Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 22

< 21 May	23 May >

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 speedy deleted by Kuru, CSD G3 Vandalism. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Jane Grayson

Unsourced article about a musician with no evidence of notability. Given that the musician in question claims to come from a planet that only exists in Star Wars; I'm suspecting there might be some verifiability problems here too, to put it mildly. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nonsense. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. It's nonsense, but not as Wikipedia knows it. See WP:Patent nonsense. Hoaxes are CSD#G3, i.e. blatant vandalism. Fences and windows (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it as an obvious and silly hoax article under CSD A3. Please close this out. Kuru ^talk 00:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Wick (whistleblower)

WP:BLP1E applies here. Wick is notable only for one event, and is only notable for that as he is the messenger, not someone at the centre of the story. Also WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS Martin451 (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Martin451 (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Martin451 (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simply calling him a messenger understates what this man has done. He is responsible for putting out in public the information that has caused the biggest British political scandal in modern history. WP:BLP1E says "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." The event is highly significant, and would not have come about the way it did were it not for this man. 217.44.125.64 (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The event is very significant, however his part was small. He was given this information, which he then passed onto the press. If it had not been him, someone else would have been found. The real leaker/whistle blower is still anonymous. Thus he is just a messenger. He is notable only for one event, and has a small part in that event. Martin451 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament. If any information comes out that will give us more than a single sentence, we can consider splitting the article out. Fences and windows (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the article is too short. However, he was revealed as the whistleblower only a few hours ago. Come tomorrow, when the newspapers have come out for that day, I suspect the article will build up rapidly. 217.44.125.64 (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for now. Wikipedia's not a crystal ball, I know, but I imagine he'll rapidly garner notability in the next fortnight or so. — Wereon (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Key figure in what is certainly an historical event, even if such a high standard as permanent historical interest is the criterion. DGG (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject's actions led to this.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for goodness sake. Clear notability, per DGG. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: a) per WP:SNOW and b) I'm certain this article will expand a lot in the next few days as new reports come out on him. D.M.N. (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into, and redirect to Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament. Being a big part of a major political controversy may bode well for future notability. But that notability right now looks like it is for one event, and a section "John Wick" in the article, plus a redirect, is sufficient. If he does become more notable, for example takes up a political role or some such, we can always add an article in future. Right now his sole notability is that he happens to be the person who provided the data to the media. It could have been anyone, and it's BLP1Event only with no visible notability outside it. Big event, yes. Grounds for Wikipedia notability at this point, no. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note also per sources, Wicks isn't the source of the data or the fees office "whistleblower" in fact, but was the middle-man for the as-yet unnamed source. if the media are to be believed his sole role was to take the data from the source and offer it to the media.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This should never have been nominated for deletion. This man played the pivotal role in the greatest political scandal Britain has seen in decades and the greatest constitutional crisis Parliament has seen in centuries. The idea that John Wick is not notable enough to merit a distinct wikipedia article is frankly preposterous and i can only assume that one of Wikipedia countless busybody, non contributing edit, types has decided to waste everyones time by nominating this article for deletion. siarach (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many people play "pivotal roles" in notable incidents who themselves are not considered notable. Apart from "passed on data from person A to person B", what exactly is notable about John Wick, or is it just that he played a role in the given incident? In the context of this controversy, so far he is the delivery boy. He is not the leaker, and he was not a decision maker in the case, he was simply a go-between for a source and a recipient newspaper, a once-off minor role. If it hadn't been him, some other person would have been asked to act as go-between. In this context the person "John Wick" isn't by usual norms, notable, he could have been any person chosen by the actual leaker/source (who would be notable). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I expect this article will be expanded over the next few days, clearly notable enough for an article. Dean B (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament. A clearer-cut example of of a BLP1E and BIO1E I cannot imagine off the top of my head. Being the middle-man in a political scandal whose name will probably be forgotten very soon as the expenses scandal moves on and being a member of the Carlton Club is nowhere near enough satisfying notability. - Chrism would like to hear from you 11:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs to be expanded quite a bit, but contrary to what some people are suggesting a middleman isn't a case of if Wick hadn't done it someone else would have. A middleman is risking just as much as the whistleblower, and consequently finding someone to do the job would have been very hard. A middleman is just as important as the whistleblower in getting the information from the source to the public, and due to that very significant and vital role I believe he is notable; "WP:BLP1E says "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." 86.156.181.170 (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His role was not substantial. He got given some information, and he sold it to the Telegraph. What is substantial is the MPs, the Telegraph, Michael Martin, etc. Fences and windows (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above - a clear example of WP:BLP1E. Eusebeus (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To let people know if curious, I am not contributing to this discussion because I believe that, as the author and principal contributor, it would be wrong of me to get involved in a debate over deleting something I have been heavily involved with. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not notable enough to warrant an article, he's only really a middleman --Razakel19 (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Sometimes involvement in one event transcends WP:BLP1E. This seems such a case, as the coverage is so extensive, the event so significant, and Wikiusers are likely to have specific questions about the subject. - Vartanza (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what a redirect does. To the extent there is information of encyclopedic interest about him, so far it can all be said in one line, perhaps two, and all pertains to the parliamentary matter. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As other people have said WP:BLP1E allows an article on a person if that person has undertaken a significant role in a significant event. Middleman or no middleman, John Wick played a significant role in one of the biggest political scandals of our time. 86.151.18.178 (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the wording: "allows". Not "requires". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above Besides the fact that his role in this scandal is summed up in a single line, the article seems very negative for a WP:BLP, which is a cause for concern. ~~It seems this article only exists to show how crappy this guy's life has been.~~ None of the content has anything to do with his personal notability, or has any connection to the event.-RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 02:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm afraid I feel I must break my self-imposed silence on this instance. His involvement is summed up in one line in the introduction, but a whole section in the article, entitled "Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament", exists devoted to his involvement. Plus, with regards to it seeming to be a negative BLP, I did do my best to make the article balanced; the £7 million worth of debts I felt needed to be included since the Daily Mail suggested it was a possible motive behind his disclosure. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not see the section you are referring to (I think you copied the title of the article instead of the section title). I see the section "Source of information", which is, as I said before, a single line. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 19:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - John_Wick_(whistleblower)#Life and career See it now? See in that section hyperlinked that there is a sub-section, entitled "Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament", all about his involvement that goes beyond one line? AdmiralKolchak (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, that's exactly what I mean. I was talking about the main article about the scandal: there, his involvement is summed up in the section "Source of information", which is only one sentence. The few sentences of actual content in the John Wick article could easily be merged to the main article under that section, since one-sentence sections are strongly discouraged anyway. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 21:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        With regards to you talking about Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, thank you for clearing that up. I hope you understand my confusion seeing as nowhere was it clear you were referring to that article when you spoke of "None of the content has anything to do with his personal notability, or has any connection to the event", and I naturally assumed the primary article you would be referring to is the one that is being discussed for deletion. Plus, I do not think an article with over 3,000 characters is just a "few sentences of actual content", of which I am a little offended that you seem to suggest most of the article isn't actual content. As for the lack of info in the main article, that could always be expanded without needing a merge. On another note, do you still have BLP concerns? AdmiralKolchak (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 21:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Voice Actor Controversy

Search for Pokemon Voice Controversy brings of three pages of unrelated material, add casting into it and there are three unrelated. Even Pokemon Voice recast brings up nothing. All the current sources are online forums, and by my search no new reliable ones are coming up. Can't see this meeting the criteria for inclusion. kelapstick (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As much as I love Pokemon, and as horrified as I was by the sudden change in voices, I cannot find any notability for this article either. Forums and messageboards is all it is. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless article. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but.. If a credible source could be found i would suggest a merge. If no credible sources exist than its hard for this information to stand as it is, let alone have its own article.Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of RS. Merge if RS can be found per OttawaCheers, Dloh cierekim 19:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Note: the three accounts blocked for sock-puppetry and the related IP were not taken into consideration. (Wikipedian999, Marvelmenace, Topliner, 217.43.136.206) Icestorm815 • Talk 04:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The elder scrolls V shadow realm

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}}.

WP:CRYSTAL about says it all. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC) *Delete Sources?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteSources have arrived. But I still support delete.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Who cares what you support you write about music. I'm Sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.136.206 (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Edit the text to include what is already known of the game and what is established speculation. This article will appear again eventually, so why not keep it and allow it to be altered if properly cited and referenced?Tamrelic Historian (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you took the time to study the cited sources, you would see that the only factual thing that is actually known of the subject is the following developer quote: "...and potentially there's a new Elder Scrolls title in 2010...". Even the name of the supposed title seems to be a result of an entirely unconfirmed rumor. If you wish to be consistent with your own advice, you really need to change your position to "delete". — Rankiri (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notorious development hell of video games may keep this one on the horizon for many years. The release in 2010 is speculative:[1][2]. Fences and windows (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CRYSTAL refers to unverifiable speculation. This article has a reference and the guidelines state "it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An article about Elder Scrolls VI saying "Elder Scrolls VI will be the version of Elder Scrolls after version V but there is no evidence it will be produced because they didn't even confirm version V yet." would be a proper WP:CRYSTAL violation. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Discusssions as such should only be covered if they have become notable in their own right as a discussion. Wikipedia is neither a news source nor a place where speculations about future games should be posted. After all : who would keep up with deleting all the articles on games that were rumored to be planned and never ended up being released ? Passportguy (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article can be altered in the future if Bethesda change the sub-title or anything to do with the Elder Scrolls V. Elder Scrolls V has been confirmed, but if the game doesn't release, then you should delete the article. Lets keep the article so we can put infomation we find into the article for people who want to know about the game, just make sure you add a source to confirm the infomation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben1239randy (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No - it is exactly the other way around. Nothing belongs on here unless it is certain that it will be released. The only exception would be (in rare cases) that the speculation on the release has reached such a level that the speculation as such is notable. Passportguy (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you show where this requirement for certainty can be found in Wikipedia policy? I agree there is no room for unverifiable speculation, but the WP:CRYSTAL policy certainly does not prohobit "articles about anticipated events" stating that merely that they "must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred" which is clearly the case here. Indeed the policy specifcally mentions games, and rather than forbidding such articles states that "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims". Presumably this is why we have Template:Future_game. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The key here is "unverifiable speculation". Almost all speculation is unverifiable unless it is based on specifc facts. I.e. I can speculate a game is going to come out if a certain release date if announced or if a company has announced firm intentions to publish it. Or I can speculate that it will come out at a later date, because I know from a different source that production has been delayed due to a strike at the factory. However pure speculation that a product might be released some time in the future without anything to base it on, is unverifiable speculation, exactly because it has not have any factual basis. Verifing "unverifiable speculation" does not mean finding source that proves that there is speculation (again unless the speculation itself is suficiently notable to be the subject of an article).
    - For example : An article on Windows 7 is permissible, as it has been firmly announced by Microsoft. An article on Windows 8 would not be, even if sourced by internet forums speculating that the version post-windows 7 might be called "Windows 8". Passportguy (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the anaology I used above with Elder Scrolls VI. For Elder Scrolls V the publisher has stated that it is hoping to release it some time in 2010. That's no different from Microsoft saying they intend to release Windows 7 "in time for the holiday season of 2009". The publisher has stated it's intention to publish, this is not unfounded speculation --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about you look at the references or look it up on the internet. 19:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben1239randy (talk • contribs)

What you forget to take into account is that Windows 7 is as a product infinity more notable than The elder scrolls V. Even if Windows 8 never gets released (which as such is extremly unlikely) it would be notable as a planned product. On the other hand the chances that "The elder scrolls V" is never released for whatever reason are much more higher and this game in turn would not be notable if it indeed never gets released. Therefore the specificity of the announcement of planned release has to be that much higher.

On an aside I might also add that "holiday season [i.e. December] 2009" is much more specific than "in about 2010" Passportguy (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a careful reading of WP:CRYSTAL clearly shows that it does not apply to this game, but I'll shut-up now as I think that's enough from one person.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sheer speculation. The only relevant quote ("...and potentially there's a new Elder Scrolls title in 2010...") is obviously too vague and speculative to be used as a reliable source. — Rankiri (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that really matters is verifiability, not truth so as long as it has reliable sources that have something to say about it, fine. But as of now, the only thing the sources has to say is it might be another game in 2010. Which is really saying nothing. So I'll have to go for delete. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do know for a fact that some games that were cancelled are on wikipedia and it would go in the List of cancelled video games if (very unlikely) got cancelled. 15:43 May 25 2009 (UTC)
Delete or Rename As a huge Elder Scrolls fan, I tend to follow the news surrounding Bethesda. Right now, there is no definitive proof that Bethesda is working on a new Elder Scrolls title. There is NO EVIDENCE that the game would be called 'Shadow Realm', zero, nada, zip. There is however some evidence that another Elder Scrolls title (most evidence points to the title 'Skyrim') is in the works, though most of it is based on inference and original research: UESP1,UESP2, and UESP3.--Ratwar (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well elder scrolls Fan if you only rely on Bethesda infomation about TESV then why would you look it up on wikipedia, i mean i might not get what you're saying but wikipedia doesn't have always true info and (this is for everyone) bethesda doesn't exactly write it on wikipedia, wikipedians find info and write it on wikipedia and give you sources like what they did for the elder scrolls V shadow realm.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The onus of this article's asserted notability is based on one word, "potentially", which shows this to be a clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Elder Scrolls, where info on a potential new game should be contained (which it is, in two sentences) until such point that it makes sense to split it out into its own article. Nifboy (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is said to be deleted then shouldn't The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim be deleted the title is wrong, like Bethesda are really going to name the SUB-TITLE SKYRIM and it contains info that has no references at all so you don't even know if it's true, the elder scrolls V shadow realm article is more true than The Elder Scrolls V Skyrim article, also it said that dwarves being a playable race in TES V but Bethesda said they are just keeping TES V with the usual nine races. Besides there is only one dwarve in existence anyway, i think. So The Elder Scrolls V Skyrim should also be deleted if The Elder Scrolls V shadow Realm is to be Deleted. Sorry for going on. 21:34 may 27 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben1239randy (talk • contribs)
- Comment I'm not really going to argue that the ES:Skyrim article shouldn't be deleted, but if you bothered to read my first vote, you'd know that there is some evidence pointing to Skyrim with a trademark application being filed by Bethesda... And there is a precedent for them being named after provinces (like Morrowind).--Ratwar (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well i get your point but if i was going to make a fifth title after a award winning fanastic game, i would name TES V something fantastic. Anyway i don't even like the name shadow realm it reminds me of (gulp) Yu-Gi-oh, so i hope they change it. May 28 2009 (UTC) Ben1239randy (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It will be back if it's deleted, Bethesda is definitely following up Oblivion (it would be naive to assume not), we just don't know the title or release date.Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not without reliable sources proving so, it isn't. We don't base articles on speculative subjects, and that's currently exactly what this is. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to here. No relevant information and no accurate confirmation.VG Editor (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why redirect a title which doesn't even exist? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, you really think Bethesda aren't going to make the Fifth installment, the only thing you should be complaining about is the title of the article which was an accident i didn't mean to name the article The elder scrolls V shadow realm, i typed it in on wikipedia and saw all the other articles that wikipedians made that got deleted then i decided to make a page and see if it's any good, but as i typed in as the elder scrolls V shadow realm it made an article with that name but i really wanted it as The Elder Scrolls V. If someone knows how to change it too The Elder Scrolls V then please do so. If no one changes it, then i guess i'll have another go at changing it.Ben1239randy (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bethesda is so gonna make TES V, just change the articles name that's the only problem with it. Plus there is going to be a article sooner or later so why not start the article now, the article hasn't got serious info about the game, only what year it's scheduled to release, what platforms it is going to be released on and maybe where it's going to be set and maybe what the sub-title is going to be. Stop making a big fuss about it, not like the info is permanent, if the years wrong edit it. If the platforms are wrong or there are new ones (unlikely) edit it. The Sub-title is wrong EDIT IT!!!. I repeat there is gonnna be an article about TES V in the future so use this one. Every article starts out with minor or hardley any info and they didn't get deleted. Ben1239randy (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, this article has no info apart from one comment of a "potential" sequel. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we don't keep articles on the basis that information might turn up for them one day. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but all articles start out with hardley any info please read the comments before entering and yes we do wait for info i mean, info naturally turns up one day and a person wants everyone to know so they go on wikipedia and submit it and put a reference for where he got it from, then the article gets bigger and bigger. The same with other articles, they don't start out with loads of info they start out with a few lines, there is lots of articles on wikipedia that have one line, mostly you find them by looking up not very famous actors. Ben1239randy (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia doesn't, though, hence WP:CRYSTAL. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why am i being blamed for sockpuppets Ben1239randy (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (until E3 '09) If no comfirmation is made regarding a new TES game than do what you will, but don't redirect I hate it when I click on a game sequel page & am directed to a small itty bitty section on the original game page. possible E3 showcases —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.141.210 (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — 96.3.141.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. note that user 96.3.141.210 (normally 96.3.174.68) f-ed up his computer & is using his moms, snooty little wikipedia.[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1

can someone please rename it--Ben1239randy (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. All sources are speculative and the name hasn't even been verified by those sources. Them From Space 14:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry here is obvious. For example, the three named accounts below me were created at 11:27, 11:32, and 11:38 today and their only contributions have been here. To all people who were recruited for this debate, please argue in accordance to our policies and guidelines and don't fall for common arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Them From Space 16:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Ben1239randy said --217.43.136.206 (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — 217.43.136.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note that, by this edit, it's fairly obvious that the above IP is actually Ben1239randy, expressly trying to make it look like more people are arguing his/her case than there really are. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis so worth keeping all you need to do is edit it in the future and maybe change the title.--Wikipedian999 (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — Wikipedian999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I love the elder scrolls and i think this one could be the start of the new elder scrolls V article.--Marvelmenace (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — Marvelmenace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I don't get why they what it deleted You can edit it if you want no one is holding you back. I like this article to be the TESV article but i don't like the codename (Shadow realm).Topliner (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — Topliner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Nuff said. Eusebeus (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – sockpuppetry suspected. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ben1239randy. MuZemike 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure WP:CRYSTALballery Mayalld (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62 Misfit (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC): If hardly anything is known about the game, then what's the point of an article? The sources cited suck, and can give readers no useful or new information. I say down with it.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 20:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverie World Studios

Non notable company. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Only product is unreleased. RadioFan (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Their first game is out later this year after the company being around in some form for 8 years, but there are no reliable sources describing them. A brief mention of the company will be fine in Dawn of Fantasy. Fences and windows (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability at present. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reference given is their website, which is insufficient to establish notability as a company. Google search results show zero news articles mentioning them. Ariel♥Gold 13:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources and therefore notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mainstream games sites appear to have heard of this company more than in passing. Perhaps after the release of their first game (if it has some success) then they may deserve inclusion. 81.156.63.169 (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jide Obi

Little notability asserted. Only 542 ghits and many for unrelated people. [3] Computerjoe 's talk 22:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Computerjoe 's talk 22:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Computerjoe 's talk 22:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Computerjoe 's talk 22:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Computerjoe 's talk 22:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source. There's definite assertion of notability, and what mention I've seen of him makes it sound likes he's quite a musical legend in Nigeria. Keeping articles like this help balance our systematic bias towards recentism and the US & UK. Some sources that refer to him:[4][5]. I feel we can do better sourcing, so I've flagged this for rescue. Fences and windows (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And you have to search for the native language of the person, to get more hits, since unfortunately not everyone in this world speaks American English yet. Dream Focus 02:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think language is much of a problem - English is very widely spoken in Nigeria - but Nigerian newspapers from the 1980s are much less likely to be available online than, say, the New York Times. --Zeborah (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I haven't yet found sources focused on him specifically (likely due to the lack of digitisation efforts for 1980s Nigerian newspapers), the sources I have found (now added to the article) do refer to him as a very central figure in the revitalisation of Nigeria's music industry. --Zeborah (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Boo to systemic bias, yay for User:Zeborah's save. Joe, I've saved an article from AfD which only had 27 results, your search could've been a bit more discerning: [6] [7]. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Search_engine_test and WP:BEFORE. Still, we got a better article out of it, so we owe you a thank you! :-) Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - among other sources I've found on the internet, a newspaper article dated yesterday includes his name in the list that follows the words "Highlife music was the most popular in those days and the leading stars of this brand of music included..." (see Hakeem Jamiu (2009-05-27). "Nigeria: Music of Yester Years And Today's". Daily Independent (Lagos) on allAfrica.com. Retrieved 2009-05-28.) - Hebrides (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Nominator withdraws, please speedy close. Glad article's improved. Notability now shown Computerjoe 's talk 20:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good conclusion to the process. Thanks, Computerjoe. Fences and windows (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 20:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CorporateGrapevine

Utter advert for a non-notable social-networking site, with no sources, created by an single-purpose account whose only other edits are to insert references to this new business into tangentially related articles. Speedy-tagged, but declined for some unknown reason. CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotion. This website hasn't been noticed by anyone but the creators. Fences and windows (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertorial. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable; trying to promote via WP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Copyvio from this, and a self-promoting, advert.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 13:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODder. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sales 2.0

Trademarked brand name of a service and company that fail WP:CORP; attempt to masquerade as a general concept fails WP:Neologism. Closeapple (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —Closeapple (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Closeapple (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Closeapple (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nomination. This article has been speedied twice already, and people with a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest association have continued to recreate the article and silently delete maintenance tags, so I'm putting this up for AfD to get this over with. Take your pick: WP:NEO, WP:CORP, or WP:ADVERT. "Sales 2.0" is a invented trademark (for a specific company's non-notable consulting service) attempting to masquerade as a general phrase (through astroturfing, from what I can tell). As noted in previous versions and previous incarnations of this article, this is a neologism intentionally coined, apparently in 2007, by a company named Sales 2.0 LLC, then registered as a trademark (U.S. 3460752, application serial number 77218577). This company also owns the domain sales2.com and claims "Sales 2.0 is a Trademark of Sales 2.0 LLC" right at the bottom of http://www.sales2.com/ itself (at least as of 2009-05-22). In short, "Sales 2.0" is a contrived phrase that its inventor is attempting to get into the mainstream, while the inventor, which has registered it for a related but different but related concept, has the exclusive right to sell "consulting" related to it. Its trademarked use is not for sales methods themselves — its official use is for consulting about sales methods, as per the trademark registration:
Business consultation; Consultancy services regarding business strategies; Consultation services in the field of company, business sector and industry data and research; Consulting services in business organization and management; Creation of marketing tools designed to increase a client company's knowledge of customer needs, and its competitors' products and services, pricing, advertising strategy and sales strategy
Neither its trademarked brand, nor its alleged general meaning (which is a moving target) are notable. --Closeapple (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Customer relationship management as a plausible search term (100,000 google hits, 150 news hits since 2007). It doesn't deserve an article as it is a neologism for online CRM, such as Salesforce. Fences and windows (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The four "references" are sales waffle with no content. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't redirect - delete as per forming consensus, but don't redirect. That's to suggest that a company brand is synonymous with CRM. I can't think of a decent example, but it would be like Coca cola being a redirect to tasty, healthy, inexpensive drink that makes you more attractive to the opposite sex. Leave Sales 2.0 to do all the Search engine optimisation it wants, but let's not help them out! Note that Salesforce is a redirect to Salesforce.com, so I assume they're notable. Bigger digger (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I didn't mean that Salesforce was a neologism, I meant it is an online CRM tool. It seems that sales professionals are using the phrase quite generally to mean the intersection between Web 2.0 and customer relations management. Us not adding a redirect won't have any effect on usage. Fences and windows (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pause before deleting, perhaps, on this logic: Wikipedia contains entries on Web 2.0, despite it being a conference and blatantly commercialized term invented by O'Reilly and Associates. There are also entries on Health 2.0 and Library 2.0. As long as the shameless self-promotion is excised from this entry, I'm not sure that this description of Sales 2.0 falls so far afield of those other precedents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtplanet (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whinnegar

