and WP:RS; possibly a hoax. This entire article is a collection of unverified rumors and tall tales, combined with references to a set of dubious YouTube videos. The subject is probably worthy of investigation by reputable media, but until that happens, Wikipedia has nothing to base an article on. --Dbratland (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe this topic (under different article name) was deleted before. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD, from August of last year, is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Rider (motorcyclist). Later creations of Ghost Rider (stuntman) and Ghost Rider (Motorcyclist) were speedied. Deor (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. If all the (tall or not) tales about the character end up having some resonance, then the article has a place here. And by the way, if Mr. Karlsson "lost his life" on the Isle of Man, he is indeed deceased. McMarcoP (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superheroes (band)

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

The result was Withdrawn per Mich. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superheroes (band)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not easy to search on the band alone, but combined with the recod label, these came up: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. I can't say all of thses are definitely professional sources, but the Billboard article demonstrates that the label is sufficiently important for the band to pass WP:MUSIC via criterion 5 (two or more albums on an important label).--Michig (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes C5. Discogs.com confirms the multiple releases on Crunchy Frog [25], as does Allmusic [26]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Forces Halifax Rock Fest

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

A single outdoor concert in Nova Scotia, held August 2nd. This probably wasn't notable beforehand (see the comments on the talk page, from when this was still in user space), I don't see it getting any more notable after the fact. Hairhorn (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there is talk of it being multi-year, which I don't see. ^TheWeak_Willed 17:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an annual concert (multi-year). 2009 was the "inaugural" year. --Cfhalifaxrockfest (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC) — Cfhalifaxrockfest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: The article doesn't even mention anything that would make it even slightly notable other than Sammy Hagar had never been to Halifax before. If someone can improve the article so that it shows a defining moment in Canadian music history, then I would agree it should stay. Single off concerts can stay providing that it has a major impact on the music/cultural scene. I don't see this as any different than a Canadian music variety show, like Canada Day on Parliament Hill. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It's notability is more about the fact that the Canadian Forces, Canada's military, put this concert on; it's never happened before. --24.222.189.203 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC) — 24.222.189.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment this might be an annual concert. It isn't yet. And even then, it might not be notable without a lot of independent coverage in third party, reliable sources. Also, discussions on AfDs are generally not swayed by comments made by users who have a clear vested interest. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may or may not be a event repeated next year and the year after that. That still wouldn't give it anything more than local notability to my mind. Hairhorn (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the third party coverage is one newspaper [27]. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep third party coverage is hard to find after-the-fact: the Chronicle Herald had three other stories on Rock Fest, but can't be seen online after seven days. More references are up. --24.222.189.203 (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC) — 24.222.189.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete unnotable one-off event. Eusebeus (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This is the first at home Canadian Forces concert, and the first Chickenfoot concert, and there is going ot be a second one, and they have a number of noteable references. --24.222.129.22 (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC) — 24.222.129.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The IPs are all duplicate votes of someone who has commented here already, so I struck them. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Bahadir Khan Ozgen

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

At first this looked like a hoax. However, searching without "Ozgen" reveals 1 result at Google Books, which the article is slightly lifted from, so this is probably true (Khan's father's name appears to turn up some results, as well). Regardless, this individual seems to be gravely non-notable besides coverage in one book. JamieS93 21:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep comes from an era of "No Internet" and I drove through the street named after him. Seems notable to me. -- MARWAT 05:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Majority of the things, especially notable peoples have come from Non-Internet era but they still have too much about them. Where is that road, in which city and which country? There is a road in Islamabad named before my maternal uncle, but he isn't a notable person, so should I create an Article for him? No. The above request for keep has no logic. I would requet for deletion, as per nomination. --LineofWisdom (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Marginal case: appears at first glance to fit the criterion of being covered "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" per that google books result, but on closer inspection it seems that the coverage is not specifically about the subject itself, but just uses the subject as an example. So, on the grounds of coverage not being substantial, I would suggest deletion, though not with any conviction. Cerebellum (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, barely even mentioned in the one source used for the article. Wikipedia should not have an inherent bias towards the Internet age, but if the article is to remain, more source material would have to be found. If it was offline, so be it, but I'm not willing to keep the article on the basis that there might be some. Mango juice^talk 15:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Historical Maps

