Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 30

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 29 May 31 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep I mean, come on-it's a bloody GA. Cheers. I'mperator 13:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (Lost)

edit
Tom (Lost) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If Eloise Hawking, Frank Lapidus, and Penny Widmore all got their articles deleted, so should Tom. He is of little relevance to the story and progress of the show, and there is no reason for him to have his own article when the three that I mentioned all got their articles deleted. Bibbly Bob (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC) (Broken AfD nomination fixed on behlf of Bibbly Bob. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:32, 31 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Croatian-Australian Socceroos

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of Croatian-Australian Socceroos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A previous deletion discussion in March 2008 resulted in a decision of Delete/Categorise; Category:Croatian-Australian Socceroos‎ was then created, before being deleted in July 2008 with the result Delete/Listify (see discussion here), and the article was restored. Logically, these two disussions show that any information about "Croatian-Australian Socceroos"‎ should not be on Wikipedia in either article or category form, and so I propose that this article should be deleted. GiantSnowman 23:57, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bashar Kiwan

edit
Bashar Kiwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

BLP lacking in the required multiple independent reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage indicating notability. Original prod was removed by the creator of this article an account that appears to be a SPA account here solely to write about this person. After the prod and tags asking for sources the only source that was added is to a site called "ArabAd" which suggests paid advertising/press releases a.k.a. something that would fail the requirement to be independent of the source. The site requires a subscription to even see it, so most people have no idea what it even says there. Even if this were to somehow turn out to be a source that meets our criteria, it's only one, and we need multiple ones to demonstrate notability. DreamGuy (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding his notability, here are some results from Google News in English: [1]

Here are some results from Google France: "bashar kiwan"&cf=all Retfoc (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out specific articles from reliable publishers about the subject of this article? The ones I have been able to find about the subject of this article do not appear to be reliable sources and the hits in reliable sources are not about the subject of the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mention in Entrepeneur magazine (certainly a reliable publisher) count: [2] Retfoc (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused by the "[c] 2007 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com) " at the bottom of that listing - who/what is al bawaba? what is their relation to Entreprenuer that Entreprenuer prints their copyright content? what is the relationship between al bawaba and Bashar Kiwan? There were too many "unusualities" about the item for me to give it full credance as a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 07:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like it's a publication, and that Entrepeneur magazine picked up the article somehow. I agree it is strange, but after the preliminary research you have already done I'm fairly confident that you will agree that the individual is notable and worthy of mention in Wikipedia. The organization he leads employs over 6,000 individuals, and as you can see from this page they are rapidly expanding: [3]. Here are two existing wikipedia articles that mention the Waseet newspaper: [4] & [5].

Looking forward to your feedback.

Retfoc (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, until I have a better sense of who how and why this copyright material came into Entrepreneur, I am not willing to say that it is independant third party content which is accurate and fact checked. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? From the bottom of the page:

COPYRIGHT 2007 Al Bawaba (Middle East) Ltd. Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission. Copyright 2007, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Basically it's been reproduced with permission.. Not sure who Gale Group/TCC are!

Also please see this article which mentions him receiving an award for excellence in advertising [6]

Bye for nowRetfoc (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. non-notable Xavexgoem (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stepan Vdovine

edit
Stepan Vdovine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Being a school trustee is not of sufficient notability to deserve an article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A former school trustee of a small suburb of Vancouver doesn't come close to meeting WP:POLITICIAN; the references don't seem to lend him individual notability. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:01, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Thü Hürlimann

edit
Thomas Thü Hürlimann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article appears promotional. I checked Google for usable references, but didn't see anything in the first few pages. If this can be properly referenced, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:43, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SendBlaster

edit
SendBlaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability. Written like an advertisement. Postoak (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable spamware. A Google News search results in pages of press releases and no reliable sources. The only thing that comes close to a reliable sources is [7] which doesn't really appear to reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it does not appear to be notable because reliable sources can't be found. All external links are to the product's site except for the one the user above gave, which does not assert notability. More importantly, a product made by a company with no article (eDisplay) probably isn't notable. Mm40 (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC). I may attempt to include some of the sources mentioned below. American Eagle (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EPrompter