This article is about a non-notable cocktail. Google turns up nothing with this name other than Wikipedia mirrors. Nothing links here. No substantive edits since page creation 22 months ago. ike9898 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone can create a new drink out of two more notable ones. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should've been speedily deleted in August 2007, when it was flagged but declined. Something dreamed up in a bar, but not notable. WP:MADEUP. Vinegar is good for hiccups, though. Fences and windows (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is, again, all part of a deletionist conspiracy that seeks to reduce Wikipedia to a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica. What's next on the removal list for you people--Pokemon? wrestling? I think this is a great article, and if the drink it isn't notable yet, it ought to be. You know what, I'm going to make myself have hiccups and then fix me one of these. I'll be back. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That was disgusting. Not notable. Please delete. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! ike9898 (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being disgusting does not imply non-notability (see 2 Girls 1 Cup). However, this unreferenced piece of nift is unencyclopedic and non-notable. Bongomatic 09:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bongo--do you realize that I had managed to completely forget that I ever read that article? It's going to take more than one whinnegar to get that idea out of my head. One more disgusting reference like that and I'm going to vote keep and write a book on the whinnegar and get it published by Harvard UP and then rewrite article and get it up to FA status. And it'll be all your fault. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm concerned about systemic bias. Should a Canadian be consulted? They are known to have a hankering for some rather odd foods... And also, are we sure that this drink's medical application as a cure for the hiccups isn't notable? How do we check? Doc? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a valid point. I have been concerned about some of that editor's comments on their talk page, but unfortunately could not find a talk page for the talk page to discuss those matters. Now, I am a doctor, but this, unfortunately, is not my specialty. Since I tried the drink I've had to brush my teeth a dozen times and I still have a funny taste in my mouth, so notability is out of the question, I'm afraid, this being a really strong case of WP:IDONTLIKEITANYMORE. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derecession

Repeatedly recreated, unreferenced protologism, original research. Speedys removed, PROD removed, here as last resort. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*please close discussion, article was deleted while I was nominating for AfD. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I G6 tagged the second afd, let's keep this one open. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jamie^☆S93 22:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This term has been used since Jan 2008. However, the term has been increasingly used in the last three months. This word is no different than stagflation which became a "formal" term in the 1970's. As the term is becoming more generally accepted, it is beyond reason that the article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beach98 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that show its use, history, etc.? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number a references used by people on message boards. Googling the term "derecession" returns over 30 places of usage. In March, 2009, searches on the term only returned about 8 usages. The term is a good term since this recession is different from the others (i.e. housing crisis, auto crisis, etc)Beach98 (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and message boards are not Reliable sources. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term is being used more frequently by different people. This information could help better identify the current economic crisis (stagflation, the great depression, post-war recession, etc.)Beach98 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly not getting something here. Do you have RELIABLE SOURCES that prove its use and describe the term in detail? Not blogs, not message boards. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forums should not count as sources.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total neologism. I think this kind of article was why WP:NEO was written. It's very newly coined, it hasn't gained widespread use, and no reliable sources have even used it, let alone defined or discussed it. Fences and windows (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS supports this. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO Take it to Urban Dictionary. Drawn Some (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely no proof that this is anything beyond a neologism. JuJube (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Contra Costa County, California (being bold in redirecting, NAC). American Eagle (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albany State Marine Reserve

Can't find any proof that shows this meets WP:N. Only trivial mentions in sources. Killiondude (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Contra Costa County, California [8], until notability can be establish. --J^mundo 21:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jmundo. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Jmundo. No sources other than that one line mention in a book, and the parks website. This is where it is:[9] Fences and windows (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nutmeg Lawyer

I contested the Speedy A7 because there seems to be some assertion of notability, and some coverage. I am neutral on this article, listing as a courtesy. Gigs (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was the appearance of multiple sources, but sources 1 & 2 are the same article, and source 3 doesn't mention the blog. Notability is not established by one piece of local coverage. Fences and windows (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. This is a hard one to call. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I confirmed what Fences and windows said; nothing notable about a lawyer writing a blog. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per F&W. Eusebeus (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any reliable sources to assure notability. The one decent reference states that the attorney's work is "recognized" by a couple other places, but the reference is from Connecticut which goes against WP:LOCALINT. ZabMilenko 06:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One two three... 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black knight

Fiction presented as fact. Nonsense, can't find an internet source for the information, haven't checked the literary uses. Also, white knight is not an article in the sense this article refers, while white knight is the contrast and would seem equally notable. my name inc ^{Ottoman project} 21:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep the concept is a rather obvious one so sources must be there. Nominator clearly stated that he did not look at the literary uses. Ivanhoe (and commentaries on the same) might be a good start from what I remember reading about 30 years ago. Agathoclea (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The question here is whether reliable sources can be found to establish some sort of thematic or other connection between the many characters so identified—in Chaucer, in Lydgate, in Malory, and elsewhere in fiction. Offhand, I'm not aware of any, and the crucial section of the article in its present form ("Historical significance") certainly seems to constitute unsourced, and unpersuasive, original research. Stuff like this doesn't really qualify, since it would support nothing but an indiscriminate list of characters sharing a "name." If someone can come up with some solid sources upon which an article can be reared, I'm quite willing to recommend that this be kept; but if no such sources are forthcoming, I can't see the good of it. (And if anyone adds a Phineas and Ferb entry to the "Literary use" section, I'll be upset.) Deor (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was just about to comment here about the quality of the sources but Deor is right on. Most information on black knight to me seem to be monty python references or other entertainment media, pretty much contained in Black Knight (disambiguation). But likewise ill support keeping the articel providing some adequate sources present themselves and not just the formulation of original research. Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. As a term, as a characterization in fiction, etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a term, it is addressed by Black Knight (disambiguation). As a characterization in fiction, you have not made any argument, and have not pointed to one single thing, that addresses the very real problem with this article. And your edit seems to be based upon not reading the disambiguation headnote that was immediately above it, or noticing that Black Knight (disambiguation) already points to knight (chess). Uncle G (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deor's comment that there is no evidence of any connection between the various usages of the interesting phrase "black knight" is compelling for a delete. On the other hand, I can't find mention on WP of the fact that "black knight" can also refer to "A company that makes a hostile takeover offer on a target company"[10]. I quickly browsed Ivanhoe and it simply describes a knight dressed in black, on a black horse; we really need a reliable source making some of the claims in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this article has been raised, repeatedly, since 2006. This content has been challenged by multiple editors — on the talk page, in the previous AFD discussion, and even by editors removing the content from the article with edit summaries like this one and this one — over a period of two and a half years.
Agathoclea, ChildofMidnight, your arguments and unsupported assertions of notability are not enough. Such unsupported assertions were made in the prior discussion, and, as observed, failed to be substantiated by those making the claims, as you have as yet not substiantiated your repetitions of these claims. It's money-where-one's-mouth is time. Where are sources that (a) support this content in any way (especially in light of the claim that this content is a falsehood that is historically incorrect and a false description of what would be properly known as a knight errant in any case) and (a) show the notability (or indeed even the existence of) the concept that you claim, without supporting evidence, exists?
I've actually looked for sources myself, and the problem is as Deor describes. There's nothing to link, say, the Black Knight of Chaucer's The Book of the Duchess with Thomas Middleton's Black Knight Gondomar from A Game at Chess. (This is unsurprising, given that both are taken by scholars to be simple pseudonyms for actual people, John of Gaunt and Diego Sarmiento de Acuña, conde de Gondomar respectively, who have no relation to one another.)
The one source that I've found that even comes close to describing a literary stock character or trope is A dictionary of symbols (ISBN 9780415036498). But that source is an article on "Colour (Positive/Negative)", and it is describing the common white-knight-versus-black-knight theme, not black knights as a standalone subject. As with the coverage of this as a term, and as a chess piece, this theme is covered already by another article. In this case, the other article is black-and-white dualism (which is what the article in the book is itself covering, in fact — It doesn't even treat white-knight-versus-black-knight as a standalone subject.).
The problem with this article is that originally it was the disambiguation that is now at Black Knight (disambiguation). Some rubbish was added to the disambiguation in 2004. This rubbish has persisted ever since, to the outright exclusion of the disambiguation itself, and has even been restored to the article under the very much mistaken and ill-thought guise of reverting vandalism. There are no sources that describe a literary trope, and that link Chaucer to Middleton to Arthurian legend to Ivanhoe to Star Wars to Scooby-Doo as many past revisions of this article have variously tried to do. (I kid you not. See this and this for two examples.) We've preserved the rubbish with vague handwaving and unsubstantiated assertions of verifiability and notability for too long. The disambiguation was the right thing to have here. The rubbish should, finally, after two and a half years of challenges with not a single supporting source ever shown for it in all that time and with no sources evident after actually looking for them, go. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Before you talk about my "very much mistaken and ill-thought" revert, I did not realize what condition the article was in. I seen a removal of content, and reverted appropriately. In addition, by deleting that part the user deleted the backbone of the article, and we have processes for deleting an article. Besides, when nominating an article, should we remove the worst parts and then nominate it, masking its true glory from contributors, including myself, who usually don't search the history of a page before voting? my name inc ^{Ottoman project} 14:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary: You saw a removal of content, didn't read the edit summary that came with it, and reverted it calling it "vandalism". "Appropriately" is not the word for that. You treated a good faith edit, that removed content for a cause that has been discussed on the article's talk page since 2006, as if it were vandalism, and you restored content removed for cause because you were more concerned with "deletion process" (which doesn't apply to using the editing tool) than a correct article, and didn't even take into account the issue explained in detail in the edit summary. That was inappropriate, very much mistaken, and ill-thought.
    Please learn the difference between deletion and editing. The two are not the same, and removing original research from an article with the ordinary editing tool is most definitely not deletion.
    Moreover, if you are not looking at the histories of articles that come up at AFD, and are, in your own words, "voting", you are not doing AFD any good. This is a discussion process, not a vote. The people who help AFD the most are the people who do their research. The people who help the least are those who sit and "vote", based upon no more than what they see directly in front of them, with no more effort than that expended. AFD needs those who will look at article histories (not least becase vandalizing an article and then nominating it for deletion is an old trick), who will search for sources, who will look at sources proferred, and who do attempt to determine how our policies and guidelines apply. It doesn't need "votes"; and people who don't do the work do deserve the proverbial trout slapping that they receive, for sitting idly by and not helping.
    In this discussion, for example, AFD needs further editors to determine what the article's possible subjects are from its editing history, to look for sources themselves, in order to double-check your and my searches for sources, and either concur or disagree based upon what they find. "votes" would be of no use, because they are not based upon doing any work. Because they lack a valid foundation they lend no weight in either direction to the correctness of the final outcome. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - I don't like the course this discussion is taking, especially in civility. And I'm sorry, but a lot of AfDs don't need history research, if you haven't noticed. At the time, I didn't see the original research, partially due to the list of "literary issues" and the tag says "This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.", not "This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details.". The talk page says the article needs sources. my name inc ^{Ottoman project} 16:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SO many sources it's hard to choose examples: Google books [11] an example [12] another [13]. This source ties black knight characters together in a discussion of race [14]. Used in Arthurian legend, used by Chaucer, used in movies, used by Gloria Vanderbilt for a book title. Etc. etc. [15] THis isn't a reliable source, but it has a listing of some of the notable renditions of this meme [16]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you do choose examples, because without them you don't have a case. As I said above, the sources that your search turns up, as did my own searches, don't actually document any such literary trope. They document Chaucer and Middleton and Arthurian mythology, but don't link them. We already have articles on The Book of the Duchess, A Game at Chess, and Black Knight (Arthurian legend), the three things that (in that very order) your purported examples actually address. (Your fourth example isn't even a source discussing this subject, and isn't even called "Black Knight".) As with your chess piece edit, all that you've done here is shown something that is actually the purview of another article, and still not shown a single source for this article or the umbrella concept that you assert to exist. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, this seems to be a personal vendetta for you. You've been really hateful in the discussion, and mildly attacked any opinions and their respective editors that don't confirm to your point of view. my name inc ^{Ottoman project} 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he makes some interesting points, and I don't mind them being made assertively. I strongly disagree with his conclusions. One of the cites I provided mentions the Black Knight in the context of Arthurian legend and Thomas Pynchon's Schwarzkommando and Walker Percy's 1977 Lancelot (novel) (not about a medieval knight but "a vision of an empty modern American culture". So clearly there is notable recognition of the trope. It's been discussed extensively in particular examples, and is sometimes linked. It's use by a 20th century author for the title of an autobiography is one example I gave that points to its continuing relevance as a sort of meme, if I'm using that word right. It's definitely worth an article, although we have to be careful not to synthesize or tie the examples together unless we find sources that do so explicitly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable fiction, no references. Fictional character can mean different things to different works of fiction as well, and these differences are better addressed in the individual works. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated in my comment above, and move Black Knight (disambiguation) to this title per Uncle G. Deor (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are oodles of sources discussing the use of the Black Knight character and how it's been adapted and adopted by various authors, and in cinema etc. Are those voting deletion even bothering to look? [17]

"As to the cinema there are over forty full-length Arthurian feature films to date, some of them well worth forgetting, like The Black Knight (1954) with Alan Ladd [18]

"In the course of this quest, Tennyson condenses and simplifies (Thomas) Malory (Le Morte d'Arthur)... Tennyson's most significant alteration is to shape suggestive elements of medieval folklore into a specific allegory. By transforming Malory's Green Knight, Red Knight, Blue Knight, Black Knight, and Red Knight of the Red Laundes into the figures of Morning-Star, Noonday Sun, Evening Star and Death, Tennyson forged a not altogether successful allegory..." "Whereas Malory's Gareth encounters the Black Knight first... Tennyson builds up to the Black Knight, with his commonplace association with death.[19] ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a literary archetype, the black knight has no equal. Even in modern times and non-medieval settings he is found in only slightly less recognizable forms (Darth Vader, anyone?). The article needs much more sourcing from the standpoint of literary criticism and study, but the subject is certainly noteworthy. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is quite simple. The lede states "The black knight is a literary stock character," and if that is an unverifiable claim, then this should be deleted. The article provides no substantive basis to back up this idea and a google scholar search on terms like trope, meme, meta-character, etc... turn up nothing to suggest this is true ,beyond a few individual literary instances where the black knight is a specific character. Eusebeus (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you defining a stock character when you found him in "literary instances where the black knight is a specific character". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source better, it reads like a personal essay now, but the topic is notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this personal essay, filled with original research and speculation unsubstantiated by reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination seems incoherent and fails to establish a clear case for deletion rather than article improvement per our editing policy. I have added a citation to demonstrate that the topic is notable and such improvement is possible. The worst case is merger with the dab page as it seems beyond question that the title of the article is a useful search term for the numerous literary examples of black knights. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but gather more citations for the term and the concept, rather than just listing examples of its use in books and calling them references. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should certainly Keep and improve this article; this is a widely recognized trope in literature. SouthernCritic111 (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 21:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Kastler

Sources referenced do not establish notability, and I'm not sure what the claim of notability is supposed to be here. I'm not seeing much else to establish notability from searching either. Gigs (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The original author seems to think that a pastor writing a blog is notable. It isn't. This just looks like Wikipedia-as-biography-hosting-service sort of thing. Hairhorn (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But that smile...so friendly....but in all seriousness,
Weak delete My understanding of notability here would be the same as if he were an academic, Has he been reconginized outside this congregation with some sort of national merit? The sources do not suggest much notability with any of this. But i could be over looking something. For now i would say a weak delete. Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find substantial independent coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on a blog with references to the blog and some minor local news mentions. Not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Nyttend as A7. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC) (NAC)[reply]

Irish liberation army

Smells like a hoax. I can find no independent verification. Completely unsourced but editor claims on the talk page to have "obtained a statement" from the group that verifies its existence. Wperdue (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have obtained a statement from the group which verifies its existance as i have said parts of it are included in the article itself. Trust me I have done my research locally and the group does exist. PALESTINE1234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PALESTINE1234 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC) — PALESTINE1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy delete A7 (group). Sounds like a bunch of anarchists trying to compensate, but that's just my take. Assertion is that there is a statement, so I'm inclined to not say hoax, but there seems to be an utter notability failure. No prejudice to recreation if they really are notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused by the article. But I can assure you the group exists, I have researched locally and have many confirmations of the groups existance. Apologies. PALESTINE1234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PALESTINE1234 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assurances have absolutely no value here.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns of false imformation but this is not a hoax. The statement i was personally given was legitimate. Again I would like to apologise for any inconvenience.--PALESTINE1234 (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Hoax depsite what Palestine says, no sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if one were to edit the one-close to accurate statement in the article, "very little is known about the ILA" to the perfectly accurate "nothing is known about the ILA" we would have the one true fact about this mess. Clear delete and should have been speedy.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have used a CSD tag but, unfortunately, it was a "blatantly obvious" case. It did require some searching on my part. Sorry. Wperdue (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

the ILA exists, this is a fact. I have sources, i have the statement, I have locally researched the group and i can promise again, it does exist.--PALESTINE1234 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I do understand your fears, but as i have repeatedly said this group does exist, I am sure!!!--PALESTINE1234 (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ILA is a new group, it is very secretive, it was established in belfast in 2006, i researched it locally in NI and have had numourous human sources confirm the groups existance. --PALESTINE1234 (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, your word of mouth is worthless. Human sources are worthless. We need print and web sources. And clearly you don't have those. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced soapbox. Hairhorn (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ill write out the statement here if you want--PALESTINE1234 (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "your word of mouth is useless" did you not understand? Oh yeah, the "useless" part. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

im tired of writing the same stuff over and over again, the ILA exists FACT, your just going around in circles, THEY EXIST I KNOW and dont bother askin how --86.142.130.30 (PALEASTINE1234) 22:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC) — 86.142.130.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's the point, we need to ask how. That's how Wikipedia works. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did i or did i not just say dont ask how?--86.142.130.30 (PALESTINE1234) 22:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- How do you know they exist?" --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive already told you, people from all over NI have told me the ILA are real and I have a statement from them, parts of which are in the article !--86.142.130.30 (PALESTINE1234) 22:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable even if they exist. Edward321 (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can prove they exist in a written source from a verifiable third party - like a local newspaper or the RTE or BBC for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V and appears likely to be a hoax. Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The actual name of the group is "Irish Republican Liberation Army" and its political wing is called the "Continuity Liberation Movement", but the notice of their founding in 2006 is the last that has been heard of them. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checked and learned there's a Wikipedia article for the group I mentioned, with references. One using just "Irish Liberation Army" I've never heard of; the author may be confused about the name, but in any case there's a separate existing article that is sourced. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google search turns up nary anything notable. There was some formation of an ILA in 1972, but they changed their name to the Irish National Republican Army. Many counts recap a fiction book and/or what appears to be a stage play based on said book. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted under A7 for reasons given by Dennis The Tiger. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Woodwind. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longest note on a woodwind/brass instrument

Wikipedia is not the Guinness book of world records Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Woodwind Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to merge, trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Worth a mention I think. Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prefer to preserve as much content as possible, but there's no place for this in the Woodwind instrument article. Fences and windows (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting ready to change my vote per your investigation... but there's nothing BUT room in the Woodwind instrument article. It needs to be expanded and the longest note seems like a fun start. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, not seen that reason before, and it's clearly not notable for its own article. Teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. New Record! Bigger digger (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Woodwind, like Jenuk's idea. --Abce2|AccessDenied 23:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Népszava (Israeli newspaper)

Fixing broken nom that no one else cared to fix. Rationale was "No proper sources, no links to it." or somesuch. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the party. DGG (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you can confirm by looking at the very detailed Hungarian page for this newspaper, it has nothing to do with Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.62.158 (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The link to the Hebrew University Library catalog does not appear to indicate that the library holds the newspaper, and I can find no other information to confirm this newspaper's existence. Maybe it did exist, but without sources the article needs to be deleted. There is a newspaper in Hungary by this same name, but that wouldn't have prevented a similarly titled newspaper from existing in Israel. But if we had an article about the Hungarian newspaper, it would probably appear at Népszava with no qualifier needed, as it would be the most famous newspaper by that name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to party. Worth including. Paper existed for more than two decades. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Sorry for the confusion I caused.) I could not find independent proof that the newspaper ever existed. Kope (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Mountaineering

Journal of a state group; published apparently on Yahoo Groups, no evidence for being a separate publication since it is found in no WorldCat libraries, and not included in Ulrich's, and had no ISSN--three very minimal considerations. Note that the title is a common one for similar publications of many regional clubs--some of which actually are in worldCat. Nothing relevant in google etc. DGG (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 19:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. I think that since he found something he believes to be so truly deletable as to actually put it up for deletion himself without saying weak delete then we can trust his judgement without hesitation and without the need for further investigation. I see he didn't acutally use the word "delete". But still. Drawn Some (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just for your reference, I've deleted over 7500 articles since I've become an admin--[20]. Usually I do it by speedy. If I send them here, it means I think a community opinion is necessary as well. I also can't remember a day at AfD where I do not say delete for several articles. DGG (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Vicenarian (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ~~the rabid inclusionist~~ nominator, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Journal of Mountaineering is pending a trademark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombcronin (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC) — Tombcronin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ISSN applied for 5/22/09 tombcronin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombcronin (talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't !vote twice, that's no good. ISSN isn't an assertation of notability either, any fool can get one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since I see that the sponsoring organization has an article, California Mountaineering Group, but the article does noit have this material, it could be merged appropriately. DGG (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite the arguments of the "delete" side of this debate, evidence has been found that this individual has at least some degree of notability. Let's try improving the article based on the sources found for him, and if that doesn't go over well, maybe we can reconsider deleting the article later. One two three... 00:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachid Yazami

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO, and one cannot ascertain how notable the research and patents mentioned are due to my inability to find any legitimate third-party sources. The article appears to be created by its subject, and the only evidence one can find is at the article Lithium-ion battery, into which the subject has inserted himself, and per this edit, that assertion may be misinformation. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references to indicate notability per WP:BIO. Vicenarian (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. May become notable in the future, but not yet there.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. VIASPACE CEO Dr. Carl Kukkonen stated, "Dr. Yazami is a key advisor in the implementation of VIASPACE's strategy for expanded energy products. With his assistance and advice, the new VIASENSOR BA-1000 Battery Electrode Health Analyzer has been rapidly developed from a lab model into a product. We have received extremely favorable feedback from major battery manufacturers and research labs working on lithium battery development, and initial sales of this test station have begun. We are delighted to add Dr. Yazami to our Advisory Board, and VIASPACE will benefit from his service."[21] That's an assertion of notability. Going by his Caltech homepage, he developed Lithium ion batteries in the 80s and was a Research Director at the CNRS:[22] I doubt that Caltech employs many outright frauds. I'm looking for better sources. Fences and windows (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Research Director" at the CNRS is a somewhat misleading job title. Many people assume that this is a person determining the research strategy of this huge agency, which would be highly notable. In fact, it is a job title that is roughly equivalent to associate/full professor (depending on whether the person is a first or second class "DR"). Being a research director at the CNRS, therefore, does not in and of itself mean that a person is notable (I know, I'm one myself :-). --Crusio (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A collaborator at Caltech says he is "arguably the inventor of intercalated graphite for Li batteries"[23]. Fences and windows (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Hawaii Battery Award was presented to two researchers, Prof. Jurgen Besenhard from the Technical University of Graz, Austria and Dr. Rachid Yazami from LEPMI, CNRS-INPG, Grenoble, France. These two were the first to identify the electrochemical activity of graphite in lithium ion containing electrochemical systems. Their work ultimately resulted in the use of graphite as the negative electrode of the lithium-ion battery, which has come to be so important in rechargeable battery technology."[24] Fences and windows (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And he has co-founded a battery company, CFX, which has won two awards,[25][26] and which the French consulate interviewed him about:[27]. Fences and windows (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. 105 hits on Google Scholar but not all of them research papers. 1 paper with 275 citations, others with 77, 33, 22, remainder very low. The Hawaii Battery Award may not be as prestigious as a Nobel Prize but may be considered some sort of recognition although this conference is not a major international one. However, I am made suspicious of the puffing by the subject himself in creating this article and in the Lithium-ion battery articles and by the claim that he is "arguably the inventor of intercalated graphite for Li batteries " in a Caltech report. One wonders who is doing the arguing. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 22:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bay East Association Of Realtors

promotional article, high COI factor Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional first-person plural spam with zero independent references. And what exactly is member-to-member charity? Sunshine club? Drawn Some (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page for a trade organization representing over 5000 realtor professionals in the bay area. We are regularly quoted in local media sources for our housing statistics and outreach programs. This is not designed to promote our business and services rather to inform the public what it is we do. This is no different than the pages provide by the following groups.