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

This page is merely an advertisement. This website is not notable enough to have its own article. Paaerduag (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Needs a bit of re-writing, but given the educational, non-profit nature of the website in question, it's hard for me to call this spam. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: being educational or non-profit, however 'worthy' does not guarantee a free pass. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to WP:NOT#INTERNET, "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." There are plenty of other sites that link to this one, often with a short description of its nature; but in the absence of substantive treatment in reliable secondary sources, this fails the general notability guideline, I think. It's a site that could be certainly be included as an external link in relevant articles, but not a topic for an article of its own. Deor (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - This article from the Chronicle for Higher Education might be about the website. Unfortunately, it's a premium article. But in any event, even if it were this represents only a single source. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was named the "Internet Resource of the Month" in GEO World. It is also mentioned here: [28]. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. However, the content of said website is notable as an article. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know this is non-standard logic, but here we go... The site itself it encyclopedic and contains invaluable encyclopedic information. Since we can not recreate the content of the site on Wikimedia (right?) I think that a link to it represents a "second best" way of moving forward the goals of Wikipedia. Is there a policy to back up what I just said? No. I still think it's a good idea, though. - Richfife (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It points up that the guidelines are incomplete and full of holes. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As indicated above, there is some (but not conclusive) evidence that this site passes WP:WEBSITE. As an encyclopedic article on the subject, it's no great shakes, but that's why they call these thnigs "stubs". Until such time as someone has the knowledge and impetus to create a good article on the subject (either on the site or on historical maps of Japan) this will have to do. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 22:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Push Play

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

Deleted multiple times as A7. Asserts one trivial and one mostly trivial mention--I don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND, but a PROD would obviously be contested. Jclemens (talk)

Comment: Some references to work with: [29], [30] warning-press release, [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Do with these what you will! Fribbler (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is a band on the rise. They'll probably be notable eventually, but I don't think they're there yet, per JClemens. MirrorLockup (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find reliable coverage here: [37] [38] [39] [40]. That it's been deleted multiple times says more about the admins and deletion taggers than the subject. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject meets the general notability guideline, or WP:BAND criterion #1. I would also add this article in The Times-Picayune and this article in Newsday to User:Apoc2400's list of sources noted above. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage demonstrates notability, but I could understand anyone tagging this as an A7 as even though the band is notable, you wouldn't know this from the article.--Michig (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Saudin

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

Unsourced BLP, no major roles. Most significant role is a minor role in Degrassi: The Next Generation. Said character is not mentioned at all in the main article and earns all of three sentances in List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. No independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Fails WP:BIO. A Google News Archive search returns only passing mentions, with this brief article being the best source. Cunard (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to keep after a lengthy debate. Saudin's starring in Aruba, a notable film, allows him to pass WP:ENT. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yep, the youngster does not have much press [41], and so fails the GNG... but sources have been added to verify the roles that show him notable under WP:ENT... 7 episodes of Friends and Heroes, 5 episodes of Da Kink in My Hair, and at least 12 episodes (so far) of Degrassi: The Next Generation. That he receives poor or no mention in other Wikipedia articles has no bearing on his now meeting ENT based upon his growing body of work. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has played the roles of several characters in several TV shows. However, none of his roles are significant, which is required by WP:ENT. Since all of his roles are minor, he fails WP:ENT. Furthermore, notability is not inherited, so it doesn't matter how many minor shows he has appeared in.
You agree with me that A.J. Saudin fails WP:GNG. The lack of sourcing for this WP:BLP means that it should be deleted, not kept. Cunard (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, WP:GNG is only one of the many parts of WP:N... and I certainly did not try to make an argument through WP:INHERITED. The shows you call 'minor' have notability of their own and articles on Wikipedia. Your calling them 'minor' does not remove their already asserted, shown, and accepted notability. You do seem to concur that he has was in 7 episodes of Friends and Heroes, 5 episodes of Da Kink in My Hair, and at least 12 episodes (so far) of Degrassi: The Next Generation. I cannot agree with you that his being a recurring character with multiple appearances in 3 different notable series is insignificant. Your assertion fails to convince me, and runs contrary to WP:ENT's stating "Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". An extra would be insignificant... a background player would be insignificnt... a walk-on would be insignificant... but multiple appearances as a recurring character in three different notable series is significant and specifically meets the criteria set by WP:ENT. I am sorry that you disagree. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His few appearances in shows that have many episodes indicates that he plays only minor characters. Major characters would be in more episodes. The three TV shows you have listed above have had a number of seasons, so if Saudin played a significant role, he would have had many more appearances. Cunard (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that even though a recurring, his character 'must' be minor becasue he was not in some unknown and arbitrary nummber of episodes is unfounded, as certainly the productions thought him major enough to bring him back many times. Further, your assertion that he needs to be in even more episodes than he has is unsupported by guideline. WP:ENT says "multiple"... it does not say more than 5... or more than 7... or more than 12. He has been in multiple episodes of other shows previously to Degrassi: The Next Generation, and is now a recurring on Degrassi... and as a recurring he will be in more episodes yet. It serves to improve the project by alowing this article to remain and to grow. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of WP:ENT when it says "significant roles" is that the roles are portraying notable characters — characters that are instrumental to the plot. I do not see how A.J. Saudin has played a major role in any TV show.
Bear in mind that Wikipedia:ENT#Additional criteria states that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This means that whether or not WP:ENT should rescue an article that is deficient in sources rests with editorial judgment. I would argue to keep this article if there were reliable sources about this individual; however, there are none. When reliable news organizations start covering A.J. Saudin's roles, I would support this article's existence. I do not believe that a biography should remain on Wikipedia if there are absolutely no independent, reliable sources to extract biographical information from. Cunard (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have not shown that his multiple appearances in multiple notable shows are not significant... only expressed an opinion that you do not believe they could be. Your interpretation of WP:ENT would seem to demand that WP:GNG must always be met first... which would then make WP:ENT a pointless notability guideline. The GNG does not trump other notability guidelines... guidelines which specificlly allow other considerations if/when GNG is not met. New York Times, TV Guide, CTV, and Hollywood Today are reliable sources that verify his multiple appearances in multiple notable award-winning series. My editorial judgement is that WP:ENT has been met and it improves the encyclopedia to allow the article to grow through the course of normal editing and over time. That's the beauty of Wikipedia... common sense allows that stubs can grow, and growth is the purpose of Wikipedia... not its bane. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you mentioned above are directories, with the exception of the Hollywood Today article containing only a photo of A.J. Saudin. Again, BLPs should be sourced with reliable articles, not unreliable directories. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard that declared that the New York Times as unreliable for WP:Verification. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which stated that the travel section of The New York Times reposts content from Frommers. Similarly, the movie section The New York Times uses other sources (which are uncomplete and unreliable) for its filmography and biography section. See Saudin's biography section, which is blank. If writers and staff from The New York Times personally compiled Saudin's entry, it would actually have content. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and Frommers was determined to be reliable... thus not only showing the NYT seeks reliable sources, but underscoring their own reliability as well. No where in that provided discussion about a Frommers restaurant review being quoted in the NYT travel section (and subsequently accepted as RS) does it even hint at your interesting conclusion that the The New York Times is unreliable for information on an actor's filmography. I note that it includes a conclusion that "Reliable sources are not reliable only for what they themselves witness, but also for information that they choose to pass on from other sources". So thank you for providing a link to a discussion that supports my contention. The New York Times gets some of its actor informations from All Movie Guide (widely accepted as RS in that field) and has also created its own InBaseline Studio Systems... showing their further reliability for gathering and supplying such information. The New York Times, having a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, apparently in their own good judgement, went and created the most accurate source they could... InBaseline. Precedent and consensus have accepted both All Movie Guide and InBaseline as reliable for these informations. You have not proven they are unreliable for verifying his filmography... only that they do not yet have a bio on him... but then, even the Times does not pretend to be the compendium of all human knowledge. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that The Times "does not pretend to be the compendium of all human knowledge". It does not cover non-notable topics, such as this one. Cunard (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contarary to your assertion, the New York Times apparently does think he is notable enough to include facts about him [42]... as well as does TV Guide [43]... even without their being an accompanying in-depth articles, and surprisingly, WP:ENT also does not mandate an in-depth article. So around and around and around we go yet again. WP:ENT requires verification in reliable sources in those instances when a fact toward notability must be confirmed and when significant and in depth is not available. WP:ENT does not expect the GNG to be met, as it it is set up as a different way to look toward notability specifically when in-depth is not aviailable. Again, WP:GNG does not trump other notability guidelines... yet you continue to speak toward in-depth articles about subjects when WP:ENT is set up specifically for those instances where they do not exist. For the simple fact of an actor's filmography, and accepting that their reputation is for fact-checking and accuracy, even if they do not include a lengthy article about an actor, the New York Times is reliable for verifiction of facts... and their verifications are not mandated to be in depth to simply verify a fact. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my response below to FeydHuxtable's WP:ITSNOTABLE vote for why Saudin's New York Times entry establishes that he fails WP:ENT and that none of his roles are significant. Cunard (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your response below has itself been refuted as not being supported by guideline or policy. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What I always find fascinating is that professional news organizations, such as CTV Television Network, New York Times, and TV Guide, all household names, find A.J. Saudin worthy enough to mention in their meager 60 to 70 pages or half hour time slot. Yet there are editors on wikipedia, who somehow feel that one article in three million is too significant, is too much, and will fervently fight to the last breath to make sure that article 300,045,134 is deleted. Yet another stark irony on wikipedia. I wish I was around for the days, say pre-2004, when editors argued ideas, not acronyms. Everyone above is arguing acronyms, and no one is arguing the reason why they personally feel article 300,045,134 should be kept. When you think of it this way, article 300,045,134, it seems all so piety and unimportant doesn't it? Ikip (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you mentioned: New York Times, TV Guide, and CTV are all mentions in directories of thousands, maybe millions, of actors. Directories do not establish notability.
As to the "there are editors on wikipedia, who somehow feel that one article in three million is too significant, is too much, and will fervently fight to the last breath to make sure that article 300,045,134 is deleted." argument, this is irrelevant to this deletion debate. Your ad hominem attack is unwarranted. I am not the deletion-hungry person you portray me to be. If you have any issues with my deletion arguments, please discuss with me on my talk page. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, directories do not establish notability. However, WP:ENT DOES require verification in reliable sources without demanding that the verification also itself be in depth (that's the GNG). The sources as mentioned provide just that verification in relaible sources. The notability guideline WP:ENT exists for those guideline anticipated circumstances where GNG is not met. The two are not in conflict. GNG does not overrule ENT. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion dealing with the deletion of an article best belongs on the AFD page. Please don't try to unnecessarily expand this discussion beyond this AFD. Don't you realize this is counter-productive? That expanding this argument only emboldens editors to work harder on the article you are trying so hard to delete? Editors may have forgotten about this AfD, but now external messages outside of this AfD make them even more interested in this AfD.