As I stated above this is a page for a local trade organization for the San Francisco Bay Area. We are regularly cited in media articles, press releases, and by students reporting on local economic issues. We are even improperly cited on wikiepedia in the following article Pleasanton,_California.

According to the East Bay Association of Realtors, the median price of a detached single family home is $832,000 as of November '07.

With many people turning for Wikipedia it is important that we are able to give some background of where this information is originating.

I apologize if I have failed to properly structure the article but it is certainly worth inclusion within the Wikipedia site. I am willing to do whatever it takes to get the article in line with the requirments on the site. This is not a ploy to generate traffic or to sell our services simply put we are a trade organization, people are going to join us if they are a member of that trade. The purpose of this entry is to first give perspective as to what our organization is within the community, what areas we cover in regards to the MLS and particularly what entry points of data members of the public can find from us.While I do work for the organization in question it is also my intention to become more active within the Wikipedia community.

There is actually one independent reference currently to the National Association of REALTORS I was in the process of adding additional ones before my account was disabled and the page was marked for deletion I am trying to respect the spirit of the wikipedia site and address the concerns prior to editing the page further.
If you had read the section of the foundation before it was deleted/trimmed you would have seen it is a member supported charity that is open to others within the community and it has supported many people in staying within their homes, going to school and even sending donations for general relief aid.

Mark flavin (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Mark_Flavin — Mark_Flavin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Read WP:N, WP:RS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G11 Spammy much, Mark Flavin? Your whole reply was one big advertisement. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Fine, Normal delete since someone's too afraid to speedy it even though it's a big blatant ad. Hell, let it sit around for all I care. There's clearly no rush to get anything deleted anymore. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources? No encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people speaking on behalf of the company are quoted a lot in google news archives. However I am confident there are not sufficent reliable sources talking about the organisation itself to establish notability. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An advantage of doing it here over speedy is to be able to remove-creations under G4. Created in good faith, but a failure nonetheless to understand our principles. Please, Mark, understand that this is not arbitrary action but the standing way we work to keep this an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serious lack of WP:N as far as I can see. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. --KurtRaschke (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jules: We're gonna be like three little Fonzies here. And what's Fonzie like? Come on Yolanda what's Fonzie like? Yolanda: Cool? Jules: What? Yolanda: He's cool. Jules: Correctamundo. And that's what we're gonna be. We're gonna be cool. Ten Pound Hammer, all he did was start a Wikipedia page about his organisation. There's no need to bite the newbie, he doesn't know our sourcing standards. There is no rush to delete anything except obvious copyright violation and probable libel and other BLP problems. Dedicating yourself to wiping out all non-notable pages this very second is an unachievable task beyond even Hercules. The association is referred to in 114 hits on Google News (and 25 mentions as "Southern Alameda County Association of Realtors"), so some discussion of its notability is fair. As it happens, I can find a lot of press releases and comments in news stories from current and past presidents, but nothing focussing on them, so the sourcing is probably too weak to support an article. Fences and windows (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: serious conflict of interest reflected through the use of the word "our". Alexius08 (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus; no calls for deletion outside of the nominator, who changed his input to support. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomex

This article shows no proof of the subject being notable. Drew Smith What I've done 18:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that with the addition of the "Controversy" section the page has become much more notable and relevant, as the company has, since its inception, been using the distancing and "anonymity" of the online business model to routinely defraud its clients; a growing problem with many online businesses. The company is thus notable and notorious for continuing to do business for many years (as seen in the newly sourced material) despite its outrageous practices. Bloomex is to flowers as Madoff or Enron are to investors. pale (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going to have to say keep because it is well documented with sources and references. The external links and further readings section adds more weight to keeping this article. Per Palefist, strong keep. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the addition of sourced material to the controversy section, I have to change my vote to keep as this does establish notability.Drew Smith What I've done 20:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please check for sources before claiming something is not notable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources for notability and verifiability. Drawn Some (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was unedited since December 2008 until editor" pale" made a discovery" Bloomex is to flowers as Madoff or Enron are to investors". I guess there is COI in Bloomex and editor " pale" Flowerman11 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church Road (Harlesden)

A random street in a random area of London, no obvious notability? Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Geographical locations are generally accepted as notable.Drew Smith What I've done 18:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? Every street in the world certainly isn't notable. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying every street in the world dserves an article, I'm saying policy states that geographical locations are considered notable.Drew Smith What I've done 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to link to this policy or leave us guessing? Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (geography)Drew Smith What I've done 22:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.... did you read that before linking to it? I couldn't find the line that said "any old location is notable, as long as it's a location". It does say "named geographic features" are usually notable, but goes on to clarify that this means mountains, lakes, islands, etc. If you read closer, you'll see the link at bottom for Wikipedia:One_street_per_50,000_people, which explains exactly why an entry like Church Road (Harlesden) isn't considered notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if the population is very low." and at WP:Notability (Geographic locations) "Based on recent consensus demonstrated at numerous AfD discussions, every geographic location or entity that has a name and a verified location is suitable for inclusion as a topic of an article in Wikipedia." Drew Smith What I've done 06:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy or guideline, it's one of three options in a dormant proposal. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I would argue that a street with nothing special about it is not a "place" in this sense. Hairhorn (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero assertion of importance or significance. Only the people who live there have the slightest interest in whether the flats are of white or yellowy-orange or orangey-yellow or what-have-you bricks. Drawn Some (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Drawn Some, how can you say that people aren't interested in white flats or flats with yellowy-orangey bricks? --The Legendary Sky Attacker 19:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I said only the people who live there are interested! Drawn Some (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable road like ten of thousands of others. Nothing in text indicates anything note worthy and more than one Church Road has a church on it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like articles on streets, but there seems nothing the leasst distinctive or important about this one. DGG (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This might qualify as notable as part of an article on the A407. What standard of notability is used for A-roads? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think that this road is pretty well-known amongst drivers in north-west London, as it's part of a a useful rat run when the Harrow Road is congested, and the white flats are something of a landmark - but that's just my unverified personal knowledge so doesn't count for anything. It also has some notoriety as a rather unpleasant place (e.g. [28][29]), but I don't think this amounts to notability. As with everything else, the general principal that geographical locations are notable needs to be applied with common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article seems to have good potential - I spent a few minutes, have cited several sources and have the impression that there's a lot more out there. Just seems to be a case of WP:NOEFFORT. Worst case would be merger to a larger article such as Harlesden and so deletion is quite inappropriate. Note that this article improvement tends to make the above opinions obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where has the argument "Nobody's working on it" been used in this AfD? Its just not a notable road! Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an equally weak argument - see WP:JNN. I had no difficulty finding sources and so that argument is refuted. More effort may be expected to improve the article further and this is our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Colonel Warden, I've lived in Brent and I've walked down this road; it is certainly not notable. It's not worth your efforts. Sure, some news sources refer to it in passing, like a cinema built 80 years ago. But there's no sources specifically about it. Now on the other hand, there is scope for an article about the area it is in, Church End. Brent council has this history of the area:[30]. I was already planning to create it. Fences and windows (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. Valley2city^‽ 18:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isolates

It seems like a neogolism. Although it does have references, they're quite old and I don't think they're in much use anymore. I've never heard of this term being used in this context. I think this consists of a dictionary definition. Renaissancee (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Do a search for ("isolates" dyads) and you'll see it's not a neologism. You should withdraw this. Drawn Some (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I can't seem to find where I do that. Do I just delete this page and the AfD template or what? Renaissancee (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. copyvio is a speedy Tone 20:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophija Kristiansen

Text is taken from http://www.sophija.com/, no encyclopedic sources mention this person and most of the work has yet to be released anyway Simeon (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Nominated on page. The only real text is a blatant copy-paste of http://www.sophija.com/, a page that asserts copyright on the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicenarian (talk • contribs)

Whoops, forgot the sig, thanks. Vicenarian (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's good argument that the subject meets our notability guidelines. However, those guidelines are to be applied with common sense, and the clear consensus here is to remove the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Smith (cybersquatter)

The article is about a known spam vandal (User:Universe Daily) who has been permanently banned from Wikipedia for massive spamming, sockpuppetry, and abusive behaviour. It serves only as a vanity piece to further this vandal's aims. Furthermore, while I want to assume good faith, the article's creator (User:Dervishdude) appears suspicious. His/her first action was to post a complete article (with references) about Wayne Smith. Dervishdude's third contribution was to the article aquatic ape hypothesis, to restore an external link owned by Wayne Smith (yet another frame-redirect URLs). That URL had been added by an IP just over half an hour previously, and deleted shortly thereafter. The same IP (User:124.186.69.185, whose previous abusive behaviour indicates he is yet another Universe Daily IP sock) created a redlink to Wayne Smith (cybersquatter) 13 minutes before it was even created by Dervishdude. Dervishdude's only edits after that involved the Wayne Smith article, as well as adding a redirect at Wayne Robert Smith - a page addressed under this deletion debate a few years ago. Dervishdude has also identified as being from the same IP range as many of the UD IP sockpuppets. (Note the contribution history for Talk:Wayne Smith (cybersquatter), where Dervishdude signs comments posted by 124.186.78.43 and 121.223.8.38.) Ckatz^chat _spy 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- like it or not, this individual is notable per the various refs associated with the article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A. B., please review the revised note above, as the version you responded to did not include details regarding the page's creation history. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those unaware of the background of this person on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily.

I'm well aware that Wayne Smith was likely the creator of this article. Nevertheless, he is notable, having been the subject of multiple press articles about multiple domain-squatting incidents -- not just the 2006 Bindi Irwin case. Here's a sample of the press coverage:

Wordsworth, Matt (August 11, 2008). "When volunteers turn bad". Retrieved 2009-05-20.
Kellett, Christine (February 21, 2009). "High-tech high-jinx as website hijacked". Retrieved 2009-05-11. Latest incident
Finnila, Richard (October 10, 2006). "Cybersquatter takes site". Retrieved 2009-05-20.
Finnila, Richard (October 6, 2006). "Bindi's domain taken". Retrieved 2009-05-20.
Finnila, Richard (March 14, 2007). "Ex Australia Zoo volunteer 'cashing in'". Retrieved 2009-05-20.
Braithwaite, David. "Bindi website squatter 'abhorrent'". Retrieved October 5, 2006.
McNicoll, DD (August 13, 2008). "Borg's loud-shirt party". Retrieved 2009-05-20. 2008
Staff, TMZ (Oct 19, 2006). "Bindi Irwin's Website -- The Real Story?". Retrieved 2009-05-20.

Do we really want to gratify the desires of a banned editor by keeping his article? No -- but I believe we want even more to have comprehensive coverage of notable subjects. Besides, I don't think community dislike for a person is listed in our policies as a basis for deletion. It won't hurt us to keep this article and we can semi-protect it if that will partially assuage concerns about tampering. I'm not going to make a death-stand to save this article if the community really wants it gone. I do, however, think we should keep it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:CSD#G5 does give a justification for deleting this article if desired, however I still think we should keep this article and let the AfD run its course. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused, I agree with A. B. If it is a matter of a banned user editing or something it should go to ANI or something. He seems quite notable now, even if he wasn't back then. What am I missing here? Drawn Some (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel there are several points to consider here. One, is being a spammer notable enough to rate an article? Two, given Smith's history of abuse of Wikipedia, are there extenuating circumstances that would suggest we use extra discretion in deciding if an article is warranted? (For example, are we just feeding the ego that seems to regard Wikipedia as his personal directory service?) Finally, based on what I've observed, the editor who created the article is in all likelihood User:Universe Daily (aka Wayne Smith). Given that he is banned outright, we'd have to remove his contributions anyway - which wouldn't leave an article at all. To be honest, I listed this at AfD based on the subject; if I'd known at the time that it was probably posted by UD himself, I'd more likely have seen it as a speedy delete. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm conflicted. My instinct is to totally agree with Ckatz per WP:DENY. However, if A. B. wants it kept, what is the right response? I would like to comment on some issues with the article if it were kept.

We don't have any evidence that "Wayne Smith" is the real name, and the birth date given has no reference. There are 20 references, but they are essentially of two kinds: (1) Casual news reports of a single event (causing shock by registering bindiirwin soon after the death of Steve Irwin, with some related cybersquatting examples), and (2) articles written for web sites by a person using the name "Wayne Smith". None of the sources did any more than repeat a story. This SMH article seems most authoritative and it puts "Wayne Smith" in quotes, saying only that this name was used to register the domain (with a fake phone number), and that Australia Zoo "said a Wayne Smith had worked as a volunteer at the zoo for two weeks" (my emphasis of "a").
My understanding of WP:BIO makes me doubt that the subject is sufficiently notable, and there seem to be other cybersquatters with more notoriety (example), so Smith may not even be a notable squatter.
If the cybersquatting incidents are notable, they should be added to Cybersquatting#Notable_cases, which would make the Smith article redundant (and pointless because it contains no verifiable information other than the fact that some cybersquatting occurred).
The article lists some squatted domain names that still appear to be controlled by Smith. It seems very counterproductive to blacklist those URLs so they can't be linked on WP, yet effectively list them in a vanity article. If the article is kept, I would argue that the domain names should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The incident with bindiirwin.com is WP:ONEEVENT. Otherwise a non-notable person. WWGB (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Man buys websites, annoys some people, gets minor local coverage, publicises self on Wikipedia, gets banned, returns using sockpuppet. I don't think there's much to discuss. Delete it, blacklist all the URLs, ban this sockpuppet. Fences and windows (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too much self-reference, and a borderline BLP. Andjam (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; vanity page by a banned user, so falls under WP:CSD#G5. If someone else wants to create the page, I think the "ONEEVENT" argument is strongest -- he's not really notable enough for our standards. (The only reason I didn't speedy delete it myself is it seemed a bit unrespectful for the people who took the trouble to comment here. It can wait for AFD close.) Antandrus (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- this is not a ONEEVENT subject. He's gained notoriety over the course of multiple, unrelated events. --23:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The strongest argument to delete is WP:Deny recognition. We don't need to give coverage to a cybersquatter and spammer. Fences and windows (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 17:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovan–Luxembourgian relations

No reliable sources establish in any way that this is a notable bilateral relationship. All that reliable sources allow us to say about these two countries is that Luxembourg recognized Kosovo's independence. Efforts to redirect this to a useful target (i would favor International recognition of Kosovo) have been reverted. I have no opposition to a redirect after deletion, but consider this to be a highly implausible search term for people interested in a list of countries that have, or have not, recognized kosovo's indepdendence. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This recognition is very important but it is better covered in the article suggested by Bali ultimate. I don't see the level of in-depth coverage of the topic that one would expect to see in order to establish notability of the subject of this article. Drawn Some (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a directory of embassies. No independent coverage of the article's stated topic as a whole. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable in my opinion. Luxembourg contributes €30 million to Kosovo already now. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE no demonstration of how this is notable. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

€30 million to Kosovo can easily be covered in 1 line in Foreign relations of Kosovo. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has Monaco-Tuvalu been up for deletion yet? The proposed single country articles will stop this, I hope. Collect (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked. By some miracle our obsessive-compulsive stub creator didn't do that one. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with being so short. But it doesn't mean it can't be improved. --♪♫Berkay^0652|message 10:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note some canvassing going on by turkish flame (yes the "message" is neutral, the audience all have voted keep on these sorts of afd's in the past). [31] [32] [33] [34].Bali ultimate (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Flame forgot Richard A Norton who votes keep without fail. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete clearly 2 small countries like this are never going to have any notable relations, no notable trade, no diplomatic conflicts, unless Luxembourg becomes a major trading partner to Kosovo, this is close to the most non notable of non notables. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article should stay and contribute, and I am completely against deletion.--Liridon 20:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Sintonak.X (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE is not valid. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator sums it nicely. Keep votes have not provided any rationale that would make me think otherwise. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and precedent.--Avala (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching Kosovo for "Luxembourg", and Luxembourg for "Kosovo" shows nothing. There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. The tiny piece of information in this article should be in the article for each country (except, because the information is essentially trivial, it probably will not be added in practice). Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovan–Maltese relations

Since there are no reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any depth that would allow for the construction of a proper encyclopedia article beyond this stub. The only thing that can be said (and is) is that Malta recognized kosovo's independence. Well, i have no opposition to a redirect to International recognition of Kosovo once this is deleted, but will note that this is a highly implausible search term. Attempts at redirecting on its own have been reverted. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable other than recognition. After Kosovo builds up significant relations with such important allies as Malta and Tuvalu and those relations receive sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources, these articles can be undeleted. Drawn Some (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of nations have recognized lots of other nations. That doesn't make for notable relations between any of them. No coverage of the topic as a whole. Simply non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE with no demonstration of how the article meets WP:N. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles which say "X-Y relations are relations between X and Y" are a teeny bit suspect as to actual content, no? Collect (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Collect. Never before have I ever seen a WP article that was a circular definition and nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no evidence that WP:N is met Nick-D (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with being so short. But it doesn't mean it can't be improved. --♪♫Berkay^0652|message 10:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its length is completely irrelevant.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note some canvassing going on by turkish flame (yes the "message" is neutral, the audience all have voted keep on these sorts of afd's in the past). [35] [36] [37] [38].Bali ultimate (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no demonstration of notable relations. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article should stay and contribute, and I am completely against deletion.--Liridon 20:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sintonak.X (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you demonstrate notability with reliable sources (multiple ones preferably) that discuss this relationship in any depth?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Keep voters haven't provided any rational for why it should be kept. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and precedent.--Avala (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another X-Y relations page. Angria77 ^{Banter, Edits} 17:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching Kosovo for "Malta", and Malta for "Kosovo" shows nothing. There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flibbering

Nonsense. Something made up. My db-nonsense tag was removed and a "copy to wiktionary" template put in its place. Wiktionary doesn't want nonsense any more than Wikipedia does. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP. If only Urban Dictionary provided instant gratification like Wikipedia instead of making people wait several days to see their flibber show up. Drawn Some (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nonsense. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Drawn Some here - a quick Google search reveals nothing other than gibberish about 'flibbering'! JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedy as nonsense does not apply, as the content does not "consist purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history". It isn't entirely made up either, as some journalists and authors have used the word. But there is nothing of substance to write about it. Fences and windows (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's nonsense. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 19:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. This doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, as Fences and windows explained (and I would have thought that TenPoundHammer would have learnt by now not to edit war over speedy deletion tags), but clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as it is an attempt at a dictionary definition rather than an encyclopedia article. Whether Wiktionary wants it or not should be decided by that project, not by us, as editors here can't be expected to be conversant with their policies and guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think throwing nonsense at Wiktionary is very collegial. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "not very collegial" is an overly-nice way of putting it. Drawn Some (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it would be very collegial, and would in fact be very arrogant, for us to refuse to let our sister project use its own procedures to decide for itself whether it wants this or not. This is clearly an attempt to create a dictionary entry so any decision about its future should be made by the project that deals with dictionary entries. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page lacks any citations. I was unable to find any reliable sources during a brief search. The word may be related to Flibbertigibbet, but since WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a merger or redirect suggesting as much would be inappropriate. Cnilep (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or give to Wiktionary - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and certainly not one with one line entries and no citations. Zivlok (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of the verified oldest people. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hide Ohira

Previously deleted via PROD, but later recreated. Does not seem to pass WP:N, which requires multiple, non-trivial coverage of this individual. Of the Ghits, none contain any substantial coverage of or information on the subject of the article; they are all lists of where she ranks among the world's oldest and none of them go into any depth about her as an individual. Thus it has little potential for expansion and contains no information aside from what is present in the various supercentenarian lists. My basic problem with this article is that there is little, if any, information out there that could be added to this article aside from what is already present on these lists. For those worried that the Google test is not sufficient, I performed searches at the University of Texas Libraries Catalog (which covers several voluminous libraries), jstor.org (which covers journal articles back to the 1800s and may have had information on her if she was significant from an academic standpoint) and news archives with no results. It is possible that there are Japanese sources, but articles should not be kept (or created) on theoretical sources that may not even exist. Cheers, CP 17:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of the verified oldest people. Unlike others on that list, there are no sources describing her. All we can verify is her birth and death dates, which is not enough for an article. I looked and could only find her mentioned in lists. Fences and windows (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Fences and windows. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, WP:SNOW case. Jamie^☆S93 17:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Deleon Cohen

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. Nakon 16:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails almost every single criteria of WP:TEACH. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find one news story about him moving to Miami in 1991.[39] Otherwise, nothing. Without reliable sources, and without a clear assertion of notability, there's nothing to write an article about. He is said to have founded an institute focussing on Spanish Jews (anusim), but it doesn't seem to have got much recognition. Fences and windows (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fences and windows. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 19:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is completely inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - it's the resume of a non-notable "teacher". Bearian (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete. I second Fences and windows – there isn't even really a claim of notability here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete but his resume is impressive - Vartanza (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Bolton

This is really a biographical challenge. There are a great deal of contentious statements that are directly challenged by the subject in 3011814. When looking at the sourcing I don't really see multiple, reliable sources. I'm not completely convinced of encyclopedic notability. I'm asking for deletion based on two points 1) notability 2) BLP. That is to say, we need to get it [the BLP article] right and a starting over may not be a bad solution. The subject is living. Thank you for your time and consideration on this article. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google news search shows that he is quite clearly notable, many in-depth news articles. Maybe some editors would volunteer to scour it or Mr. Bolton could point out any unreferenced statements that are objectionable. The last time this happened on a different biography, the objectionable information came right off the subject's website so it was removed and immediately reinserted with the source cited. Drawn Some (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks like his complaint against the thesis is an example of the Streisand effect. He has written apologist material about the Nazi regime[40]. People with notoriety rather than achievement can have articles written about them ("Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety"). There are reliable sources referring to him, and he's been called "perhaps New Zealand’s best-known neo-Nazi", which is certainly a claim to notability.[41] Without knowing what Bolton objects to the complaint is hard to judge. Fences and windows (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. He has founded notable journals, has been a leader in political parties,[42] and has published numerous books. He has been called the "leading Holocaust Denier in New Zealand". He is one of the main publishers of the Protocols of Zion and related books.[43][44] Last year he forced a university to withdraw a masters thesis wrtitten about him,[45] which received wide coverage in New Zealand media amid concerns about academic freedom.[46][47][48][49][50] In one of those news articles the subject is described as a "well-known figure both in New Zealand and Australia in the far-right movement, and is a former National Front secretary."[51] The subject created a blog that holds more press coverage and private correspondence related to the dispute.[52] Here's another blog mostly devoted to reprinting information about him.[53] He has written a number of "open letters", indicating that he is not shy about making his opinions known in public.[54][55] The subject is a substantial topic in several books: Black Sun, ISBN 0814731554, pubished by a university press, Lucifer Rising: A Book of Sin, Devil Worship and Rock 'n' Roll ISBN 0-85965-280-7, The politics of nostalgia : racism and the extreme right in New Zealand, [56], and Lords of Chaos [57]. If I'm not mistaken, this is not the first time the subject has sought to have the biography deleted through OTRS. So to conclude, the subject is a public person who has sought publicity for his causes, but who has also made strenuous efforts to avoid scrutiny. He is profiled in multiple reliable sources and meets the WP standards of notability. Will Beback talk 19:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. — Will Beback talk 19:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Will Beback talk 19:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WillBeBack. There is so much evidence of notability for the subject and there is hardly a strong case to delete this article against the reasons to keep it. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 19:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a New Zealander, I can say he seems to be mentioned in the media fairly regularly, making him notable in my eyes. Unfortunately. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment many of the works he has published are held by the national library, search at http://nlnzcat.natlib.govt.nz/. This is a good source of independent/official information and links. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find. It appears that around 32 books or publications by Bolton are in the national library, which substantiates his notability as a writer. Will Beback talk 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Will Beback. Plebty of sources to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question I take it that you mean he's questioning the way that certain bits are worded, especially unsourced parts. Since he has problems with bits of the article, couldn't we stubify it and completely rebuild it, sourcing every little bit of the article? Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, just about the only part of the article that isn't sourced is the subject's alma mater, which I doubt is contentious. Will Beback talk 03:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tentative~~ keep: Seems notable enough, or at least notorious enough. I agree the article seems to be well sourced, especially in the part I imagine was most controversial, about the censorship of the thesis. Without any further information about what alleged inaccuracies the subject has complained about, I can't make any strong judgement on the BLP issue. I see that the nominator deleted two passages citing BLP concerns immediately before nominating this for deletion, which suggests that any BLP issues that remain are less important. At least one part that was deleted (about being a member of the Adelaide Institute) seems like a case for changing tense and improved footnoting (adding another to the Waikato Times source), not deletion. So this makes me suspect that the BLP issues wouldn't really be that hard to address. Of course, I don't know any details of his allegations, but from what I can see, it seems a fairly clear keep to me. I would reconsider if it becomes clear that most of the article is affected by his allegations, and it would be hard to address these well enough. -- Avenue (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the tentative part. Enough of the article now has multiple citations to good sources that I can't see any realistic scenario where his allegations would be reason enough to delete the whole thing. -- Avenue (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dislike holocaust denial (eg [58]), but I doubt he's very notable (I nominated him for deletion last time). Many of the links Will Beback provides in this discussion are links to far-right primary sources, rather than being all secondary sources. Except for two sentences ("Bolton was a co-founder ..."), all of the content in the article either cites a single book from a university press (how much editorial oversight do such books have given the need for academic freedom?) or relate to the libel controversy, or is uncited. Andjam (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added new sources, and reused many that were already there. New York University Press is well regarded, the book is by an expert in the area, and it's fairly recent, so I don't see a problem there. -- Avenue (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University press books are considered among the most reliable sources. See WP:V#Reliable sources. Will Beback talk 19:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We've establised notability, so primary sources can be used with care to fill in some facts. Fences and windows (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the NYU press book and mentions in Sunday Star - Times and other NZ papers signify notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 17:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Forsyth Experience

No references to this team in reliable sources, only claim to notability is the inclusion of Alex Forsyth. Wronkiew (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that this team meets the notability criteria; a google search revealed no reliable sources that have discussed it. Creator has declared a conflict of interest as a member of the team, and as far as I can tell, this is not the University team but an intramural team. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There aren't even unreliable sources. It might exist, but we can't verify that, and it isn't at all known outside the team itself if it does exist. Fences and windows (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. With references, I would probably be saying keep.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a developing page. Rome wasn't built in a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.64.210 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 27 May 2009

Delete. The team exists but cannot be considered notable enough for a wikipedia page. A line has to be drawn somewhere. AnOrdinaryBoy (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability whatsoever as far as football teams go. Doesn't appear to play in recognized league of any notability at all. Seems to be just a group of kids who have formed a football club. --ClubOranje^T 08:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Development of Windows Vista. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Longhorn

Lacks unique content, already duplicated in Microsoft codenames — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treedel (talk • contribs)

Delete no new content, no sources --Darth NormaN (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No sources? Try looking again, and you will see a lot of references and sources. AimalCool (talk)

Delete and redirect to Microsoft codenames. There are no sources here and it's not really that notable if it never actually happened. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No sources? Try looking again, and you will see a lot of references and sources. AimalCool (talk)

Delete per "why is this even here?" :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Development of Windows Vista. Longhorn wasn't abandoned, it was the codename for what was announced as Vista in 2005. I think the article is wrong; Longhorn/Vista was always going to be the interim between XP and Blackcomb (Windows 7), but as Blackcomb was delayed more of its features went into Longhorn/Vista. Fences and windows (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although see [59] Fences and windows (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you see the history,[60] it was redirected to Development of Windows Vista, then Windows NT 6.0, until AimalCool recreated it yesterday. AimalCool has been making a number of problem edits, just as creating unnecessary redirects, non-free images uploads, crystal ball pages, non-notable pages. Fences and windows (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Microsoft codenames, but give the AfD process time to work. Treedel (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why to the codenames? Longhorn was the project that turned into Vista, so Development of Windows Vista would be a more obvious target for anyone wanting to learn about it. Fences and windows (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Longhorn" is the codename, so I suggested it go to the codename. It would be the same to me if it was redirected to the development page. Treedel (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Development of Windows Vista. As Longhorn was the codename for Vista, the development of Longhorn is really the development of Vista. A redirect to a list of codenames isn't as appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Development of Windows Vista. It seems like the page does not need to be expanded, and redirection would be the best solution at this moment. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 15:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete Why should it be deleted? The article isn't bad in my opinion. It tells you information about Longhorn; it has a lot of references and sources. Also, it says how similar it is with XP and Vista.

I don't think this article should be deleted or redirected. It should be like this. Slowly, more information and references will be added by dome people or me.

AimalCool (talk)

Comment. AimalCool removed a comment of mine when adding their own comments. I reverted. I am now restoring my comment and their other comments. Fences and windows (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fan (person). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fanboy

Dicdef, original research, poor sources, no hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, lacking reliable sources, possibly failing WP:V, and as ten pound stated, No hope of expansion.--~~Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ~~ ^Life_Death 17:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Both to Fanboy (disambiguation). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Fan (person), with a disambig note for Fanboy at the top. Fences and windows (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both with Fan (person), there is already a section on this, just add the info from these articles to it. ~Sana (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Fan (person), I really can't see the need for an article on the specific term. Pick it up with {{redirect}} and link to Fanboy (disambiguation) (check that the 'fanboy' items under "Media" are there too), which links to wiktionary for the definition. (Emperor (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a lot of work, but fanboy is a commonly used expression, Google finding it appearing in 4,520,000 places on the internet. It is a notable concept, something that goes far above just the definition of the word. Dream Focus 03:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how is the concept of Fanboy or Fangirl notably different from Fan (person), such that they need separate articles? Equivalent terms shouldn't have separate articles. Fences and windows (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fan (person)#Fanboy/fangirl, which is the same topic, per WP:DICDEF. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fan (person)#Fanboy/fangirl, same concept with a different name. AlexanderM 28 May 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 11:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, good arguments for both keeping as a standalone article and merging. Since we can't do both, the best thing to do is to close this AFD and let the merge discussion continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Russell-Cowan

Am artist known only as he was the main person to be featured in a film of schizophrenia. His art is not notable and he will likely never be mentioned again unless connected to a dicscussion of the film. Any information here should be moved to My Name Is Alan and I Paint Pictures. Passportguy (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above film is not about schizophrenia. It's about an artist who so happens to have schizophrenia. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) under Creative professionals it states that "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Alan and his work are both subjects of a feature-length film. It is very hard to establish notability with Artists, but obviously he was considered notabile enough for someone to make a documentary about him. Out of Phase User (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the film. The film is notable but he is not notable as an artist and his art is not notable. Available references are about the film, not about him or his art except as it figures in the film. Notability is not inherited. The film was not confirmation of his importance or significance, to the contrary, had the film not been made no one would have ever heard of him at all except for the people who pass him on the sidewalk. In addition, appearing in one film certainly does not make him notable as an actor. Another way of looking at it is remove any reference to the film and he is clearly not notable. In response to Kelapstick, if he were not schizophrenic the film would never have been made about him. Drawn Some (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added external links to the article to try to add some outside notability. Admitedly these do originate from Alan's website, but 3 out of 4 of them do not even mention the movie. He has created over 1000 paintings and has sold 150 out of a single gallery (Monster Gallery) with price ranges between $200 and $2000. These are a bit out of the point. The main point is that he is an Artist and has become notable through a documentary made about him. I can feel the downplaying of it all due to his schizophrenia, but often times the presence of a debilitating condition magnifies their ability to become famous in the public eye. I agree that he is on the edge of notable, but I believe he is there, none the less.Out of Phase User (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources can be used to flesh out an article but not to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added "as known as" Alan Streets. It is near impossible to find anything that boosts his notability like the movie does, but it should be noted that in order for interest in this movie to be made he must of already of been notable in a local Art Community (New York) which the external links to the Soho Journal attest to. It is from this local notability which germinated a movie which boosted his national notability. He's making and selling art. Sure... he's not a Damien Hirst as far as international recognizability goes, but I'm sure we're not going for such a tall order.Out of Phase User (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio. It's copied from [61]. I'm ambivalent about keeping an article on him, there's little out there about him aside from appearing in the documentary, but he does meet the criteria of notability. Fences and windows (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted copyvio text, so the article has to be assessed with less. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the catching of the copyvio. Despite technically being here for over a year I'm still unsure what is allowed and not allowed as far as text with references. Included a little bit more bio info and fixed a reference. Would be nice to see a black KEEP with respect to your agreement to the fact that it meets criteria of notability, but I'll take what I can get.Out of Phase User (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. With the copyvio nicely dealt with (thank you, sorry not not doing it myself) and sources noted, I think he just scrapes in. Not every street artist has a documentary film made about them, nor is every street artist written about in several reliable sources. Fences and windows (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to film article for reasons detailed by Drawn Some. لenna vecia 13:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7 -- Hammer is right, no assertion of notability here. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicosingers

Contested PROD with no improvement. Does not pass WP:BAND. Sources don't backup the claims. Fluffy, self-promotional, and full of trivia. Wperdue (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Fails WP:BAND. Saying "Well known" isn't an assertation of notability in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TBDT Promotional Tour

fails notability, no sources and already covered under The Best Damn Thing#Promotion --Darth NormaN (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quite right, this mini-tour is already adequately covered in the album article, and isn't notable by itself. Fences and windows (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only two lines and a lot of wrong information. Better use a paragraph in the main article with correct information. (I already critisized that on May 7 on the talk page.) By the way: It has not been a festival tour in Europe. I still remember it was a typical concert tour (at least in EU). I've been there on July 12 (2007) at the "Stadtpark" in Hamburg. --Oli (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nominator struck nomination, no consensus to delete, and article appears to have been redirected by agreement. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Star (fragrance)

Comment. This fragrance launch seems to be getting some press:[62][63][64][65][66]. Many more non-English articles. Just two months till the European release. What are the notability guidelines for celebrity fragrances? Fences and windows (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAgainVitor Mazuco (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator has not advocated deletion. Proposing a merge requires no AFD discussion, nor does it require any administrator intervention. AFD is not the venue for proposing a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bloody good point. Nominator, please withdraw and discuss a merger. Fences and windows (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alright, good point. sorry about that. --Darth NormaN ^(talk) 17:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I disregarded the stricken comments. Absent that, I see a rough consensus to delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional narcissists

AfDs for this article:

Unreferenced list. I don't see how this could ever be NPOV, as there is no scientific standard as to which person (and especially not which fictional character) is narcisisstic. Any addition to this list is therefore essentially subjective, even if based on the opinions of a third party author or source. Passportguy (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep , but it will require sourcing that each of the characters listed has been so described in secondary sources. This should be possible, (I removed the repost speedy on the earlier list, which was much longer and not as appropriate) DGG (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have stated earlier, I don't think there is no way to source this in a NPOV manner. Even if I find third party sources that state that XYZ is narcissistic, that is an opinion of that particular author and other authors will disagree. In absense of a scientific method to establish whether somebody (especially a fictional character) is narcissistic, all additions are always opinions, regardless of whether they are held by large numbers of people or not.
- Btw : If you look at the previous AfD that was the main reason the other article got deleted as well. Passportguy (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~TPH~~Passortguy, are you actually saying we can not use material about fictional people from third party reliable sources describing the sorts of characters they are? What sort of material do you think we could use, or can we not write about fictional people at all? DGG (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you meant to address Passportguy, not me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that we should not use opinions (not refering to facts here) to classify people/characters here. The problem with this is that if we permit third party opinions to be the basis for classification we'll soon have lists like "The best tennis players of all times", which then will include almost all professional tennis players, just because some source states that a reporteer called a particular tennis player a "great player". That is why there should be no lists that categorize whatever based on individual opinions alone. Passportguy (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad point but the scenarios are different. Note however that using those sources one could conceivably create a List of tennis players considered great. --Dominus Noster (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, inherently not-NPOV. I swear, DGG would keep everything if he could. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Right, sorry 22:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Good for DGG I'd say. --Dominus Noster (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I certainly would not. I vote to delete here for several articles a day, and I've deleted 7500 articles by speedy alone. That puts me in the top 10% of admins for number of articles deleted. I suppose I should describe myself as a deletionist, for the half of WP submissions that should be deleted. DGG (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, entirely original research, and agree that professional psychiatrists aren't in the business of diagnosing fictional characters as narcissists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)

Diagnoses of fictional characters. Actually, psychiatrists have looked at personality disorders, including narcissism, in fictional characters. Dyer SK: Narcissism in the novels of Herman Melville. Psychiatr Q. 1994 Spring;65(1):15-30; MA Shipe: "On Being Updike Forever": Narcissism as National Epic in John Updike's Short Fiction. 2007 - Washington University; Hyler SE, Gabbard GO, Schneider I: Homicidal maniacs and narcissistic parasites: stigmatization of mentally ill persons in the movies. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1991 Oct;42(10):1044-8; Hesse M, Schliewe S, Thomsen RR: Rating of personality disorder features in popular movie characters. BMC Psychiatry 2005, 5:45 "Suzanne Stone in the film "To Die For" is a young woman who wants to be on television at any cost. She marries a young man, but soon begins to have affairs with TV producers to accomplish her main goal: to become a news-reporter at a major TV station. When her husband tries to persuade her to settle down and have children, she decides to have him killed instead, taking advantage of three troubled youths, whom she has met while trying to make a TV production. SS was seen as a prototypical narcissistic person by the raters: on average, she satisfied 8 of 9 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, some histrionic personality disorder criteria, and relatively few others. In terms of the five-factor model, she is as open to experience as the others, as conscientious as the others (except for AW), as extraverted (except for SM), as disagreeable (except CS), and a low-scorer on neuroticism. Had she been evaluated for personality disorders, she would receive a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder." BC Douglas: Dickens' characters on the couch: an example of teaching psychiatry using literature. Medical Humanities 2008;34:64-69; more here. Fences and windows (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Scientific evidence or no, if third party sources have described these characters as narcissistic then they belong in there. I've done some quick research on a few of the characters. With regards the character Azkadellia, it would seem that the actress who played her described said character as narcissistic. I haven't actually seen the film the character appeared in so I wouldn't know for certain. The characters Hyacinth Bucket, Lex Luthor and Opal Koboi definitely belong in there though, as do a few others. --Dominus Noster (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no way to apply the same standard to all members of the list. In one case, the actor who voiced the role in a Disney animated film says the character is narcissistic. In another case, a noted psychiatrist writes a paper describing various narcissistic fictional characters. For a different character, the author of a short story makes the diagnosis on Oprah. In a different case, Ebert declares it. What a mess. Besides, Narcissus isn't even on the list. Drawn Some (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't prove Narcissus wasn't a real person. We even have an article about him.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if true, how would it be relevant? DGG (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a funny. I guess if a joke has to be explained, it wasn't that funny (the nut of the joke was "maybe narcissus really existed, in which case he wouldn't belong here.")Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An excellant point Bali ultimate. Secondly, it seems to me like the cases you've provided will make excellant sources, Drawn Some. I'd be very grateful if you were to provide the links. --Dominus Noster (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were not intended to be actual cases, they were hypothetical. Sorry, I thought that was obvious because I didn't name the cases. Drawn Some (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ah, apologies. Such verifications would be ideal however. --Dominus Noster (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment. There can be meaningful expansion of Narcissism#In popular culture, but I don't think this list is maintainable. Fences and windows (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was prepared to like this, but it's nothing but an indiscriminate (i.e., no other identifying information) list and a few people saying, "There's a narcissist". The Joker-- for sure! Lex Luthor-- definitely man! Remember General Zod from Superman II? Dude, that guy loved himself! etc. etc. -- This one goes out of its way to be indiscriminate. I was reading it and ran across "Napoleon", and I'm like, "hey, he's not fictional-- there really was a Napoleon Bonaparte". No, in this case, it's the pig from George Orwell's Animal Farm. Notable absence from the list is Narcissus from Greek mythology. This type of list might have been okay a few years ago, but slapping together a list of blue-links doesn't cut it anymore. Mandsford (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR and NPOV concerns (if we choose a uniform definition) aside, my main reason to see this article deleted is that, in the process of writing it, the bloody trope namer wasn't on the list. Seriously, guys? Sceptre ^(talk) 02:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford. I could envision a sourced version of this list that would be worth keeping in Wikipedia. But no attempt has been made to source the article yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In that case then let us endeavour to source the article. It seems there are reliable primary sources on the internet, the ones provided further up the page look perfect. I think deletion would be unwise at this point and a waste of good (for want of a better word) information. If the article doesn't improve in time then let's consider deletion again, but for the time being, no. --Dominus Noster (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I recognize that this is your first contribution, and we all want to welcome you to Wikipedia. It takes some time to learn the do's and "don't"s here. I'd endorse the idea of having you "userfy" this so that you can improve it as your schedule permits, and then re-release it. To start this, you would create an article called "User:Dominus Noster/List of fictional narcissists". If you have questions, leave a note for me on my talk page and I'll be happy to answer them. Mandsford (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thank you Mandsford, much appreciated. --Dominus Noster (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete due to problems with NPOV/definition of the subject matter. The subject has to be tight enough so that any possible sources shouldn't conflict each other. Also the scope is too broad: are we trying to diagnose fictional subjects with Narcissistic personality disorder or just making comments about personality quirks? The former is pracically unsourcable and the latter is overly indiscriminate. Them From Space 14:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern Themfromspace but as said at the top of the article it's for overtly proud, vain and arrogant characters. If some characters have been diagnosed as narcissists in either fiction (like Livia Soprano) or reality (like Voldemort) then they should also be included. --Dominus Noster (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mandsford. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hopefully you don't need anyone telling you how to think, no third party media references for each character listed, but instead can use common sense here. If there is a single entry on that list, that you sincerely doubt should be there, discuss it on the talk page, and if no one has any reasonable objection, eliminate it. Has anyone who read a certain comic book, or series of novels, or whatnot, doubted the character from there on the list is narcissist? Dream Focus 04:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Couldn't have put it better myself DF, that's exactly the way we should do things around here. --Dominus Noster (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
- What you are doing is advocating original research in place of sourced statements. This goes directly against the spirit and mission of a verifiable encyclopedia. We can't just write what we feel to be true, we must source it. Them From Space 11:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well realistically speaking original research may be all Wikipedia has to offer but that's a discussion for another time and place as people have quite strong opinions about that sort of thing and it can all get rather heated. --Dominus Noster (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep What a dreadful list, Per WP:lede we shoudl share a bit about how these characters are significant and used in fiction. Per WP:List it would be much more helpful to share at least a little detail about each of these cited to share something about them to build a bit of a narrative rather that a glorified clump of information. Still these are editing issues not deleteion ones. -- Banjeboi 18:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dreadful list? I'll thank you to keep opinions like those to yourself. --Dominus Noster (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We are here to offer our opinions. This is a dreadful list, I could have called it subpar, lacking, wanting, etc. but really it misses the mark even for many of the lists brought to AfD. I would love to have read it and actually been amused or learned something, neither happened. This list has potential and sources certainly exist to support that fictional characters are narcissistic. This list should be expanded to include at least passing information about each character's narcissism that would inform on the subject. -- Banjeboi 07:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Mandsford nails the problems here. Eusebeus (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm siding with the idea that we can source this now. Names should not be added just based on the fact that the editor thinks the character is a narcissist - if we have more than one reliable source that makes this assessment, or if the character is prominently referred to as a narcissist within the work, that should suffice. Fences and windows (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely un-referenced and per reason here and less so here from the deletions of Category:Fictional narcissists. Willing to re-consider if it can be shown how, why, and by whom each of these characters are considered 'narcissistic'. --maclean 01:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So are you saying that you think that some of the characters on the list are not narcissistic? With regards to the list lacking references, attempts are being made currently to source the article. --Dominus Noster (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User: Fences and windows' excellent research shows that the nomination is mistaken and that there is indeed scope to develop the article in a NPOV way. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should Keep this list, but only include narcissists as sourced by third parties. While that seems a challenging task, it is not an insurmountable one....SouthernCritic111 (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inherently POV, subjective fictional foo (and per Mandsford's reasoning). And if User:Dominus Noster isn't Jupiter Optimus Maximus (aka Illustrious One, aka YourLord), I'll eat my hat. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Do you want it rare, medium or well-done? --Dominus Noster (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Seared, please. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Bon appetite. --Dominus Noster (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment: As I suspected, User:Dominus Noster is a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:YourLord and has been indefinitely blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YourLord. As such I have striken his above comments. Turns out I won't be eating my hat after all, though he may be eating crow. Also I'd like to point out that this article ought to have been speedied as G4, since it was previously deleted 2 years ago. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. About as clear as it gets. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sales and charts achievements for Mariah Carey

AfDs for this article:

The article contains many fake, unsourced informations. Others are already mentioned in the Mariah Carey discography, Mariah Carey and albums/singles articles.