I am not "attacking" anyone or calling anyone anything. Just because an editor shares a different view than you have, in no way makes his comments an attack. By using words like "ad hominem attack" and "deletion-hungry person" and posting a talkback that seems to go nowhere on my talk page, you seem to be personalizing this much more than I ever have. I made a general obersvation about wikipedia, whereas you personalized it.

I have definite issues with your deletion arguments, and it is absurd that they should be argued anywhere but on the deletion page which you created.

Acronyms aside, the bottom line is that the NYT, TV Guide, and CTV all found this actor to be notable enough to include in there very prestigous and well know pages, and you don't. Ikip (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the directories, which have been reposted from other sources, do not establish notability. As to the part about you making a generalization about some Wikipedia editors, I thought you were saying that I was one of those individuals. I was arguing for deletion and you posted that blanket statement. If you were not intending for it be directed towards me, why did you post that statement in this AfD, and who did you intend to receive that criticism? That statement is not relevant to this AfD. Cunard (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALL information in the New York Times comes from other sources. It is their reputation for accuracy and fact-checking that allows us to then accept them as a reliable source. It does not matter to us where they get their informations, and it is not required thatthey give Wikipedia a detailed accounting of their editorial practices, as long as they have checked it for accuracy. Or has WP:RS been rewritten without someone telling the rest of us?? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. None of these press releases have been checked by editors for accuracy. They are facsimiles of the press releases that were released by the companies who made them. The New York Times does not have the manpower to double-check the accuracy of all the press releases they republish or the filmography of tens of thousands of non-notable actors. As mentioned below, the filmography from The New York Times shows that A.J. Saudin has been in five TV shows. It doesn't even say how many appearances he had in those shows. Even if it did, it would still be unclear whether or not those appearances were significant.