Examples: 1) Canada, New Zealand, Germany, Australia, Europe, Israel - none of the mentioned records is a record. Many other artists are much more successful with more number 1 albums, more platinum albums, more certified singles, and more hit singles. 2) Korea, China, Asia, Netherlands - unsourced and fake. 3) South Africa - is the unofficial airplay chart really worth mentioning it here? 4) United Kingdom - is the unofficial, unsourced "'Top 10 female artists with the most gold albums" important at all? The list does not include men or bands, and only include gold albums. Many other artist (even females) have many multiplatinum albums in the UK and are so much more successful. 5) United States - Merry Christmas is not "the second biggest selling Christmas album of all time in the US". It's completly fake. Here is the official list and Merry Christmas is #8. [67]. And few others records are unsourced and may not be records at all (like Merry Christmas).

It should be deleted becuse it does not deserve its own article. It includes many fake, unsourced and already mentioned in the other articles informations. Actually, it could be an article proving how unsuccessful Mariah Carey is outside the U.S., if we compare her with other artists. And since last debate year ago, the article is still unsourced (and can't be in many cases - fake claims). Max24 (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fake information and do we have any other articles like this? This should be put into the main article, or at least the most important points should and everything we can't verify be removed. The first AfD was a farce, the only arguments were basically ILIKEIT. A lot of this fails on WP:V and WP:RS. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 14:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 I think that the fake and unsourced claims are bad enough to fall under "blatant misinformation." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in accordance with TenPoundHammer et al. There are already multiple Wikipedia pages for Carey in particular, and chart/sales achievements in general. Or else change the title of this article to "Mariah rulezzzz!!!!!" This reads like fan club material.Nostrildamus (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy. Determining whether it is a hoax or not requires external research; speedy deletion is for blatantly obvious cases. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's blatant misinformation that could be harmful. We sure don't want the press getting hold of this misinformation, for one. I think it should be deleted ASAP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the press would find this page and be happy to see that we make efforts to bring false articles to the light, agree, and nuke them. Jamie^☆S93 22:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A {{hoax}} template would warn off anyone who is even marginally responsible from relying on the page's contents. I should also note that I normally would have said "clean up and keep" to a nomination of this sort, since the topic clearly is notable even if the content is unreliable; in this case, however, the same topic is already covered adequately in other articles, therefore deletion is justified. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and above. From a look into the history, there seems to be no salvageable version, the article is almost exclusively a collection of unsourced trivia, and as shown in the nom a part of it is also false, or misleading. Not all of it deliberate though, I'm guessing mostly through Chinese whispers and spin doctoring from all involved parties. There are one or two reliable references that can be dropped of at Talk:Mariah Carey.
I would not object a SNOW closure at some point, but it's not at all G3 vandalism, not least because only some parts are apparently blatantly wrong. Amalthea 15:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The claim in the article is that Merry Christmas is the biggest selling Christmas album of all time in the U.S., but the Top 40 Christmas Albums list at http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/23093/chart-watch-extra-the-top-40-christmas-albums/ does not appear to be limited to the U.S. (as far as I can tell). It is not inconceivable that Merry Christmas could be both the #8 biggest selling Christmas album worldwide, and #1 in the U.S. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The RIAA only tracks US sales and RIAA has Elvis Presley's Christmas album selling more than 3 times as many (12 million vs. ~3 million) as Mariah. So Mariah does not have the #1 selling Christmas album in the US. TJ Spyke 20:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It all seems to be in Mariah Carey discography already. If a country is missing from those tables, add it in, using reliable sources. Fences and windows (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if fixed, it would be a vandalism magnet, nearly impossible to keep accurate and synchronised with other views of essentially the same information. Redundancy is a bad thing, especially in an area that is plagued by socks.—Kww(talk) 03:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Max24 is a Celine Dion's fan and Wikipedia is not the place for absurd disputes between singers. This article is necessary. The information just need references. And the information is not fake. Whitney Houston [68] and Michael Jackson [69] have similar pages, without numerous sources as well. So why a legend like Mariah Carey cannot have one? Only sources are needed and everything is OK. The deletion request by Max24 was doubtful and possibly stingy. ChristopherMix(talk) 05:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

above user removed notification template from the article, user is beleived to be a sock of User:Petergriffin9901 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You can not source things that are untrue because these sources don't exist. Half of this article has completly fake informations. The rest is already mentioned in other articles. And many sales and charts achievements mentioned here are no sales and charts achievements at all. And don't remove the notification template from the article. Max24(talk) 09:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Max24 you already nominated - you don't have to vote. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wow. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions (reverse chronological order)

The list already appears on a chronological order here, including some more stats and trivia. There's no reason to have the list appear twice, is there? Last PROD was deleted, so I have to use AfD RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 14:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No need for duplicative article that differ only in order. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not much for lists anyway. But even setting that aside, the only difference between the lists is the order. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 14:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, duplicate list. Haven't these people heard of wikitable sortable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mind boggles. Ten Pound Hammer, are you able to make the table in the main article sortable for them, so they're not tempted to recreate this? Fences and windows (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them already are, oddly enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Just let me know when he qualifies under WP:ATHLETE or the WP:GNG and I'll be happy to restore. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ada

Contested PROD, reason given was "Removed deletion box- player signed for Crewe Alexandra yesterday, will be key part of the squad" - which has a hint of crystal ballery to it. Footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league/competition, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. I'm pretty sure this article has been through AfD before, but could not find it. --Jimbo^[online] 13:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note have listed for speedy deletion under Wikipedia:CSD#G4. --Jimbo^[online] 14:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as one of a mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Benson in January 2007. Struway2 (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see substantial coverage so the biography doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it should have been left dead after the mass AfD. Doesn't meet notability as of WP:ATHLETE and doesn't even really meet WP:V since it's stating events in the future as factual. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 14:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently non-notable & fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate when/if he plays for Crewe Alex. Giant Snowman 16:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you just want me to put it back up in 2 month's time, when he's played in a game, even though he was playing in a league that is one below the Football League? It's just because the manager Guðjón Þórðarson has stated in interviews that he will play, being as so far Crewe Alexandra only have 1 centre back? Rup235 Rup 18:02, 22 May 2009 (BST)

Yes. That sounds like an excellent idea. Would you like it moved to your userspace in the meantime so we can close this AfD? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can just notify an admin to reinstate it (when he makes his debut in a fully-professional league or cup). --Jimbo^[online] 17:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to be honest, I've saved the entire article on my computer, so I can just reload exactly the same content in 2 months time... thankyou for your help, I'm trying to know what I'm doing... Rup235 Rup 18:26, 22 May 2009 (BST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can't see the point of deleting then recreating it, he's in a pro league team and it is just a case of waiting for him to play he doesn't even have to be "key part of the squad". He meets WP:FOOTYN if we are allowed to take that into consideration.--Holkingers (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now plays for a professional team who are undergoing a major re-vamp of the squad. He is one of only two center backs at Crewe. glennb28 t/c 15:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage to pass WP:GNG, so we go to WP:ATHLETE. This requires the player to have played in a fully-professional league, and he has not played in such a league. Crewe's league season doesn't start again until August, and it'd be crystal balling to predict what's going to happen between now and then. It only takes a minute to recreate if and when he does play. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but somebody keep a copy somewhere because this player will probably play at some point next season. For now though, this fails WP:ATHLETE. John Sloan @ 20:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can just notify an admin, who can reinstate the article. --Jimbo^[online] 22:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems a bit WP:POINTY to delete. He's received some national news coverage related to his recent signing. He has played professional football for a fully professional team, in a national-level league, which very much almost meets WP:ATHLETE, but not quite, because a handful of teams in that leage aren't fully professional. He has since been signed by a team that does meet that criteria, and at the age of 24, it's fully expected he would be playing in a few weeks. It's a waste of everyone's time running around deleting articles that will in all likelyhood be recreated in a few weeks. I'd simply note such pages, and if come September it's clear that they won't be playing professional football, then delete them then. Nfitz (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate if he ever makes an appearance in a fully-pro league; claiing that "it's fully expected he would be playing" is of course a WP:CRYSTAL issue. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not. It's been pointed out before that you don't seem to understand that. By your standard, we should remove articles relating to the 2014 World Cup - as who knows what will happen between now and then. Nfitz (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not so. WP:CRYSTAL states explicitly that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and 2016 Summer Olympics. ... Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative." Mr Ada's notability depends on his playing for Crewe, which is clearly "unverifiable and speculative": Crewe's next competitive game is not until August. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That he would still be playing for Crewe in a few weeks is speculative ... but the Orion 19 moon landing in 2020 is acceptable? Nfitz (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd be tempted to say that particular one was a bit too speculative for its own article, as yet, but it comes under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS anyway :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I was tempted to PROD it, and a few others. My point however wasn't to invoke it as the reason Patrick Ada should be here, but as an example of something completely over the top that WP:CRYSTAL is meant to deal with; a near inevitable event a few weeks away is not what WP:CRYSTAL is; there's no reason this article can't stay around, and if something really unexpected happens in the next few weeks, then it can be deleted. It's not like we're expecting him to play in 2020, 2015, or even 2010 ... but in just a few weeks; I see little point at removing content that will most likely be back shortly, when we can wait a few weeks, and make a more informed decision. Nfitz (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I get your point, and if Crewe were playing this weekend, I'd probably agree we should leave it and see if he played. But if he didn't, should we leave it until the week after, and the week after, and the week after that... I hope nothing happens to prevent the man having a long and happy career in a fully-pro league with Crewe or elsewhere, but until he starts having it, as it says at WP:N#Notability is not temporary: "Notability is not predictable: although a topic that does not meet this guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive substantial coverage in the future." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I accept it is quite likely he will play next season for Crewe and hence qualify under WP:ATHLETE, it is currently WP:CRYSTAL. Just because Crewe have only two CBs now, doesn't mean they'll start the season with only two. Recreate if and when. --ClubOranje^T 08:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You lot are funny. The point of Wikipedia is to provide information for people. What's wrong with keeping it so that Crewe Alex fans who are looking for information on a new signing can look at it, for the sake of two months? The annoying thing is in this case is he has played 90-odd games in a team who got promoted to the Football League... Rup235 (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you refering to Histon as the club who he played "90-odd games with" that got promoted? Because they didn't. --Jimbo^[online] 11:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise for getting mixed up between Histon and Barnet. But you still see my point? Rup235 (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Balls Magazine

Non-notable publication. User name of original author tends to indicate that the article was created by the magazine's publisher. No references, unable to verify at all. Primarily seeks to promote. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find anything notable either, except a single promotional piece almost identical to the article. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 14:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It sounds like the kind of magazine that should have sources referring to it, but I suppose that publications for British backpackers in Australia are not the focus of much interest outside British backpackers in Australia. I looked for sources; not a sausage. Fences and windows (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have tagged the article for having only one source and lacking 3rd party sources. Just in case it survives AfD, which is very unlikely seeing the strong support for delete. I will not support either keep or delete at this moment, but I will be watching this AfD entry.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:SOURCES. WWGB (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems notable. But I had trouble finding sources. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if one could verify the circulation of 50,000, I'd say "keep" in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, a lack of sources is going to be pretty crippling to that effort. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as hoax. لenna vecia 13:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kytrell McDonald

Contested CSD about a non-notable person. The only Ghits I found about him are unsourced blogs. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 13:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've been working with the article's creator to try and establish notability, and in that capacity I've done a fair bit of googling. I've not really found anything substantial. I have a few concerns, too, about awards - as far as I could see "YouTube awards" stopped after 2007, but the article's subject was apparently a winner in 2008, for example. If there aren't decent references forthcoming I'll be moving to a delete !vote. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article creator): MAde a mistake please keep. it was 2006 but i typed 08.im human sorry for tgis problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vh1-fac (talk • contribs) (refactored by This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- That's OK, but I still can't find any references for Kytrell having won in 2006 - Wikipedia has an article about the awards, and the winners are listed using their YouTube usernames (and the other reports of the awards I found also did this). We'd need something that explicitly said that "Kytrell McDonald" was a winner, so that readers can confirm the claim. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I've had a look for sources, and I have to say that I am sure that this is all wishful thinking. None of the sources in the article support any claims to have been in any shows or even on YouTube. This is a hoax. Fences and windows (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~As an aside, you can't speedy delete hoax articles.~~ That said, delete per This flag once was read and Fences and windows. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't? Then what is {{db-hoax}} for? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um...it's for...blatant and obvious hoaxes... Yeah, I guess I forgot about that one and read the non-criteria just a little too quickly. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Pokémon, I Choose You!#Book adaption and re-releases.--~~Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ~~ ^Life_Death 17:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Book 1: I Choose You

Delete No real world impotrance, ill-written, barely any internal links, only reference is a book ~~Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ~~ ^Life_Death 13:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It might be a good idea to redirect it to Pokémon, I Choose You!#Book adaption and re-releases. TheLeft orium 13:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I tried to fix it up yesterday, but all it has is a summary of the first few anime episodes and the publishing information. --Blake (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I have changed my mind, I agree with Leftorium. Good Idea.--~~Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ~~ ^Life_Death 15:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close AfD and do straight up redirect Just saves some paperwork in the end.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balot

Non-notable individual. [email protected] (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just add, as the initiator of this AFD, that I am open-minded and will support keeping the article if it can be expanded and materially improved.[email protected] (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This actor appeared in many films in the 1970s. He is quite well known in the Philippines as well. Although a google search provides few links to this individual, more work needs to be done on this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most of his films weren't really put anywhere except INDB because they happened so long ago. Needs some expansion, but meets basic notability if you use the Filipino sources. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 14:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please provide a link or citation to these Filipino sources? --Explodicle (T/C) 17:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless some more sources can be found, we only have a list of films of IMDB, most seeming to be bit parts. If there are Filipino sources, please present them. Searching is complicated as he shares his name with a boiled duck egg. Fences and windows (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor correction, it's actually a boiled aborted-duck egg. Cheers! --Maverx (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actor is notable however his death predates the internet boom, articles related to him may only be available on printed media. Attempting to research extensively on subject. --Maverx (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be on board for keeping once you present these sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I realize sourcing will be more difficult for a foreign actor from the 70s and 80s, but he doesn't appear to be notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Balot, Côte-d'Or unless sources that establish notability are presented here. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! do not redirect to Balot, Côte-d'Or; User:Explodicle is labouring under a misconception and mixing apples and oranges. The subject of this AFD is a person; Balot, Côte-d'Or is a geographical location with no connection to the subject (who was from the Philippine, in any event). [email protected] (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! User:[email protected] has the misconception that I have a misconception about the subject of this AfD. If a user searches for "Balot", they should get sent somewhere that might be useful instead of being presented with a 404 error. Make no assumptions about which topic for which they are searching. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are there any Filipino newspapers or magazines, which archive articles from the seventies? If not, you can't realistically be expected to find any. Just as in the cases where a book was published a century ago, you don't need to find references in third party media sources, since that isn't likely to be possible. Dream Focus 17:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your reasoning. Are you saying we should keep this article because it may be impossible to find sources? --Explodicle (T/C) 18:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete where are the reliable, independent sources that treat the subject of this BLP in any depth?Bali ultimate (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. He is clearly dead so there are no BLP concerns. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand with what sources? Since he's dead, and no reliable sources were generated in his life, it's unlikely that some will emerge later. Still fails bio, dead or alive.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are those the same research skills that made you think he was still living? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bali's research skills don't change whether or not the article has sources to establish notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your backhanded personal attack is ridiculous. Do you have reliable sources that discuss the subject of this bio in any depth? When someone says "keep and expand" one would hope they could point towards which sources might possibly be used to expand the article. If they can't point to any sources, then their comment is idiotic.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn per improvements made after nomination. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholmsnatt

Swedish movie with no assertion of notability. Lots of ghits, but they all seem to be on Youtube and similar sites. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable film that is very popular in Sweden. Several reliable Swedish sources exist (including reviews): [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. This source says Stockholmsnatt was shown at 900 schools in Sweden for over 700 000 teens (that's almost 10% of the Swedish population!) TheLeft orium 13:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable film in Sweden. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Swedish Wikipedia has an article and sources are available to establish notability. -J^mundo 21:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article could use cleanup, expansion and referencing, but clearly notable, much debated and still remembered movie. Tomas e (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declan Williams

His notability is under question. Google shows very few hits. [76] TopDec (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real question about it, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources, not notable. He doesn't seem to have won any major anything either. Drawn Some (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above reasons. Passportguy (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. لenna vecia 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion besides the nominator (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny MacAskill

Person only known for one internet video - WP:ONEVENT, will likely never be heard of again Passportguy (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; per my reply on your talk page. Person meets basic basic notability criteria for people. Has been the subject of many news articles, to show a few:

And is taking part in more then one event, see:

Keep Plenty of in-depth coverage. It's not one event; the video gained him attention initially but the coverage is not about the video, it is primarily about him. One event is more for ordinary people who get involved in something like a murder or win the lottery. This guy is known for his career. Drawn Some (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you provide (and add to the article) references that he currebtly has a career notable as such. All articles I read always introduce him as "the Youtube sensation" or "the person known for his stunts on Youtube"

My main concern is that come 6 months no one will be talking about this person or his videos as the internet community moves on to new "wonders". Now if indeed his videos have a lasting effect, then he should be added then, but until they actually do, all of this effect is purely speculative. Passportguy (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely understand your concern, but I think you're focusing too much on the YouTube and not so much on his bicycling abilities. Re-read WP:ONEVENT, it specifically is about whether the event or the people involved in it should be covered. That guideline would imply that the article should be about his YouTube celebrity instead of him. Just think of YouTube as another media channel, they broke the news, then everyone else picked up on it. Drawn Some (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if someone could provide sources where he his discussed independantly of his Youtube video, e.g. for winning a national championship etc, I'd have no objection to him having his article. But so far I haven't seen that, so I have to assume that once people "move on", so will he be forgotten. The main thing you have to ask yourself is : Will this person be remembered in 50 years ? Very unlikely unless he accomplishes more than this video and a number of interwiews and invitations based on temporary internet craze. If he does do anything notable in the future he may well be remembered, but at this point that is purely speculation. Passportguy (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually looked for links which don't mention his YouTube video, but what does it matter if all the links do mention it? And what does it matter if people "move on", that won't take away his notabillity will it? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Notability needs to ber permament in order for a person to have his own Wikipedia article. The fact that in 12 months no-one remembers a person and no-one or -thing has been permamently affected by him i a clear indication that the person weas not notable enough in the first place. Crazes, hypes or "internet wonders" may be notable if they recieve such high levels of coverage that they actually stand out as a notable example of that category, but if we keep adding articles on people with very fleeting notabilty, Wikipedia will become more of a news source on the newsest hypes and crazes than an actual encyclopedia. Passportguy (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out in my support, he has recieved "high levels of coverage". And he meets WP:BIO so I don't see how you can argue that he's not notable. And your argument of "might not be known in 12 months", isn't a good argument, and could be applied to any person - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NTEMP "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability" If no-one is talking about him in 12 months, then he isn't notable. That goes for any person, indeed. If they are stil taking about him, then he is and was notable. Thus this article should be re-added then. Or someone actually finds trace of him being notable beyond his video, in which case I'd be more than happy to retract my objections, as I have already stated above. Passportguy (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my keep vote, there are news reports about more then one event, and news reports about him are still pouring in. Also, from WP:NTEMP: "a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources", it does have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, and thus doesn't need any more. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passportguy, what is the one event? Drawn Some (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His Youtube video - the thing is is known for. Passportguy (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which video, the one with 0.5 million views from Sept 2008 or the one with 5.6 million views from April 2009? Or one of the other ones? Drawn Some (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or do you mean his whole channel? Drawn Some (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a bit silly. Yes, I do mean his channel. Thouasands of people have channels that are clicked by millions of people every day, and that fact doesn't make them notable. But - If you believe that having a series of internet Youtube videos and getting fleeting fame from them is sufficient, then that is okay. However I strongly believe that if Wikipedia still exists in 10 or 20 years and is cluttered by articles on people that had short bursts of semi-fame soon to be forgotten again, it is not very likely to be considered a serious resource. Passportguy (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passportguy, I agree with you about cluttering up the encyclopedia with cruft but the guidelines are what they are and they are intended to include this guy. Besides, a YouTube channel isn't an event, he's a stunt bicyclist and has gotten a significant amount of in-depth coverage in all sorts of media because of it. I give an opinion of "keep" on stuff I don't like all the time because it is notable and verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again - and I think I've stated this repeatedly now - if someone could provide a source that he has recieved "significant amount of in-depth coverage" on anything unrelated to his his youtube video, i.e. because whatever he did then was noted not just because he currently is a "youtube star" then I'd be fine with the article. I don't have anything against stunt bicyclists and if he is noted as an accomplished one, then he'll likely be noted as such in the future as well. However in the absense of this I'm not at all sure that, if what he is doing is only noticed because of youtube, that what he is doing is notable at all. Passportguy (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) Drawn Some (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once the BBC and the Times have major stories it's notable. Not one event, as he's essentially made a career out of doing it. There's an earlier Times ref back in 06. [77]. It's the cycling, not the video that's notable. DGG (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets basic criteria as noted above. Notability should be an objective assessment not a subjective look at his likely career prospects. This guy has received tons of coverage in the UK Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. However, I am unable to delete the subpages because none of them had AfD notification templates placed on them. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages were tagged as G8 (subpage of deleted parent) and subsequently deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian Airplay Top

Unsourced since 2007, dubious chart, no hits unrelated to Wikipedia. "Latvijas rokziņu aģentūra" turns up 7 hits, Wikipedia and mirrors. Also the following subpages.

Also Category:Number-one singles in Latvia and Category:Lists of number-one songs in Latvia can be C1'd once the articles are deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 12:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dubious notability, no 3rd party sources. --Tone 12:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comment above mine. :) SKS (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTGO-LP

A search shows up no evidence that this meets WP:ORG which says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any news coverage at all and no in-depth coverage of any type. If anyone finds sources I don't see I can re-evaluate. Drawn Some (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Few sources seem to exist, but aren't registered radio stations generally considered notable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, I found a deprecated essay on notability of radio and tv stations, apparently nobody knows how many there are, they estimated 40,000 in the U.S. alone, so no, they aren't inherently notable. Drawn Some (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The FCC knows exactly how many radio and TV stations there are in the U.S. and, for the public's convenience, they publish a chart every quarter. Here's the one for December 31, 2008. So that's 4786 AM stations, 6427 FM stations, and 3040 non-commercial FM stations for a total of 14253. Not 40,000 and not a mystery but an easily-obtained concrete number. - Dravecky (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see here: Wikipedia:Notability (media) Drawn Some (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the standard notablity is that if it has or has had an active FCC license that alone gives it notablity. This should be closed as such. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Keep Possible - Station has a FCC license, that gives it notablity. This notablity has precedent from other AfD discussions. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100 watts? The loose standards proposed for radio staion notability would not include this as "notable" at all. "Low Power" means it is very low power indeed. Collect (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per years of consistent precedent, government-licensed broadcast radio stations are generally presumed notable infrastructure in the same way as small towns and major highways. The essay at Wikipedia:Notability (media) is informative in this topic. - Dravecky (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Licensed radio stations have consistently been held to be notable — beyond other links provided, see also the information on the common AfD outcomes page. I wouldn't mind seeing some sourcing added, but it's hardly the only article with that problem. Mlaffs (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have I got this right? There is nothing in the guidelines that says an FCC licence per se makes a radio station notable. There is an essay WP:NMEthat says "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." In other words, an FCC licence isn't a guarantee of notability. And there is a 'common outcomes' article that says flatly "are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." which doesn't agree with the essay. The last mention of radio on the talk page is Sept. 2007. Why isn't this in the guidelines if it's cut and dried? Isn't that what they are for, so that people can use them and make sensible decisions on whether or not to take an article to AfD? I'm not trying to be difficult, but this seems pretty messy and contradictory. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - The "guidelines" in the essay could be updated, since they haven't been touched since 2007. But as it stands, the precedent set is that license equals notablity. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Broadcasting stations with a full license and with original programming are notable. This one has only a non-commercial low power license, which limits it to a radius of 3.5 miles, and is therefore not automatically notable nor is it likely to have sources for notability. On the same basis as we generally exclude college stations, we should exclude this one . DGG (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wattage is not the best determinant of notability and the WTGO-LP service area covers all of Lafayette, Indiana, and some of the surrounding area so unlike many college stations, this one does serve a significant population. (You only need 100,000 watts if you're in the middle of nowhere or can't get your transmitter any closer to town.) Also, this station does locally originate programming, a key test for the notability of a radio station. - Dravecky (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a test in that a station that does not originate programming is not notable. But it also has to be a significant station. Any refs that its even significant in the life of that town? DGG (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no test for a station...if it has or has had a license, it is notable. Period, plain and simple. No tests, nothing like that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Government licensed radio station, notable in the same way as a small town of 10000 or even 1000, or a highway only notable because it is a highway. my name inc ^{Ottoman project} 00:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That this applies to towns is an exception to our usual rules. It is most decidedly not true of highways. National and state routes are notable, not secondary or tertiary ones. This is secondary, to use your analogy. DGG (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As part of Generation Y, I know nothing about radio or radio stations, and less about Lafayette, Indiana, but a radio station serving 200,000 still seems notable enough, considering Wikipedia has articles for radio stations with smaller markets. See List of radio stations in New York. my name inc ^{Ottoman project} 02:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, it could be "secondary" or "tertiary" to use the highway terms, but it is still notable because it has a FCC license. License = Notablity. This standard for notablity has precedent. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VERY VERY STRONG KEEP ~~This is OBVIOUSLY a retalliation against this article based on a prior disscussion.~~

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast

Dougweller & Drawn Some are behaving like "Deletion Hungry Wolves"! WTGO Station Manager "Brett" (formerly of WCRD) left a comment against the deletion of a notible syndicated radio program called The Full Armor of God Broadcast and that is definately why this AfD is happening. I wholeheartedly agree with my, Talk, Mlaffs and Dravecky. WP:N CLEARLY states that Notability is not measured in popularity or fame! This principal applies. This action is a clear mis-appropriation of authority. Someone in authority on Wikipedia should put a muzzle on these guys! They seem very DELETE HUNGRY!! This is ridiculous!Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the above AfD may have drawn Dougweller's attention to this article, I don't have any reason to believe that this nomination was not made in good faith. The article in its nominated state lacked references of the type that one would expect to find in a normal article to evidence notability. The nominator's statement suggests that they did search for sources to establish notability. The nominator quite correctly points out that written guidelines regarding notability standards for radio stations are contradictory. Those three steps — reading the article carefully, searching for sources themselves, and reviewing the relevant policy/guidelines — are exactly what I would expect of anyone considering nominating an article for deletion. I'd remind Ivanhoe610fa that faith — particularly the assumption of good faith — is just as important in this community as it is in others with which they're perhaps more familiar. Mlaffs (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies I sincerly appologize for the misunderstanding and for my harsh words. Forgive me. Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is still my vote though.Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; precedent and practice are that licensed stations are notable enough. You're free to disagree with that standard if you wish, but it's beyond the purview of a single AFD to decide on such a major consensus change — and the reason that it is the current consensus is precisely that several months to years of discussion on the topic clearly identified that it's the only strictly objective metric that can be used without imposing an arbitrary standard or falling into the "delete because I don't care about radio stations" trap. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising for book and website. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Creationism

Non-notable, newly invented religion, based solely of a new book, the promotion of which is likely the primary object of this article. Passportguy (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The (as yet unpublished) book is up for deletion as well, by the way. Yintaɳ 11:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO. We are strong We will meet our enemy face to face and DELETE IT. Drawn Some (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silly and probably nonsensical. A secular religion? A religion with one follower? Possible speedy delete as spam and/or hoax. Hairhorn (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Dank as: "‎G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP"--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (NAC)[reply]

History of Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka

Contested prod. Opinion piece. I would have redirected it to History of Sri Lanka except for the fact the title is a bit unwieldy. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR-filled, POV-pushing dross. Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original essay. Drawn Some (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV rant-piece --Deepak D'Souza 11:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject may be worthy of an article, although such an article may be redundant to articles we already have. But even if the subject is worthy, this text is so bad that it would be better to start from scratch. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but without prejudice to recreation if the current .. screed .. can be replaced with something at least comprehensible. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 14:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deepak D'Souza. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD#G10, "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity." Fences and windows (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The opinions are all across the board on this one. The topic in the abstract, as has been mentioned, clearly meets V and N. The manner in which we choose to discuss it becomes an editing issue. IMHO this is a case that would benefit from further talk page discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contraception

This article was created out of a redirect to birth control, and I tried to direct it back, as the terms are synonymous. However, this was contested, so I'm reluctantly bringing it here. The essay now on the page is unsourced, not of ideal tone, and - as far as I can tell - completely redundant to the main article. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contraception is not synonymous with birth control. It is sometimes used as if it were in ordinary conversation, but there is an important difference even if it is only a technical on. There was no entry in en.wikipedia which differentiated contraception, contragestion, and abortion or abortifacients (even though such a distinction is important to social an political controversies). This information should be on wikipedia somewhere even if this is not where people would choose to have it.OckRaz (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Birth control, no need to merge, material is already in Birth control and this is unreferenced. Has anyone pointed out to the author that the article already exists? Drawn Some (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they know, as their comment on my talkpage indicates. But they still want their unverifiable essay to be shown :P ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining information is not duplicated elsewhere. Sources have been provided.OckRaz (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see now, I have been looking at the editor's contributions, this is basically a POV fork to separate contraception from post-conception birth control, lots of articles are being affected. Drawn Some (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making distinctions between different categories is NPOV. There are no value judgments, or advocacy- only accepted definitions from medical reference works. It is not a 'POV fork'.OckRaz (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it does become POV just after the word "abortifacients" where it says "Those who contend..." The rest of the article has to do with an issue other than birth control. Drawn Some (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be NPOV and give an overview of 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy', which is related and a SEE ALSO. I'll change it to be neutral if you let me know where the bias is.OckRaz (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the pregnancy controversy doesn't belong in the article on birth control at all. Drawn Some (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out. I think that the wording was NPOV, but I think you have a point about it's belonging elsewhere.

Restore redirect. The technical differences between the terms can be discussed in one article. If someone is looking for information generally on birth control and/or contraception, it should be in one article, and the terms have significant overlap when they aren't being used synonymously. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merely restoring the redirect will delete the content on the page at present. Should the content be added to the original page if there is a redirect? --OckRaz (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should, since the content isn't supported by reliable sources, and has tone issues IMO. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 13:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it should, since the content is supported by reliable sources, and has splendid tone IMO. OckRaz (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a POV fork seeking to redefine terms away from normal usage and towards a usage that favors a particular side on a heated political issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is a difference between colloquial use of a term and technical use is not a reason to omit the technical use. Moreover, many people make such a distinction in ordinary conversation. Quick point about usage: abortion is indisputably a form of birth control, in ordinary conversation abortion is not considered contraception.OckRaz (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any referenced information in contraceptive article that isn't in birth control, it should be added, but merging doesn't make sense because the article is unreferenced. I have to admit the birth control article could do a better job of explaining some of the nuances in simpler language but it is important to be absolutely WP:NPOV, this is a touchy subject for some. Drawn Some (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The terms have a link to the appropriate medical dictionary page. The definitions for the term along with the source are copied onto the page itself if one doesn't want follow the link. If I just need to change the way its formatted or something, then I'll be happy to do it. The sources are there regardless. It isn't crackpot religious nonsense. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/OckRaz (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "abortion is indisputably a form of birth control" is ludicrously POV. OV. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I misspoke. OckRaz (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - really, really looks like WP:OR, a totally unnecessary creation of a page that unnecessarily complicates the issue. Splitting birth control into pre- versus post-fertilization is unnecessary and is best clarified on the specific birth control method pages. Unless there's a lot of support that clearly and easily indicates this is a distinction made by doctors on a regular basis, it's a bad idea for a page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is not on the other page! Redirecting without merging will delete the content. Regarding OR, there is nothing original there. It is all sourced from reference works via http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ I admit it 'looks' or 'appears' ugly on the page. If someone throws out pointers on how I'll try to fix that.OckRaz (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you're looking for is WP:CITE which is pretty ugly itself! Drawn Some (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at WP:CITE. I think I fixed it to go along with those reccomendations. It's less messy at least.OckRaz (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a formatting issue, there are people who love to format references and will do it, it's not necessary for you to agonize over them. Drawn Some (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are several issues, one is what to do with the article, delete or other. Whether or not information is placed in the article on birth control and how much is really beyond Articles for Deletion, that would be a discussion on the talk page for Birth control. Drawn Some (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Birth control. I agree that in its present state the material is not all included in the birth control article and it is now referenced. The details of the merger can be worked out on the talk page there. Drawn Some (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it, redirect it, and then protect the redirect- That's assuming there's actual content worth merging. If not, then delete, then redirect and protect. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete (wow, I've never used this statement before) — I have no opinion on keep/merge/redirect, but it's such a significant term that it should definitely be a redirect if it's not a separate article. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect Delete the current content which is a semantic quibble. Anyone interested in reading about contraception does not want to read someone's opinion about the origin of the term with no other content. If editors deem it desirable, a small section on the history of the term could be added to Birth control, but I would personally find that totally unhelpful. The exact word meaning could be discussed on Wiktionary, but WP should reflect the real world where "contraception" means birth control. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the "real world", the mechanism of action for various forms of preventing or ending a pregnancy are important scientific issues. I see no reason why the differences between "prevents fertilization" and "prevents implantation" and "ends a clinically verifiable pregnancy" should be excluded from Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, and the Birth control article should cover these points, without needing a separate article. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added some words to the intro of birth control which I think should address the issue involved in this POV fork, that makes the distinction between methods that affect different stages of the process of fertilization, implantation and fetal development clearer, and introduces the formal terms "contraception" and "contragestion"; and then states that in common use, people use the term "contraception" for both, as well as for chemically induced abortion. Having done so, I suggest that the substantive content of contraception can now be regarded as merged, should be turned back into a redirect to birth control as soon as this AfD expires; and I suggest an early close of this AfD in order to do so ASAP. -- The Anome (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not an etymologist—or a native English speaker, for that matter—but I believe "contraception" and "birth control" are not exactly identical in meaning. Britannica, for example, defines one as "birth control by prevention of conception or impregnation" and the other one as "voluntary limiting of human reproduction, using such means as contraception, sexual abstinence, surgical sterilization, and induced abortion." Drawing from this, I really don't think that simply redirecting one term to another will be an appropriate solution. What about moving the relevant parts of Birth control into Contraception instead?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66704/birth-control

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/135259/contraception — Rankiri (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: see the intro text in birth control, which now makes this distinction clear. -- The Anome (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a closer look at Birth Control, I think that the somewhat disorganized article would definitely benefit from the split. Those overly detailed descriptions of techniques and links to innumerable contraceptive methods would seem more in place on the page specifically dedicated to the subject. That is, if a consensus on the notable distinction between the terms is reached. — Rankiri (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My objection to the original structure (where Contraception was just a redirect to the Birth Control article) is that the two aren't synomynous. If Birth Control was written in sections, with one of those sections being Contraception, and the Contraception redirect pointed to that section of the article, that would be fine. The problem here is that a Contraception redirect that simply points to the Birth Control article carries with it the implicit assertion that the two are relevant similar. And they are not. As Wikipedia becomes more and more the first place people look for information, a confluence like that runs the risk of destroying information and ultimately making the two terms synonymous in modern usage, and that's not something Wikipedia should be doing. If Contraception doesn't get its own article, the Birth Control needs an extensive rewrite. --Llewdor (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: see the intro text in birth control, which now makes this distinction clear. -- The Anome (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have extensively rewritten this article. There are abundant sources. My original reason for wanting a new page was to have an explanation of the arguably neutral technical terminology which avoids the ideological conflict over the status of contragestion as either contraception or abortion, and to introduce (what I believe) is very useful terminology in discussing both birth control and ethical/philosophical issues which are related.--OckRaz 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- DELETE. If Contragestion gets its own article, then Contraception and Abortion should, as well. The new introduction to the Birth Control article I think neatly describes all three, thus eliminating the need for separate articles. My complaints with the redirect have now been addressed. --Llewdor (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Abortion already has a whole bunch of articles. I'm all for having more for contraception and/or contragestion as well if that's what people'd like.OckRaz 04:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OckRaz (talk • contribs)
Speedy Keep The nominator tells us clearly that he wants to make this a redirect and is just coming here to help win his edit war. The topic clearly has massive notability and so deletion is utterly inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that assuming bad faith on the part of the nominator is optional, right? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination states, "..I tried to direct it back, as the terms are synonymous. However, this was contested, so I'm reluctantly bringing it here.". This is not a proper basis for an AFD. Please see WP:DR which does not include AFD as an option. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm continuing this on usertalkpages. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 10:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely proper way to use AFDs. When coming to a conclusion on whether articles should be removed or not AFDs are the way to establish consensus. It doesn't need to be listed a WP:DR because most people are able to use some common sense and figure things out instead of going out of their way to deny the obvious. DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any common sense here. It seems quite obvious that we should have a reference to Contraception in this encyclopedia and it seems that the nominator thinks so too. The point at issue is what this link should point to but that is not a matter for AFD as this is a content dispute. The nomination seems to have been made as a form of forum shopping - an inappropriate alternative to discussion on a relevant talk page. Per our policy , deletion is a last resort for hopeless cases, not the first place to go when you have any kind of dispute. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect the redirect as above. The lede now reads: "Contragestion ... is either the biological process of the preventing of the implantation of an embryo into the uterine lining, etc..." so apparently the article itself doesn't even know what it is trying to talk about since Contragestion redirects to ... Birth control lol. Also, it is inappropriate and importunate to squawk for speedy keep after other editors have raised grounds for deletion. Eusebeus (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote above that I was hoping to move the contents of the page to 'contragestion' as opposed to 'contraception' inasmuch as it has now been rewritten to introduce that concept (which is likely unfamiliar to most) to the reader. (I also thought that that might be a way to lessen the acrimony regarding how one defines 'contraception' and whether it is neutral or not.) There's an explanation of the origin of the term and it's alleged value in addition. That is why I changed the lede to a definition of contragestion. (I was assuming that if it were moved there that the redirect to birth control would disappear.)OckRaz (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let me try a more substantiated approach. I see absolutely nothing in the subject itself that can possibly fail WP:N, WP:V or WP:OR. It is a notable and quite verifiable subject that, in my view, undoubtedly merits an article of its own. Yes, it is one of techniques used in Birth Control, but what of it? We don't redirect Texas to the United States simply because it happens to be one of its states, do we? Some claim the terms are synonymous — they are clearly not. Some say the content of the discussed article represents a non-neutral point of view. Again, this has nothing absolutely to do with Birth Control. The quality of the content can easily be improved and the article can easily be tagged with the appropriate templates. The rest of the arguments seem to be largely irrelevant to the question of deletion and should probably be discussed on the appropriate talk pages. Here are some relevant links:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/wftwarch.pl?091407

"What's the difference between contraception and birth control? Sometimes they are synonymous, but contraception names the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation; birth control refers to the "control of the number of children born, especially by preventing or lessening the frequency of conception.""

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/135259/contraception

"Contraception: on human physiology, birth control through the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66704/birth-control

"Birth control: voluntary limiting of human reproduction, using such means as contraception, sexual abstinence, surgical sterilization, and induced abortion."

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/contraception

Contraception: the use of contraceptives.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/birthcontrol

Birth control: the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, especially through the use of contraception.

http://books.google.com/books?q=Contraception

10,802 book results on "contraception".

http://books.google.com/books?q="birth control"

12,663 book results on "birth control". — Rankiri (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To birth control. And ban the author. And whoever tagged this article with rescue. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect, don't ban the author, I am sure this was a good-faith attempt, in spite of the POV-OR article which resulted. DO attempt to give a clue to whoever tagged for rescue. I used to have a great deal of respect for the article rescue folks, back then they tried to focus on worthy articles. Now their activity seems more and more WP:POINT-Y. One puppy's opinion, your mileage may vary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this content fork. After that, a redirect to Birth control, since this is a commonly used term that is a clear subset of the issues to be considered at "Birth control."Bali ultimate (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, some argue that birth control is synonymous with contraception and that any position which disagrees is advocating a POV. That argument is itself merely advocating a POV. Secondly, contraception is a subset of birth control, but so are the following: Emergency contraception; Male contraception; Female contraception; Barrier contraception; Hormonal contraception; Vas-occlusive contraception; Progestagen only contraception; Heat-based contraception, and these aren't redirected. OckRaz (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all those other terms are exclusively subsets. No one is going to use the term "male contraception" to mean "birth control" where the terms "contraception" and "birth control" are used interchangeably in many instances. The point is, one article should be able to handle the topic. We can discuss the various definitions of the terms. It seems what you are suggesting is either we have two articles that have significant amount of overlap (redundancy) or that we spin out a large chunk of the "birth control" article into the "contraception" article, thus re-enforcing the POV. If both topics are discussed in the same place, we aren't forcing a POV. We have the option to discuss the various POVs all together, without forking it out. The fact of the matter is this isn't black and white. Someone searching for the term "contraception" could reasonably be wanting to find the information located in the "birth control" article. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since my earlier objections went unanswered, I'll ask you directly: when you talk about "re-enforcing the POV", what exactly are you talking about? Encyclopaedia Britannica, Merriam–Webster, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary—all seem to establish a notable degree of distinction between the terms. I see multiple redirect proposals, yet I fail to see a single reasonably cogent argument that can address my earlier protests. Am I missing something crucial here? —Rankiri (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too am rather puzzled by the objections and talk of POV. The distinction is between the means and the end. The term's usage, as recorded by the OED, indicates that this distinction is of some historical significance and so we should accurately cover this rather than blurring the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect if necessary for GFDL compliance. There is at present no need to spin out a political football when we already have a unified treatment of the topic. There is especially no need for an extended discussion on the different forms of birth control except in Birth control. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, clearly notable topic. Granite thump (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect this blatant POV fork. DreamGuy (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of references, and it clearly list why it is different from other types of birth control. There is enough information to warrant its own article. Dream Focus 10:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment > whoever has to wade through all this and close the AfD, you have my sympathy! ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 10:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:SNOW yandman 12:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobic remarks by celebrities