See my response below to FeydHuxtable's WP:ITSNOTABLE vote for why Saudin's New York Times entry establishes that he fails WP:ENT and that none of his roles are significant. Cunard (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Straw man. Press releases were not used to source the article. Your continued assertion that the New York Times does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and so cannot be considered a reliable source contravenes WP:RS. Without foundation, you now you assert that they do not have the manpower in order to be considerded a reliable source. Sorry. I ain't buying it. RS is RS unless you decide to rewrite the rules. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that The New York Times was unreliable. I said that they do not have the man-power to fact-check every single filmography of every non-notable actor that they have in their directories. The Times received its info from another source. Cunard (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was link to press releases, when none were used in the article. You made it neccessary to dispell any mis-impression your comment might have given other editors. And since you also repeatedly assert as fact that the Times does not have the manpower to check the facts they publish, please produce your evidence at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard so that consensus can be created to determine the Times as unreliable. Or is it that you feel that this applies only to facts to which you disagree? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The actor has an impressive enough filmography, they found as repeating characters in several notable series, and thus establishing their notability. Dream Focus 09:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But are those characters significant? The lack of coverage about A.J. Saudin indicates that the roles he played were not significant. Only the major actors in the TV shows he has been in have received multiple, in-depth, independent reliable sources about the roles they are playing. I would vote to keep this article if sources exist, but the lack of sources for this biography of a living person means that it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets our published criteria for inclusion. L0b0t (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ENT asks for significant roles, not just multiple or recurring ones. No evidence that these roles are significant has been produced. And the NYT etc. have not considered him "worthy enough to mention in their meager 60 to 70 pages" or "notable enough to include in there very prestigous and well know pages", they have put his roles onto their website directory. His roles have been verified, but no evidence of any notability, as defined in WP:N or WP:ENT, has been given. Fram (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly noteable enough to warrant an article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How? See WP:ITSNOTABLE. Cunard (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a sufficient reply to my request of how A.J. Saudin is notable. It is the same link I linked to above: [[WP:ITSNOTABLE|WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE]]. I did not say that this article was "Just not notable"; I have explained my reasons for why this article should be deleted. It fails both the notability guidelines that we have been discussing: GNG and ENT.
Please let FeydHuxtable answer my question. Cunard (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feyd's succinct reaponse is perfectly acceptable. He need not expand simply becasuse you demand it. You pointed to an ATA and I pointed to it too to show how helpful it is to do such. For some in this discussion, the subject is indeed clearly notable enough to warrant an article. It might be that after seeing every salient point of this discussion being chewed over and over again, he might have decided his time could be better spent elsewhere. Or not. He will answer if he chooses. Or not. But he has offered his opinion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are the list of characters Saudin has played (according to the filmography which has been reposted by The New York Times), and why none of the roles are significant.
Degrassi: The Next Generation : Saudin is the 25th actor to appear on the filmography. If he were notable, he would be mentioned earlier in the list.
Kojak (USA) : Saudin is the 44th actor to appear on the filmography. Even the person who plays the janitor, a minor role in this TV show, appears before Saudin.
Comfort and Joy : Saudin is the 15th actor to appear on the character list. This is not from The New York Times because The Times does not have a character list for this TV show. However, IMDb does. Above, the cast order at IMDb, IMDb writes "in credits order", meaning that the significant characters appeared first. If Saudin played a significant role, he would not be so further down on the list.
Street Time : Saudin is the 138th character to appear on the character list. There is no doubt that he did not play a significant role.
There should be no doubt that Saudin fails WP:ENT. As MichaelQSchmidt argued above, WP:GNG does not trump WP:ENT; however, when both WP:ENT and WP:GNG are not met, the biography should be deleted for completely failing Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (persons), which encompass both GNG and ENT. Cunard (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated implication that the information researched for accuracy and then provided by the New York Times is unreliable has no foundation in policy, guideline, or precedent, and with my apologies, is begining to feel of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Voicing an unfounded opinion over and over in every comment you make here does not make it true.
Further, your new tactic that he has to be listed higher in the pecking order in order for his participation to be significant is misleading, and itself has no foundation in guideline, policy, or precedent. Firstly, many production companies submit cast alphabetically. Secondly, actors who become part of cast later in a production often appear later down such lists than do those who were in a production at its outset... indeed cast who were in initial episodes and left after one or two appearances might often be listed above the others who followed or were in more episodes. There is no hard and fast rule about such, and it should not be assumed that there is. Often, its first-come, first-served.
Thank you for granting finally that the GNG does not trump other notability guidelines, however... and contary to you last pont above... both guidelines do not need to be met for notability to be shown. If one passes the GNG, one merits inclusion, even if failing other criteria. If one can meet the other criteria (in this case ENT), failure to also meet GNG is not the deathknell... specifically since the other criteria are there to be considered specifically when the GNG is not met. Having the article remain and grow over the course of time improves the encyclopedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that The Times published unreliable content; please do not place words in my mouth. I said that The Times does not fact-check every single biography/filmography (copied from other sources) that are in their directories of tens of thousands of actors (many who are non-notable). Thus, these sources should not be given the credibility that Time's article's deserve. Even if we assumed that these directories are as reliable as articles published by The New York Times, it would only prove my point that A.J. Saudin has had minor roles.
His ranking in the character list is a good indication of how significant he is. If there are no sources about his roles, how else would you establish the significance of the his roles? Your first point: the character lists I listed above are not in alphabetical order. They are in order of importance. Your second point: your argument is pure guessing, so my response will also have to be pure guessing. If he were a significant character, wouldn't the production companies move his name to a more prominent position in the list?
I have provided evidence of how A.J. Saudin fails both GNG and ENT. Now will you provide some evidence of how he passes ENT? Your strongest argument is that he passes ENT because he has had recurring roles in TV shows. You are guessing that these roles are significant. I am not guessing. The statistics I have linked to above indicate that his roles have been very minor. Cunard (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have it both ways, either the Times has the manpower to check the information they publish or they do not. Did you not even once look at happen to look at InBaseline Studio Systems? Its the The New York Times Company subsidiary deliberately set up to specifically check information on actors and films? It gives me complete confidence that they do indeed check facts about films and actors before publishing. Kinda seems like thay DO have the manpower. Imagine that.
And agin,.... and from someone who personally knows how this works and is not merely making a 'guess'... an actor's ranking on a credits list is NOT always by order of importance. Sorry... but you are continuing to make an unfounded assumption that is simply incorrect, and one that has no support in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines... another Straw man. I have been in a couple films myself, and have experience in how production companies do this. Many submit list cast alphabetically. Some list cast in appearance order. Some list cast dependent upon who was there first. Some list by importance within the project. Some add later additions to a cast later on the list. There is no hard and fast rule. It is done all different ways. It is pointless to try to conclude something from his listing which is not there. You are asserting a conclusion from your 'statistics' that is unsupported from the 'statistic'. All that can be properly drawn from your 'statistic' is that out of a huge cast for the 2002 series Street Time, his second film project ever, he was listed 138th. So what? He was listed #1 as the lead in the 2006 film Aruba. He's 3rd in the cast list for 2007's Friends and Heroes. He was listed 25th for DiGrassi... and its a far more recent project. Its just not helpful to offer his second project from 7 years ago as representative of his notability in 2009. With respects, uou have provided no 'evidence'. He meets WP:ENT. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information that he starred in the film Aruba is a strong indication of notability. I have confirmed that Aruba is a notable film and have verified that A.J. Saudin starred in the film. You have now convinced me that Saudin is passes ENT, so I have switched to keep. In future debates, please provide important information (such as Saudin's leading role in Aruba) in your initial responses. That would prevent this long, superfluous debate from occurring. :)
Mr. Schmidt, thank you for saving this article from the digital dustbin. Good luck in the other deletion debates you are currently participating in. Best, Cunard (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he meets criteria, and I watch Degrassi: The Next Generation, and his role on Degrassi is a Main Role, he is a regular character too, I've seen him in the opening credits. GreenBayPackersfan09 (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 21:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Ladendorf