Sending this straight to AfD, since I don't think prod will cut it. Ignoring the difficulties with defining "celebrities" for a minute, it simply seems to be a long list of controversies with BLP issues. Ironholds (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see this as a potentially endless list of out-of-context, disputed comments that could easily create WP:BLP problems by using carefully selected sourced material to paint a skewed picture of a particular person. I also think it places WP:UNDUE emphasis on one aspect of a particular celebrity's overall career by focussing on their comments on one selected subject to the exclusion of all else. Celebrities may express opinions about every subject under the sun, but if we allow this, we have to equally allow articles about every other topic that they bother to speak about. I don't see any usefulness. Rossrs (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So far this article only consists of extracts from different Wikipedia articles. Anyone who is interested in the topic of homophobic remarks by celebrities cannot find a compiled list but has to browse the internet for hours and hours. I have been working on this article for two hours already and am nearly finished. Now that the article is considered for deletion, I will not continue to work on it at the moment until Wikipedia has decided whether to delete this article or not. Please let me stress that this article is NOT intended to say which celebrity is homophobic or not but it will just compile incidents that have been widely discussed in the media anyway. Loindepaname

Why do you need a list of all homophobic controversies? And if you need such a list why not give it a name more like List of homophobia-related controversies so it can be more expansive and parallel things like List of race riots--T. Anthony (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - These need to be in the context of the speakers. If people really want to collect this information then use something like Category:People involved in homophobia controversies? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Material in this can not be strictly based on ascertainable fact. It is all opinion at best, and subject to substantial BLP issues (note "Category:Homophobia" was attached to Joe the Plumber and was determined by consensus to be inapplicable). It is hard enough to make sure BLP related articles adhere to BLP already -- keeping this is a cesspool for scurrilous and out-of-context (in words and eras) charges. Not even a close call. Collect (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As pointed out there are several problems with this, for instance, who is a celebrity and what is a homophobic remark? Are any of the people listed truly homophobic and is that implied? Does anyone care what Mel Gibson shoots his mouth off about anymore? Isn't it perhaps rude to Donna Summer to classify her remarks with his since she made hers in 1983 when people were still talking about putting homosexuals in concentration camps for quarantine? I agree there's a huge BLP issue here. It makes for interesting reading but it's not encyclopedic, much better to keep this sort of gossipy material in context. Drawn Some (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This information is already covered by the celebrities' biographic articles under WP:BLP standards. The homophobia article already completes the overall picture. Article creator wrote "References will be provided whenever possible. Purpose of this article is not to prove which of these celebrities really is or was homophobic ..." which I read as intent to relax WP:V and welcome speculation. Prari (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all above.--SKATER ^Speak. 12:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that article's creator has attempted to insert rumour-mongering sourced with one gay-oriented gossip web site into the Alexander Rybak article that has consistently been removed by other editors (myself included). The section (no less) on Rybak in the present article is so watered down it should escape BLP intervention. On the other hand it also probably misses out on notability. Also a creation by same editor is Category:Alleged homophobic remarks by celebrities (speedy deleted on BLP grounds). __meco (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this looks like a BLP nightmare. Discuss in the articles on the individual people, if necessary to mention at all. Ladyof Shalott 13:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki. With some refactoring, the verified quotations might serve as the nucleus for a Wikiquote article. That is the project that compiles quotations by topic and by person. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - a better option than deletion. (Good idea Smerdis of Tlön) Stuartyeates (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although interesting it's potentially an "attack" article. Note that we don't have Racist remarks by celebrities or Sexist remarks by celebrities and likely for good reasons.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seriously I don't see what the big deal is. It is not like there are information on this page which are not yet on Wikipedia. When you go to the articles of the respective people you can see the same information there. This article simply compiles all the information together on one page (for LGBT studies). Deleting this article is similar to deleting the article about the Nipplegate event. But this scandal is part of Janet Jackson's career just as having allegedly said these statements about homosexuals is part of these people's careers. Plus, the article does not say whether they really said this or not, it is just a coverage about the controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.0.93.194 (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible attack article, BLP/POV issues, arbitrary collection. These remarks belong into the individual articles, if they were notable. Hekerui (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is the kind of article that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. This seems to be only a coatrack and soapbox when it should be neither. -- Banjeboi 11:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a speedy category for this I'd be damn impressed. Ironholds (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Db-g10}} as this serves to do nothing but highlight negative content, especially on BLPs. If there is anything notable it should be in those biographical articles in context with due weight. Our articles on homophobia and hate speech aren't a list of nitwits who stay dumb things ergo this page is a repository where this content is highlighted and legitimized. -- Banjeboi 12:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A serious issue reduced to celebrity trivia. Who allegedly called who an "old queen" backstage one night? --Simon Speed (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every drag queen I've ever known! Lol! -- Banjeboi 05:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Each instance added to this article would need a secondary source asserting that the remarks are homophobic (that is, the words are not simply quote mining). This is a legal nightmare. What can (and should) be done is to quote anything useful (with sources) on the individual article for each celebrity, and do not claim it to be homophobic (unless quoting a WP:RS). WP just presents the (sourced) facts; we shouldn't add our conclusion, however obvious, that a particular remark is homophobic. Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP minefield. Any quotes should be mentioned in an article on the subject where some sort of context can be given for them. ɪntə svɛnsk 12:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP nightmare/minefield as noted by several above. (And who's a celebrity and what's a homophobic remark, and what are the criteria for inclusion, encyclopedic value and if it e.g. turns out that the world has 1M celebrities of which 10% have made an average of 100 homophobic remarks - to some editor's standard - in their life. That a section in the article is devoted to (try to?) claim that what the purpose of the article is not is in itself a sign of its inappropriateness as an encyclopedic entry. (Had I been the first to notice this, I would probably had gone for speedy delete.) Tomas e (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I love the nomination: "straight to AfD". LOL. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was a bit unhappy nobody else spotted that :P. Ironholds (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party (United States)

nn. No one stood for election from this party, it is not even registered. F (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's no requirement for political parties to be registered or even to have members run for election in order to exist or be notable. I don't know if it meets WP:ORG or not but that might be a way to decide whether or not it is notable and verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wrote this article, and I believe it passes WP:N and WP:ORG. Significant coverage in Wired Magazine, Ars Technica, Variety and ZDNet are considered WP:RS. In addition, not all political parties are required to nominate their own candidate. If you take a look at List of political parties in the United States, you'll see dozens of examples of political parties that have articles, but have not nominated their own candidates (NOTE: This is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, i'm just showing that parties in the US are not required to nominate their own people. The PPUS endorsed Obama in 2008.Firestorm ^Talk 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of substantial coverage in reliabel sources. Here is one example [78]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment That's about the Swedish one. The US one is only mentioned in passing. F (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops. I concede your point. Although the parties are related are they not? So if the main article subject is notable than a merge or at the very least a redirect would seem to me superior to deletion. But it seems the U.S. branch is notable in and of itself based on the findings of others. Have a nice weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a few references as an attempted political party rather than a legitimate and active party. The entry reflects that this is merely an attempt and all efforts to become officially registered have failed. This is one of those nominally notable groups. For example, it is not proper to list this in a list of active political parties. It should not be considered a notable political party, but is a notable attempt due to the few references.Aardvark31 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment However, the reference posed by ChildofMidnight may be considered incidental or trivial coverage. I still contend that it be limited as mentioned above until it does something more notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardvark31 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The sources there indicate notability, not much else to say. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the major premises of the nomination for deletion:

""nn. No one stood for election from this party,..."

is incorrect. James Hill was on the General Election ballot in 2006 for US Representative from the first District of Iowa representing the Pirate Party and received 2201 votes (1.06%)^[1]. I do not know if he had the endorsement of the party establishment. Justus R (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- He didn't. The Party organisation wasn't formed until after the deadline for ballots. The first official Pirate Party Candidate will be Stephen Collings running for US rep of Tennessee's 5th District. 67.34.2.52 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it is a group with ongoing attempts to gain ballot recognition in states, it will become a party at some point soon. Also, it's officially listed with the IRS as existing (national political parties don't actually exist in the Us, usually they're 527s or similar instead). Political parties are state-level and below. 67.34.2.52 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Stuart Yeates

Delete - not WP:BIO; Wikipedia is all about links and references to evidence notability.Energyhelen (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - MBE recipient, author of multiple books, creator of multiple plant varieties and founding head-of-department at Massey. Note: I have COI here, I'm the subject's grandson. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has previously been discussed here. I have also taken the liberty of attempting to repair the nomination template, since it seemed broken Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 09:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs cleaning up, but I think the subject is notable and meets WP:PROF. He was founding head of department in a major university for Agriculture. He was awarded the MBE for service to Horticulture. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per Stuartyeates, and I have no COI here; this is the first time I've heard of the man. The article could do with tidying up and more inline citations, but certainly not deletion. -- Avenue (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as my understanding is the MBE is a high enough award that all recipients are considered notable per WP:BIO. If that is not true I can reconsider my opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no disrespect to people with MBEs/OBEs, but I wouldn't agree with this argument even for the next step up the award ladder (an OBE). Some people get these for achievements which make them notable (and I think the subject of the article under discussion is one), but other recipients are merely well connected. -- Avenue (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article references and Google confirm notability (appeared in the Evening Post for example[79]). XLerate (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've just checked with a professor of botany from another NZ institution. "Jack Yeates", as he was known, started and ran the NZ Seed Library, which is based at Massey. His impact on Agricultural Botany in NZ was significant. He definitely meets WP:ACADEMIC. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable and verified as such. I see that this afd is apparently an emo response by another editor (existing for a few days as that user name) who lost their passionately defended article to another afd, where the article subject was crucified in typical wikipedia fashion..

I also see that we are going to have to debate the Queen's orders as being sufficient to prove notability for Bio's here. I note with concern that the honour of the government and royal process is questioned; Can we have some EVIDENCE please, we need objectivity in this space. "CENTRAL CHANCERY OF THE ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD ST. JAMES'S PALACE, LONDON s.w.i 31st December 1977 THE QUEEN has been graciously pleased, on the advice of Her Majesty's New Zealand Ministers, to give orders for the following appointments to the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire: Order of the British Empire. (Civil Division) M.B.E. To be Ordinary Members of the Civil Division of the said Most Excellent Order :"mozasaur (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mozasaur's query was cross-posted on the NZ noticeboard, and I replied to it there (diff) since that's where I saw it first. I think this is probably a moot point as regards this AfD, anyway, as it only affects one !vote. -- Avenue (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems that this article subject is notable for other reasons, but I would hope that this AfD doesn't get used as a precedent for MBEs and OBEs to be used as an automatic indication of notability. Many people receive these honours simply for serving a number of years at a particular level in the civil service, and others (such as my father, who would certainly not pass notability guidelines) are honoured for worthy but unnotable voluntary work. A CBE or higher would be very difficult to get without achieving notability, so that could probably count as a strong indicator of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would still be notable even if MBE wasn't mentioned. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Michael_Scott_Paper_Company_(The_Office_episode). It appears that the content is all ready represented at the target article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Scott Paper Company

Insignificant in-universe fictional company from a television show that was in a few episodes, hardly notable enough to warrant its own article. No out-of-universe info, and doubtedly will any encyclopedic out-of-universe be found to warrant its own article Ejfetters (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to show article. Minor plot elements do not need their own articles. Collect (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too minor to merge in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 11:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Scott Paper Company (The Office episode) and Merge content with Michael Scott (The Office). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Michael Scott article. I didn't realize that this company would wind up being so minor. sorebearmat (^T/_C) 00:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the episode(s). Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the content of the article except the Korean writing on the van is present in the articles related to the episodes the "company" was featured in. There is nowhere to merge the data. In fact, I just copied the last bit over. ZabMilenko 07:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Scott Paper Company (The Office episode). This will keep the content available in the history if need be. There doesn't seem to be a need to merge because all of this content is covered in the individual television episode articles. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 06:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark–Egypt relations

although they have embassies, almost all coverage is in a multilateral or football context or relates to reaction to that Danish cartoon [80] which should be covered in International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Current text should be moved to that article. LibStar (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NN. JBsupreme (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not post in all of these because the nature of them is self-evident. Thankfully larger articles are being made which cover multiple countries instead of the one-at-a-time bit here. Thus - this article, and others like it, are fully deletable without incurring the wrath of any group, I trust. Collect (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foreign relations of Egypt, which now contains the content on relations, but not on reaction to cartoon. As a courtesy to readers, the title should be kept as a redirect - easier for them to locate the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching Denmark for "Egypt", and Egypt for "Denmark" shows nothing. There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. The only content in the article is the "cartoons controversy" section. That section is an exact copy of text from International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (which lists 37 countries under "Political Reactions" – should there be 37 separate articles repeating the information? – no). WP has already fully covered the "cartoons controversy" issue: in addition to the above article, we have controversy and descriptions and consequences and timeline and dossier and opinions and newspaper. It is not helpful to splinter coverage by duplicating text in a made-up Denmark–Egypt article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jamie^☆S93 01:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gad Saad

looks like a vanity page written by the person himself. Not sure the contributions are immense enough to maintain a collaborative page. Midnightpoutine (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:PROF. The criteria at that page clearly do not fit this person, for example The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources - Gad Saad's contributions to the 'scholarly discipline' of gift-giving are clearly not significant, or if they are they are not demonstrated by reliable sources. JulieSpaulding (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All accomplishments claimed, laudable as they might be, are standard fare for an academic. Hairhorn (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article needed work. But there is substantial enough coverage of this professor and his book [81]. He's been cited numerous times as an expert. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several publications, Ph.D. from a reputed school and so on...--Status quo not acceptable (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author of 22 peer-reviewed papers, according to Scopus. Unfortunately none of them very heavily cited-- the most is 21 cites for "Exploring the h-index at the author and journal levels using bibliometric data of productive consumer scholars and business-related journals respectively" in Scientometrics and 21 for a paper in Psychology and Marketing. I am not sure he is notable as an academic, though he might be considered a speciality in his narrow area. However, he is notable as an author, as sometimes happens to academics working in afield which has popular interest. The number of articles found about his work by CoM in Google News Archive is more than sufficient--multiple features in the most important papers. Nominated apparently on the basis of not "seeming" notable, which is not anywhere near as reliable an indication as actually doing a search for courses. DGG (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:PROF --- nn academic. Any associate prof at a non-teching college would have this much under his belt with ease. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominated in good faith but no consensus to delete (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WLRY

A search shows up no evidence that this meets WP:ORG which says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Individual licensed broadcasting stations almost always are kept when they are nominated for deletion. Many editors consider them inherently notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep FCC-licensed radio station; completely meets guidelines for an article here. Nate • (chatter) 09:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What are the guidelines that it meets then please? Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The FCC FM database lists the station as a "Class A" FM station with all of 1.1kW of power. By comparison a very small station near me is Class C and has 15.3 kW of power (and is listed on WP as most Class C FM stations are). I doubt it meets even the loose proposed standards at [82] Collect (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does a failed, never-adopted guideline from 3 years ago have to do with anything? - Dravecky (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you want to measure the number of people served, comparing wattage is meaningless in most cases. This station puts its signal over most of Columbus, Ohio, so it likely serves far more than any 100,000 watt blowtorch in Montana or the Dakotas. (In any case, they're all notable.) - Dravecky (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Keep Possible - Station has a FCC license, that gives it notablity. This notablity has precedent from other AfD discussions. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per years of consistent precedent, government-licensed broadcast radio stations are generally presumed notable infrastructure in the same way as small towns and major highways. The essay at Wikipedia:Notability (media) is informative in this topic. - Dravecky (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Licensed radio stations have consistently been held to be notable — beyond other links provided, see also the information on the common AfD outcomes page. Mlaffs (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have I got this right? There is nothing in the guidelines that says an FCC licence per se makes a radio station notable. There is an essay WP:NMEthat says "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." In other words, an FCC licence isn't a guarantee of notability. And there is a 'common outcomes' article that says flatly "are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." which doesn't agree with the essay. The last mention of radio on the talk page is Sept. 2007. Why isn't this in the guidelines if it's cut and dried? Isn't that what they are for, so that people can use them and make sensible decisions on whether or not to take an article to AfD? I'm not trying to be difficult, but this seems pretty messy and contradictory. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is that they are keeps because time and again there's been enough notability once people go looking for it. Now, automatically including all high schools, Olympic and professional athletes, and albums from notable artists? Well... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just substantially overhauled the article to bring it up past "stub" status and to expand on the station's unique programming originated from its own studios. - Dravecky (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a full service station with a regular not a limited license broadcasted at 1100 watts power. I do not think limited range noncommercial stations with less than full licensing should be generally included, but this is not at all in that class. DGG (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP WLRY is a FCC licensed and credible station. Dougweller is "OFF THE HOOK" and acting like a "DELETE HUNGRY WOLF"! This action is a direct retalliation for a prior AfD. Does Wikipedia have any policy on abuse and harrasment?? Someone really should take a look at this behavior.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WTGO-LP#WTGO-LP

~~there is an obvious corolation here.. Why are these stations being targeted? This is ridiculous!~~Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the above AfD may have drawn Dougweller's attention to this article, I don't have any reason to believe that this nomination was not made in good faith. The article in its nominated state lacked references of the type that one would expect to find in a normal article to evidence notability. The nominator's statement suggests that they did search for sources to establish notability. The nominator quite correctly points out that written guidelines regarding notability standards for radio stations are contradictory. Those three steps — reading the article carefully, searching for sources themselves, and reviewing the relevant policy/guidelines — are exactly what I would expect of anyone considering nominating an article for deletion. I'd remind User:Ivanhoe610fa that faith — particularly the assumption of good faith — is just as important in this community as it is in others with which they're perhaps more familiar. Mlaffs (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies I sincerly appologize for the misunderstanding and for my harsh words. Forgive me. Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Keep Possible FCC licensed station. Although 173.88.29.193 has pointed out a very interesting correlation, I am going to ask you to remain civil. my name inc ^{Ottoman project} 15:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, there's a correlation. I found those articles looking at links to Full Armor. As I read the guidelines, these articles failed them. I still think that the guidelines should mention radio stations. I see no chance of this article being deleted, although we should do something about the guidelines as there is no way I would have nominated it if I'd realised that (wrongly I think) an FCC license was enough to show notability. I don't like wasting my time or that of others when a simple tweak would have avoided it. Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Following WP:BEFORE and starting with notability, ref-improve, or other tagging plus an inquiry at WP:WPRS instead of jumping right to AfD would have also been an effective time-saving strategy. - Dravecky (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be one of those areas like being an Olympic athlete that has been deemed to be automatically notable. It could certainly be added to the guideline, but since I don't we should have areas of automatic notability I think we should leave things as is. Radio stations like Olympic athletes are usually notable, whether they should all be universally considered so, I'm not sure. If no sources and coverage can be found, I can see including them in lists or articles with more general coverage, but an article on things for which there are no sources seems a bit much. The same issue has also arisen with the geography of places and high schools (which are basically procedurally kept at this point). ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ramchandra Parnekar

Original content was copyright infringement, and there is a likely conflict of interest. That said, the full text asserted some publications and followers; I haven't been able to find decent confirmation of that, but that's enough to avoid speedy for now. Avram (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While it appears that the 'Poornawadi' (poornawad.org) movement might be relevant, I don't think the founder of the movement is. JulieSpaulding (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google gives only 5-7 results for Poornawad or Poornawadi including the WPdia article itself. --Deepak D'Souza 05:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should note that it looks like the correct spelling might be "Ramchandra Parnerkar," which has a couple more hits on Google, but still not much. Avram (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect We Have a Technical to Replicas (album), and Metal (song) to The Pleasure Principle (Gary Numan album) ("delete" because these redirects tend to be reverted). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We Have a Technical

A non-notable song which has not ranked on national or significant music chart, won significant awards or honors, or has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. Fails WP:NSONGS. Previous redirects and a PROD have been revereted. JD554 (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for the same reasons as above:

Metal (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with parent albums. Not notable but no reason to lose the information. Drawn Some (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, songs have a tendency to get un-redirected. No sources, no useful information. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 11:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, no notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Nothing to keep or merge due to the lack of reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Plausible search term, and per suggestion for non-notable songs at WP:NSONGS. The reasoning that song redirects tend to get reverted isn't really a reason not to keep them. They're useful, and we just need to make sure they stay as redirects. Fingers ^OnRoids 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt–Uruguay relations

whilst these countries have embassies, there is a lack of coverage of bilateral relations [83], I only found one article [84]. apparently some involvement in the Luxor massacre but that is one event involvement that should be mentioned in that article. LibStar (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We still doing this? JBsupreme (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think that relations are notable unless there have been disputes or friendship agreements between the two (for example, United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War). Simply having an embassy isn't enough. JulieSpaulding (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One more. When a group finishes the multi-country articles, things should get better. For now, this needs a clean-up. Collect (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (change to redirect) to Foreign relations of Uruguay or Foreign relations of Egypt, which both duplicate the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we did this for every one of these articles we'd need thousands of redirects.Knobbly (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage of the topic as a whole for this boiler-plate article which should have been speedied. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspect this article like many others about the relations between two unrelated countries was made by a Troll with a strange sense of humor.Knobbly (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching Egypt for "Uruguay", and Uruguay for "Egypt" shows nothing. There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 01:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Do

I declined a CSD G11 because it isn't blatantly promotional; CSD A7 doesn't apply since it asserts notability, that he is the founder of several organizations, a few of which are notable. However, I'm still leaning towards delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's subject can not be verified by independent and reliable sources. JulieSpaulding (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with deletion. I have worked with Arthur and know several trusted people (including some of the principals at Kleiner Perkins) who have found his contributions to several start ups in the Silicon Valley quite impressive (and, I would say, notable...especially if you look at green.com). edombrower (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2009 (MT)
Delete Notability not verifiable through independent secondary sources. Green.com is not independent of the subject. Still seems promotional. Wperdue (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Keep Are there any disagreements that Fortify.com is notable? Being one of the founders, I have made significant contributions to the company's products and success. Maybe this article will help independently verify me as a founder of Fortify, see [Arthur Do executive profile on BusinessWeek]. arthurdo 12:02, 22 May 2009 (PT)
Question Just exactly what role do you mean by "one of the founders" . BTW, that link above did not work for me. DGG (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer Please try this [BusinessWeek link]. Fortify has four founders. Before the company existed, Roger Thornton and Arthur Do were the initial team that worked on the business plan and product prototype. When we went to Kleiner Perkins to pitch the business, we brought in Mike Armistead as the third founder due to his marketing background. Kleiner agreed to fund us with the condition that we reserve a founder spot for an expert in security. We initially approached Gary McGraw at Cigital for that position but he declined. There were a few other candidates until we found Brian Chess who accepted and become the fourth founder. As for my contribution, I developed the initial version of all three of Fortify's core product lines being sold today, Static Analyzer, Security Tester, and Runtime Defender. arthurdo 09:13, 23 May 2009 (PT)

Delete - based on wikipedia's definition for notability, I do not see the independent coverage that establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- appears non-notable. - Vartanza (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Closing per WP:SNOW as a keep, non admin close.. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AC Moore