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tyler Ladendorf

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

No particular assertion of notability for this minor league baseball player. Being involved in a trade does not make you notable. Wikipedia is not a scouting website - He may not be a shortstop long-term, but he's more than athletic enough to handle a switch. ?? A 34th-round draft pick who is currently bouncing around the minors doesn't exactly rise to the level of, say, Stephen Strasburg, who is notable even if he never reaches the majors. The enumeration of his minor league clubs in the infobox shows a little diligence, but it's nothing anyone's gonna care about if he makes the majors, and if he doesn't, he's not notable. Merge to Oakland Athletics minor league players at the absolute most, but I personally wouldn't support that. Declined speedy. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 18:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about similarly non-notable minor league players (this is the first of likely very many AFD bundles forthcoming from me on minor league baseball players). Again, at most merge to Foo minor league players, but I don't find it necessary to do that. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tyler Ladendorf. Nominator's discussion is inaccurate; Ladendorf ended uo a second-round draft choice with significant press coverage, including individual profiling [44] and hundreds of Google News hits, a sigificant number going well beyond game coverage. Keep all the others; nominator provides absolutely no justification for deletion exception an unexplained label of "non-notable." All show non-trivial press coverage in the recent past, for most an average of about two media reports per day. Some of this is game coverage, of course, but there's too much to just brush aside. When the nominator says "Being involved in a trade does not make you notable," he's right in the colloquial sense, but not in the Wikipedia policy sense -- when players are traded, reporters and analysts analyze the value of the players involved and the overall balance of the trades, often giving rise to fairly detailed discussions of the individual players, and therefore often generating the sort of coverage that satisfies the GNG. If we cling to a coverage-centered set of notability criteria, than in an often sports-obsessed world we're going to end up with a disproportionate number of notable athletes. The coverage is out there, and when it satisfies the GNG, as it does here, we keep the articles. Fighting this out over dozens and dozens of case would just be a highly disruptive waste of time and energy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Is this reporting and analysis non-trivial, though? Baseball scouts discussing players deep in the minor leagues that pretty much no one outside of hardcore baseball fans has heard of doesn't rise to the GNG as far as I'm concerned. How many of those hundreds of Google News hits say nothing more of the minor leaguer than "Jarrod Washburn was traded to the Detroit Tigers for Luke French and Mauricio Robles." And I dispute that my rationale for the bundled articles is unexplained - notability is not established in any of the articles, and they don't satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Therefore, delete/merge at most. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 06:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This like any other nomination regarding minor league players needs to be unbundled and assessed for suitability seperately. Borgarde (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- K, I'll relist separately. I do like knowing that I'll be kept busy for the next three or four years, and by then the non-notability of many of the subjects I've audited will be crystal clear. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 06:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep, group nominations of this sort are inappropriate. Feel free to re-nominate separately. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 06:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because discussion gets cluttered on pages like this talking about individual players with unique circumstances. You can't just put a bunch of random players together into one AfD and expect to get the same result. You'll get a better discussion by seperating this nomination and allowing each player to be judged individually. I am !voting Keep on this nomination because of the way it is set out. Borgarde (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, but these players were not chosen randomly. I have identified over 300 articles on baseball players who have never played in the Major Leagues that I think should be deleted or (many are clearly more suitable to be) merged. These seemed very similar to me both in terms of the state of the articles and the level of notability of each player. You're free to disagree with that assessment, but please don't suggest the nomination was put together haphazardly. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 06:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting: Ryan Mattheus is currently on Washington's 40-man roster. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that satisfy WP:ATHLETE? Not being an ass, just curious. I wouldn't think it does. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 06:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ATHLETE just says "compete at fully professional level" which these players all do. I haven't researched each of these players directly.. but being on a Major League club's 40 man roster has usually been a reason to keep the article in previous afd discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I strongly disagree that minor league baseball satisfies ATHLETE (give Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Zeskind (2nd nomination) a look). ATHLETE is much too lax as is, giving us hundreds of thousands of superstubs that will never be expanded. And sure, most of the articles I've located aren't "superstubs," but most of them are about athletes who will never reach the majors, and I fail to see how anyone but players like Strasburg (and, at most, players drafted in the first round) are notable without reaching the majors. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 21:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can claim "most of them will never reach the majors".. how do you know? Or anyone else for that matter? That's why the articles have to be examined individually to see if the player is a notable minor leaguers... has he won awards? been selected to all-star teams? on the 40 man roster? Does he have substantial individual coverage in reliable sources? Even if he fails all those, the article should still be merged to the minor league player page rather than being deleted outright. Spanneraol (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Most minor league players won't reach the majors. That's just a fact. Of course many of the 300 or so articles I identified are better off being merged. Maybe as many as half; I won't nominate them here. But do you really think we need an article like, say, Theodis Bowe, which currently is all about his high school days, when there's realistically next to no chance that he'll make the majors? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 22:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support delete on Bowe and probably on Ladendorf... my point was simply that you can't put all minor leaguers in the same basket.Spanneraol (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not...these players are of similar questionable notability, and their articles are similar as well. I suppose I'll be better off to start from the bottom of my list (subjects like Bowe) than the top (these subjects), though. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 22:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mainly per Hit bull, win steak a bundle nomination for minor league players has been deemed to be inappropiate since it makes it harder to see what source is for what player, etc.--Giants27 (c|s) 20:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reasons as above. They are notable, it's not like they don't do anything. They're professional baseball players as much as Ken Griffey, Jr., or Albert Pujols even though they haven't reached the same level or have the same abilities. If you were to delete these players you should delete any player who's never been on a 40-man roster, or is that not notable enough for you? Please see: Wikipedia:Notability. I would say professional baseball players get coverage, at any level. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellphone (disambiguation)

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

The result was Speedy Delete G6 by user Nev1, non admin closure.Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hellphone (disambiguation)

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

unneeded disambiguation, only one blue link. previously deleted by prod so can't use that again Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The American film (of which I was not aware of, though) might very well be the subject of an article at some point. As the two items are in the same category (both are movies), the absence of this page might be confusing for those looking for the article about the U.S. movie. In the past I had prods contested for disambig pages with no blue link - not one of those was removed McMarcoP (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When an article for the other movie is created, a hatnote from the primary should suffice. If and when a third movie becomes notable, a dab can be created. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per the recently-revised {{db-disambig}}. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus for deletion JForget 21:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Borgen Project

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borgen Project

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borgen Project (2nd nomination)

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

Non-notable organization. Almost entirely sourced from its own publications. There is one article from a local university paper and passing mention in two articles on goskagit.com. Though a google news search turns up lots of hits ([45] I looked at 20 (mainly from the first few pages) and found only one mention that wasn't a comment posted by a reader. That one was another passing mention. I did not find any in-depth look at the organization by a substantial news source. The article has been deleted at AfDd twice before under the name Borgen Project - 1st nom; 2nd nom. SiobhanHansa 09:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - The project is mentioned in 5 books and 49 news stories, but as the nominator discovered most of these come from user comments on the news and not the news itself. This is rather strange - Why are so many people talking about something (primarily for stats) that few newspapers seem to care about? (The commments aren't spam.) This USA Today story appears to be a good source, but a would like to see a little more proof of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but definite cleanup needs to happen and better references included. Artemis84 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article obviously means something to quite a few people - the fact that they have resurrected the article twice demonstrates this. Non-profit organizations need to be able to keep their constituencies informed; large corporations do this with advertising. It is my opinion that wikipedia should not base inclusion on whether newspapers, who are more concerned with making enough money to survive rather than reporting news, find a subject to be worth covering. Wikipedia, with no need to "sell" itself and certainly no lack of space, should embrace this organization and the important work that they are doing.Waylando91 (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Editors advocating deletion claimed only deficiencies in the current article, and failed to show how any future article would not meet inclusion criteria. See also WP:PROBLEMS, WP:DEADLINE. Skomorokh 12:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Links