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company has reliable third-party coverage, including precisely the kind of financial profiles described on WP:COMPANY. I've reworked the prose a little and added some references of that sort. Avram (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Avram, plenty of sources exist, see here. Retail articles on Wikipedia tend to be sucky, because clearly, NOBODY WILL HELP ME IMPROVE THEM. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 11:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company has reliable third-party coverage, including precisely the kind of financial profiles described on WP:COMPANY. I've reworked the prose a little and added some references of that sort. Avram (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable to be sure. [85] noted in NYTimes article on retailing slump in 2002, [86] described as national chain in "big box" category, [87] article including store, and so on. Collect (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A consumer retail business that exists in multiple localities is highly likely to receive adequate coverage in edited sources, and this article already shows that it does. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines specifically mention profiles like Hoovers or BusinessWeek as sources, in this case there are both. Drawn Some (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve-- Sources are available to establish notability for this chain with 133 stores, [88]. --J^mundo 21:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" arguments are not based on policy; the game must be notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Championship Basketball Manager

Non-notable video game CTJF83Talk 04:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It is a popular game in Chinese,so its influence is limited.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 04:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there isn't much of an assertion of notability in the article itself, the NBA does mention it on their basketball wiki here. However, this is a wiki, just like this one, so it's prone to mistakes and fails WP:V. JulieSpaulding (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence or even assertion of notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this article was nominated for deletion within less than an hour of it being written! Don't knock down the house before it has been built. Flag it for improvement, and then prod/AfD it if editors cannot improve it over a more lengthy period of time. Taelus (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it, via reliable sources, notable, though? Whether or not the article currently needs expansion, which is purely an editorial issue, if notability cannot be shown now then we shouldn't keep it on the speculative basis that one day sources will turn up for it. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Malta relations

another totally random combination. no resident embassies. All I could find is just one article from 2001 [89] . other than coverage is always in multilateral context [90]. Estonian govt says only 2 minor agreements and trade is exceedingly low at less that 1000 euros each way. is that enough reasons? LibStar (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable due to insufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete similar to my other comments -- this is now getting to be clean-up before multi-country large articles get finished. Collect (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Malta which contains the information - but keep the title as a redirect to make it easier for readers to find the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is nothing more to be "merged." I have no particular opposition to a redirect after deletion, but Estonia-Malta relations is, after all, a highly implausible search term.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing says anything about this nothing topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteImagine if every country in the world needed an article for it's political relations with every other country in the world?Knobbly (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching Estonia for "Malta", and Malta for "Estonia" shows nothing. There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cedar Point#Roller coasters. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jr. Gemini

I write this actually at Cedar Point, in the hotel after two days at the park. I find this article quite short, and although those such articles can easily be improved by adding more content I feel that after being at Cedar Point and knowing this is a small ride for children that is not destined to gain any fame I find this a candidate for deletion. P.S., also removed this ride from the Cedar Point rollercoasters template. --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cedar Creek Mine Ride is nearly as short of an article. Not sure what the notability guidelines are for roller coasters. I guess I could be swayed either way to support keep or delete. Oh, and while you're there, can you take a picture, in case it is kept! :) CTJF83Talk 04:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no sources can be found for Cedar Creek Mine Ride, I would recommend that it be merged to Cedar Point#Roller coasters too. Cunard (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, already left Cedar... I nominated this on my last night at the hotel after two days at the park. Basically, it is such a small ride that a photo won't really show much of notability. --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Cedar Point#Roller coasters. I've done several searches for sources and have been unable to verify the independent notability of this rollercoaster, so the best option here is a merge to its amusement park. Cunard (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, not notable enough for own article. CTJF83Talk 17:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XBC Jumpoff

Doesn't appear to be totally notable. I can't easily find what appears to be enough sourcing to get this past WP:N, at this time, so bringing it up for AFD. rootology (C)(T) 02:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. A Google News Archive search returns no results, while a Google search returns mostly forums and blogs. Cunard (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of third party sources is a major concern here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is about a music podcast originating in Zimbabwe. That is not a reason for deleting it - reasons are stated by others above - but is important background for people browsing AfD looking for articles to save or improve. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can't find any evidence of notability. But I'm hoping someone can. The show strikes me as being significant and important enough to be worth including in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per childofmidnight, since i can not find any reliable sources that might establish notability for this podcast as well.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion besides the nominator (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Goldstick

Delete I don't feel that Mr. Goldstick measures up to the criteria for notability. The article formerly consisted primarily of what bordered on an advertisement for an as-yet unwritten book; as of now, however, the article consists almost entirely of a list of papers he's apparently written (all of which are 17 years old or older) and includes no citations whatsoever (Is the page original research, I must ask, seeing as nothing is cited). Mr. Goldstick's sole claim to notability seems to be occasional runs for the Canadian Parliament; however, I do question whether repeatedly running for office and never gaining more than 200 votes in the process is worthy of a page. It -might- be worthy of a redirect of some kind (perhaps to his party's page, since he apparently either is or was on the committee there), but he doesn't seem to merit a page of his own. Tyrenon (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. This person fails WP:BIO, ~~WP:PROF~~, and WP:POLITICIAN. The lack of reliable sources in this Google News Archive search means that his candidacy for the Parliament was not notable. Cunard (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep. Per David Eppstein's comment below, since Goldstick is covered in several pargraphs of two books, he passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN but I have found some sourcing for his academic biography which I have added to the article. I'm not yet convinced he passes WP:PROF but I'm not convinced he fails it, either, and there are several paragraphs of material about him in two books which may be enough for WP:BIO more generally. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While those are interesting references, three things do concern me: First, they're 'in-house' references (that is, both books are published by the University of Toronto's publishing arm; this isn't a disqualifying point, but it's worth noting); second, not being able to access the books from here, from what I can tell the books have at best limited circulation (the $70 sticker price I got for one of them suggests that it is a book used by at most a small number of classes at a college or two); and third, one of the books (Minerva's Aviary) appears to amount to the University of Toronto letting a professor publish an in-depth study of the school's philosophy department. Neither source strikes me as non-credible; the fact that they were published by a university's publishing arm takes care of that. However, it does beg the issue of notability still, though I'll say that the article is -much- improved from where it was earlier.Tyrenon (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with all your points. There's a reason I only left mine as "comment" rather than an explicit "keep" !vote. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would this be a reliable, third-party source about Goldstick and his research? Cunard (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I think that's workable. I'll take that as a good third-party source (which is what I was shooting for; see my comment below for an explanation).Tyrenon (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keepthis is a tough notability claim to verify, his books might not be the best case, nor is his direct citation count, what i found interesting was in which major debates he was cited and i think that gives his case legs in wp:prof because a few fairly major professor address his positions directly in a few major philosophy debates, such as the problems of inference, etc. I think this indicates though that people in the know, know that he is notable enough and has made contributions that have changed the debates and thus the field. --Buridan (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He's known somewhat in Philosophy in Canada; the Communist Party stuff is really only notable inside Toronto. Hairhorn (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do find find at least one evidence. --Status quo not acceptable (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. Publication of that many papers in high level philosophy journals is academic notability. Unfortunately the available citation databases, including Google Scholar, do not cover philosophy adequately, especially for the period concerned. . As for the book, U. Toronto is a high level academic publisher, and does not primarily publish work from its own university. I am not sure whether or not he is notable as a political figure, but that's not necessary. DGG (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My concern was more that the particular books were published -by- the university covering topics related -to- the university, which feels a bit dodgier than if it were either an outside source covering him, or a UofT source covering someone somewhere else. In short, I'm not knocking the UofT publishing house, just worried that if almost everything is internal then someone less notable might get preference because a professor who's a friend wrote the book or somesuch (particularly a relatively low-circulation book; a university publishing a book on the history of their own philosophy department just naturally begs a little bit of scrutiny just as a self-entry here, even by a genuinely notable person, would require a little more scrutiny than normal).Tyrenon (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Calloway

Delete: Non-notable actor with a very, very brief career. Made three films, the last in 1932. Very few ghits. [email protected] (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete for lack of evidence showing that she had notable roles. JJL (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough mentions in Google books to verify her existence. Relying on the internet to try to judge her roles in silent films made in the Philippines 75 years ago is not really appropriate, especially since it is claimed she "co-starred" in one of the films. There is an unsourced entry on the Tagalog Wikipedia as well. Definitely not a hoax and an internet search is not sufficient to judge her notability. Default if we are unsure if something is notable but it is verifiable is to keep, so keep.Drawn Some (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I only saw passing mentions (e.g. [91]). I agree that that may not be a fair judge, but evidence of WP:N is still lacking. JJL (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - More information: On page 18-19 of this, it says in 1929 7 Filipino films were made, 11 in 1930, and 24 in 1932, which shows there weren't many Filipino film actors to begin with. It also includes her name in a list of four actors who could "make a film a box office certainty". Those are pretty strong words. There is this reference: Film in South-East Asia: View from the Region, Edited by David Hanan, SEAPAVAA in association with the Vietnam Film Institute and the National Screen and Sound Archive of Australia, Hanoi, 2001, page 254.

Delete per NN. JBsupreme (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Included in Readings in Philippine cinema‎ - Page 36. Also here "By 1933, the Philippines could boast of its first female feature film director, Brigida Perez Villaneuva, and a star system had firmly taken hold. Actors like Naty Fernandez, Gregorio Fernandez, Maggie Calloway and Nora Linda could make a film a box office certainty. The first talkies took Manila by storm and the Philipino industry responded, in the absence of the necessary technology to produce talkies themselves, by dubbing silent movies live using stage actors and advertising the results as talkies. The first real talkie was produced in 1932" Philippines section ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That quote found by CoM is adequate for showing notability. DGG (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I do agree that the quotes uncovered are promising, I'm worried a bit about WP:V here. I think everything that we have might be better suited elsewhere (I admit I don't know where) rather than a stand alone article on a person who is potentially living. Willing to change my mind if some proper sourcing is added, however, as some of the material that has been uncovered does seem to push her into meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. Cheers, CP 22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources found thus far are indicative of notability. I don't doubt that additional referencing for a silent film star of the Phillipines will not be an easy task, but that's not a reason for deletion. - Whpq (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Tiwana

Non-notable journalist, fails to find some reliable sources. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, the sole reference only barely refers to the individual, and the article as a whole only exists because the speedy for the original (self-bio apparently posted by the individual, who's sole edits have been to spam the brief unsourced bio as well as numerous external links to self and business associates) and it was reworded to the current form. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced autobiography? Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This was speedy deleted yesterday, together with similar versions like Major Saeed Tiwana, but apparently the creator really wants an article about himself on the wiki. Unfortunately for him he doesn't meet WP:N at all. Yintaɳ 09:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject's military exploits seem to be mentioned in a couple of these books (the ones entitled Ayub, soldier and statesman and Story of Indian aggressions against Pakistan) but I can't tell from the snippets displayed by Google how much coverage there is. As a major general in a country that has had more than its fair share of conflict since its creation it would seem likely that he would satisfy the standards of WikiProject Military history's notability essay as someone "who commanded a substantial body of troops (such as an army or fleet, or a significant portion of one) in combat", but I havent found any direct sources for this, and I'm not sure how much consensus that essay has received from the wider community. The source in the article describes him as "famous war expert Captain (Retd) Saeed Tiwana", which seems to add to notability by saying he is famous and to subtract from it by casting doubt on his rank, and as "a poor man’s Ollie North", which again seems to add to notability by comparing him to an obviously notable person and to subtract from it by saying that he's a poor man's version. The upshot of all this is that I'm very firmly on the fence about deletion, but maybe my comments will help others to decide. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. I can't find any support for the claim to have achieved the rank of major general. The Pakistan Army Journal, when publishing his articles, describes him as a retired major.[92][93] Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 01:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolmarm (teacher)

Unreferenced dictionary definition what appears to be original research. Suggest redirect to wiktionary 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - Schoolmarm article also already exists and redirects to Teacher so perhaps this should be speedied... 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 01:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as copyvio of http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Schoolmarm. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a CC-BY-SA license, a license that will be compatible with en.wp at the end of June, so I'll remove that tag for now. It appears to me this article won't survive the AfD, but if it does, let's come back to the issue of licensing, and I'll ask over at WT:CV how we want to start handling CC-BY-SA. - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it doesn't look right. Try fixing it so it look correct before nominating it for deletion. Angie Y. (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - correctly named article Schoolmarm which redirects to teacher has the Schoolmarm wiktionary link at the bottom.

Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlikely (useless) search term, no point in redirection. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 11:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does that word even appear in the dictionary? --The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Yes, it's in the wiktionary link in the AFD post and on MW here. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 23:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:BIO; Google News archives do not support claims of reliable sources. Also, the article talk page has turned into an attack page toward him, which we cannot tolerate. KrakatoaKatie 02:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Few

Non-notable person, fails to find third-party reliable sources. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough on google news and google books to warrant inclusion based on notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely unsourced BLP (though it doesn't actually have any content other than noting his profession). I find no reliable sources that treat this subject in any depth that would allow for the writing of an encyclopedic biography, nor any that establish any independent notability for his technical books.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It only has one source. I have changed the tag.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a lot of bylines with this chap's name in Google News (mostly the phrase "Presented by Gretchen Peterson, author of “GIS Cartography: A Guide to Effective Map Design” and guest Stephen Few.") but I find no significant coverage of the subject himself that directly address the subject in detail. There is nothing in Google books of this nature either. The subject fails the primary notability criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Bali. No establishment of notability. Books being published is not automatic notability. ThuranX (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I'll apply WP:SNOW here. Not much to be told... Tone 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Parliament

WP:POVFORK of Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament which adds nothing new to the existing article. The title itself does not appear especially notable and does not appear to have received any news coverage in the wake of the disclosure based on Google News. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - this page has obviously been written to pursue an individual POV. Both unsourced and unbalanced. TerriersFan (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork. The term "Rotten Parliament" was used in a Mail on Sunday opinion piece two weeks ago and seems to have leaked into the blogosphere, but this article is essentially a fork of the Disclosure of expenses article as Catalyst says in the nom.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I believe we may need to look into adding redirects to the page on this particular Parliament before too long. Still, none of the terms merit a page of their own unless they become truly widespread in use and there's a particular history behind them.Tyrenon (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:SOAP. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Artw (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPORK. JBsupreme (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to potential eventual re-creation. History is full of epithets for particular Parliaments (e.g. Rump Parliament, Barebones Parliament, Addled Parliament, Long Parliament). It's yet to be seen whether this particular coinage "has legs". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I've tagged the article as sourcing and notability remain issues. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Porter

Non-notable individual. Article states he has won awards. Although his publishing house has won awards, there is no indicated he has. See http://www.editors-sa.org.au/?q=keynotes. The awards listed all appear to be for the author not the editor. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability does not rub off and there doesn't seem to be significant, in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that an editor has edited some books (some notable, and some by notable authors), or that the editor works for a (possibly) notable publisher, does not make the editor notable. The only reference is to the web page of an editor's society where the subject once gave a talk. Johnuniq (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article would indicate that having an imprint named after the editor is a significant achievement in the publishing world. In particular, this represents being "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" as per the first point of WP:CREATIVE. Because such an imprint is essentially a one man show, the awards to the imprint reflect significantly on the editor. Better sourcing is needed for the awards but this does establish that his imprint (and by implication him) is award-winning. This does not fall into WP:INHERITED due to the nature of a named imprint as outlined above. To be sure, reference improvements are needed, but that is an issue for editting. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is a highly-respected children's book editor. Much like a combination film producer/director, the editor is the person most responsible for giving the "green light," selecting and guiding the talent (see here), controlling the content, promoting the book, and developing the reputation of the publishing house. In this case, books originated and facilitated by Porter, under his own imprint, have won numerous awards of every kind, including the highest, and are routinely on every short list of notable books. Therefore, an award for the book is an award for the person most responsible for its existence, even with his "behind the scenes" role. The question should not be why Porter is a worthy Wikipedia candidate, but why other prominent publisher/editors are not.Nyguide (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whpq, Nyguide, you still need reliable sources that discuss all of this or it's just WP:OR. Besides, he didn't win those awards, the books and their authors did. There are some lines of work where the things and people you work with are notable but the people in that line of work just aren't. I could give some examples that would make this clear but they would be insulting to Mr. Porter. Drawn Some (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I realize that the sourcing for this article is poor and even stated so in my keep opinion. However, the article is very new, and tagging it for additional references would make sense since there is evidence that he fulfills one of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. If later, there is no improvement, the article can still be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the editor is truly notable we need reliable third party documentation to suggest that. I'm not seeing it right now. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - He's an editor, not an author. -- Whpq (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple mentions in NYT, and his departure from Grolier was in an article as well. Quoted about book market, etc. If he is notable enough for the NYT, he is notable enough for WP. Multiple mentions at Publishers Weekly. And we should not dismiss mere editors and publishers of books -- IIRC producers of movies have less to do with the movies than an editor has to do with a book -- yet we manage to list them for sure. Collect (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment multiple trivial mentions, even thousands of them, in even the finest publications wouldn't make him notable. If the NYT or even inferior sources had in-depth coverage, he would be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Non-trivial [94] "You may well sell 40,000 copies of the book within the first year, as a direct result of winning each award, and they continue to sell year in, year out, said Neal Porter, director of library services for Charles Scribner's Sons and Atheneum. This year Scribner's won the Caldecott and Atheneum won the Newbery." The extended article about Grolier and Porter leaving. [95] Keynote speaker for Society of Editors in South Australia. Currently would meet notablilty as a publisher. And the books with awards meet notability as well, on their own. Collect (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just checked the above two references. The first quotes Porter saying that if a book wins a certain award, more copies will be sold. The award is for a book, not Porter. The second reference simply notes that Porter was a keynote speaker at a conference of editors held in Adelaide, Australia. The text states that Porter has been associated with book publishing for 30 years, and has edited books that have "won numerous citations". There would be hundreds of editors who have edited good books, and who have spoken at a conference of editors. The fact that neither reference said any more about Porter indicates that he is not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete INsufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editors in book publishing are the people individually responsible at the highest level for the acquisition and development of a book--about the opposite of what the word means in a Wikipedia context. Major editors are notable, and being responsible for this many books receiving the highest awards in their fields is evidence of being a leader in the profession. DGG (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case, there should be a secondary source saying this editor is notable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this fails to be deleted I will surely be re-nominating this within a reasonable time. There is absolutely NOTHING in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. WP:BLP pretty much demands this in order to sustain an article on Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wtih JB. There is no hint of any substantial coverage. Asserting that editors are notable is all well and good, but the article contents need to be cited to reliable sources. And it's impossible to do so without any coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - The keynote speech source seems ok, but is not sufficient on its own. The quote above would be my definition of trivial - he's quoted in an article with a whole host of other editors talking about the subject of book prizes, not the subject of Neal Porter. If there was another major mention or a stronger link could be found between him and the prizes his books received, I could reconsider. He can/should be merged into the/an (not sure it exists) article about the publishers. Bigger digger (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - fails WP:BIO as there's no independent coverage of him alone. As said below, notability is not contagious. KrakatoaKatie 01:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Carfrae

Non-notable record producer. While the article asserts that Carfrae has worked with a lot of big names, it does NOT assert that his work has been recognized independently. No awards. No independent press coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, it also seems to fail NPOV with a section calling him a "Pioneer".--SKATER ^T. 12:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. ~~The article needs to be far, far, better referenced (right now I'm looking at Cilla Black's website, an industry advert, and an IP address that may or may not be MSN music).~~ Be that as it may, this is a producer who has worked with numerous notable musicians (and whose work has received awards, even if he hasn't per se). I'm hoping that the article creator (and sole contributor) will find more and better references. If they do, I may change my !vote to a 100% keep; if they don't, I'm afraid I'm going to be shifting to delete. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC) (resigning after creator addressed concerns; I've changed my weak keep to a keep. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – is notable through association with the artists he has produced. Plenty of refs out there to be had to prove it. The albums he produced sold fairly well; although he may not have won any awards for them directly, the artists may have, or at least have for other works. On these facts alone, I would say notability is attained. – B.hotep •talk• 18:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't contagious. Drawn Some (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Drawn Some notes, notability isn't based on who they are associated with that is notable. Without significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, subject is not notable. لenna vecia 13:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources to establish notability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Model train control systems. - KrakatoaKatie 01:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rocrail

Unreferenced. Fails the general notability guideline. May qualify for CSD A7 as it does not indicate why the subject is important or significant. McWomble (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial independent coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sounds interesting but no reliable sources available to establish WP:N, 1. --J^mundo 01:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Model train control systems. Topic is not super notable in its own right, but there is a bit much material to merge so I could go either way. Definitely deserves to be covered somewhere though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Model train control systems. I couldn't find sources proving it's notable enough for its own article, but we can cover it in another article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Eckankar. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ECK master

The information on this article is almost entirely primary-sourced. Most is sourced to either the official Eckankar website, Paul Twitchell (founder of the movement), or Harold Klemp (current leader of the organization). When researching some of the "ECK masters", very little discussion is found in published sources outside of the organization. If anything can be salvaged from this page, perhaps it would be better suited as a section on Eckankar. ←Spidern → 16:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eckankar. The new religion seems to be gaining minimum notability, but it does not yet merit subarticles. And few "Eck masters" are themselves notable. a little insignificant 16:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eckankar. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think that the term was used in the group from which Eckankar separated, which was a form of Sikhism if I remember right. But at present, article does not clearly deserve separate status. If and when more material is added and more sources found, including from the parent group of Eckankar, maybe separate it again then. John Carter (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AEE (motorcycle)

I don't think there ever was a British motorcycle manufacturer AEE. It is not listed in The world's motorcycles, 1894-1963^[2] nor at Sheldon's EMU. On the web, I found A.E.E. Choppers, from the 1960's [96][97], but no UK company active from 1919-1925. Motorcycles: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases has an entry for AEE which they got from this WP article itself.[98] Heh. Dbratland (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized, the third link should be [99] Motorcycles: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases, rather than a duplicate of the second link. It doesn't change anything.--Dbratland (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.sos.state.ia.us/pdfs/GenOffResults.pdf
^ Tragatsch, Erwin (1964), The World's Motorcycles, 1894-1963: a record of 70 years of motorcycle production, Temple Press

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made a real effort to figure this out, looking through a bunch of junk on Google books. This is a one line article with no references and is very difficult to verify. The bit about the choppers in the 1960s is the only thing I can find. This could have been a mistake even. There is less harm in deleting it than in keeping it unverified, as noted it is already starting to get mirrored and has now found its way into print from Wikipedia. This is a real problem and Wikipedia needs to take it seriously. This unverified stuff IS harmful, and not just to the encyclopedia, either. Drawn Some (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too short. No references. Have a nice day. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.sos.state.ia.us/pdfs/GenOffResults.pdf

[2] Tragatsch, Erwin (1964), The World's Motorcycles, 1894-1963: a record of 70 years of motorcycle production, Temple Press

[1]

[2]