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested prod. Firm with questionable notability. Of the five references, two are trivial, and the other three are primary. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User's also created a number of redirects to this page, including "disambiguation" redirects that are simply page copies (which have been modified by other editors into redirects). Any closing admin should check the "what links here" redirect links. Shadowjams (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - The company's EdgeBox product is covered in over 100 RS ([46]). Additional sources specifically about the company can be found via [47] (includes many false positives). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, it feels very self promotional, as if they're advertising. Second, the article's resources rely twice on their own website, once on somebody's LinkedIn profile, and eliminating those, two articles about them. I'd feel better about t sif somebody could get some more in there, but the self-promotion makes me want to G11 and have somebody else start over. Note the COI as described. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG and WP:ORG through RS in 1993, RS in 1995, RS in 1999, RS in 2000 and 2001, RS in 2003, RS in 2004 and 2005, RS in 200 and 2007, RS in 2008 and 2009, etc., I believe current concerns over issues with sourcing or sense of advert can be addressd through normal editing and cleanup. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is put links up for every sub-year under the original google news search. Many of these articles are not viewable. Did you actually look at them to asses that they asserted notability? Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup.... sure did. The nominator wrote "Of the five references, two are trivial, and the other three are primary"... so my serach results were offered to show that his concern could be met through the course of normal editing, as common sense allows me to accept that of the 100 reliable sources shown by that search, many could be more-then-trival. Not being viewable online is of no concern, as Wikipedia does not mandate all sources to be available online... visiting a library and looking at hardcopies of articles is an acceptable option. The search allows a reasonable presumption that they exist and are available... and that concerns over issues with sourcing or sense of advert can be addressed through normal editing and cleanup. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danonean Idol

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

The article does not have sources; the subject is not covered in reliable sources; questionable notability. Contested WP:PROD without explanation. Bluemask (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely not part of the Idol franchise. The contest, by all means, is an internal program in an office, and the notability of the host corporation does not extend to the event itself. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just like what Tito Pao said. Starczamora (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Maxwell Hutchinson. feel free to merge any content if necessary JForget 21:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article 25

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

However noble, I don't think this group is notable. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite sounding like it does lots of worthy things, I don't see more than primary-sources "we do this" and explanations of the importance of what they do (can't ride the coattails of that). Without independent sources writing about them, they fail WP:CORP. I can't believe that something that has (per its claims on its website) important involvement in so many projects in so many places hasn't been written about in some newspapers or other reliable and independent sources. The generic nature of its name makes it hard to search for such refs, but even the first few pages of googling don't find useful material and google-news for "article25" charity or "article 25" charity find nothing more than one or two passing mentions. DMacks (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nom is right. Very noble of them, very good of them to do this. But I don't see much notability. Gotta say delete here. Please, somebody change my mind on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~ week keep or redirect to Maxwell Hutchinson. I don't think an organization should be deleted simply because it has a really stupid generic name, which is difficult to search for. I found Article 25 London charity which has 162 Google hits, with many of the most prominent newspapers of Britain. Notable. Ikip (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the news sources, I realize they are not as strong as I thought. Ikip (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Maxwell Hutchinson page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia tur Rasheed

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

There is no reliable sourcing for this article at all, let alone significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. It was tagged for notability nearly a year ago. ^Bongo_matic 13:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless significant coverage is found. Schools like this are a dime a dozen in the area and not automatically notable Corpx (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Frances Bardsley School for Girls. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Bardsley International

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

Non-notable organisation set up by students - fails WP:ORG. They've got letters from heads of political parties? Wow, well done. When I was seventeen my politics class wrote off to every major political figure with requests for a visit - the fact that they got their secretary to reply doesn't mean they're supporting my venture. Ironholds (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not independently notable it seems like it could be merged to the school's article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the school article; I don't see independent notability here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Comic Book Syndicate

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

Non-notable local cable show. Also has an online presence, but its notability online is not established. References establish nothing more than local notability. Hairhorn (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Delete given the lack of appropriate sources in the article's current form. Several of the links at the bottom point to small news sites which either do not have, or no longer have, reference to this topic. I'm putting "provisional" in my opinion since I'm open to the concept that an airing television program, even a small one on local TV, is theoretically notable, although obviously the modern equivalent of cable-access programming would almost never pass notability. Get some real sources and I'd be more than happy to change to a keep. No stronger sources, no further evidence of notability beyond simple assertion = delete, per wikipedia's guidelines. -Markeer 15:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability found and the article is written as self-promotion. Want to speedy this one.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks any claims for notability. No prejudice on recreating it if notability can be shown but I'd recommend working on this in the sandbox and drop a note in WT:CMC for opinions on whether it is up to scratch. (Emperor (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

^ http://www.mininova.org/tor/2879222

[1] ttp://www.mininova.org/tor/2879222

[1]