edit
EPrompter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not established, written like an advertisement. Postoak (talk) 22:25, 30 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) 00:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davkawriter

edit
Davkawriter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability. Postoak (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No such requirements were stated. Nomination was not because of the lack of appeal to any religious groups. Postoak (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense was intended. I was merely stating that the fact that it only appeals to a small group of people doesn't mean it isn't notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:44, 30 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. Not entirely sure why we're wasting our time on this. Black Kite 23:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2013 UEFA Champions League Final

edit
2013 UEFA Champions League Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's been no information released on this final yet. Until the stadium has been announced this is a very unnecessary article. chandler • 22:18, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Out Mayhem

edit
All Out Mayhem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability established. Does not meet WP:ORG. Nikki♥311 22:06, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shpadoinkel

edit
Shpadoinkel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable term. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:56, 30 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomo Miličević

edit
Tomo Miličević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I and also User:Nouse4aname, have reverted this page (a couple to times) from an article to a redirect for 30 Seconds to Mars, as the person is just a band member WP:MUSIC. However plenty of IP users (may be all the same user, but the IP address changes) have reverted back to an article, claiming notbility, due to very minor bit parts as an actor. I think we need a concensus if the page should stand, or be fixed as a redirect.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because another band member of 30 Seconds to Mars, just as non-notable[reply]

Shannon Leto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It is very easy to state this, however you must prove it to be true. Please clearly explain which criteria these people pass at WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tomo Miličević passes criteria 1, 2; see 30 Seconds to Mars discography, 3; see A Beautiful Lie#Charts, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9; see List of awards and nominations received by 30 Seconds to Mars, 10, 11, 12. Also in the page, there are reliable sources. Shannon Leto passes every criteria.--Dear87 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I have been trying to explain. Neither Tomo nor Shannon pass these criteria. 30 Seconds to Mars (as a band) has received widespread media coverage, chart hits, awards, tours etc, however, Tomo and Shannon (as individuals) have not. Just because the band that they are members of has achieved these things, does not mean that they as individuals have. Notability is not inherited, and these claims of notability belong only to the band and not to the individual members of that band. Does that make sense now? Nouse4aname (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then, every page of a musician that plays for a band must be cancel?--Dear87 (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, because some members of bands also have individual notability. For example, Jared Leto is a member of a notable band, but as an individual he is notable for being an actor and having several major roles in film and TV. Similarly, Billie Joe Armstrong is a member of several notable bands, owns a record label and is often given coverage in the media that is independent of his involvement with Green Day. It is true that there are some articles that exist in wikipedia that shouldn't be there, but it will take time to find them all and correct them. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Shannon Leto is also an actor. Although he has appeared in some films as minor roles, however he is an actor.--Dear87 (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone is aware of the fact he has had some minor appearances on film and in tv but nowhere near the 'significant multiple roles' required. They add no weight to the article. --neon white talk 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and expand. This guy passes WP:MUSIC criteria and he is also an actor. He has appeared in tv in addition to the band, then that satisfies notability.--Dear87 (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot vote twice. --neon white talk 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a new redirect. Without a doubt redirect Tomo Miličević for failing WP:MUSIC. He also fails to pass WP:GNG as although the band is covered well by multiple reliable sources, the individual is not. The article should be deleted to prevent such easy recreation in future, with well referenced sections merged to the main band article. I believe that Shannon Leto should also be redirected for failing WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Although he has appeared in some TV/films, these have been only very minor roles, and under WP:ENT, actors are only considered notable if they have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." Clearly Jared Leto passes WP:ENT and this is why he gets a separate article but the other members of the band do not. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep (non-admin closure). Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity (dance troupe)

edit
Diversity (dance troupe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTE, WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Winning a TV show doesn't equal notability Bravedog (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This does not pass WP:SNOW or WP:SPEEDY. Bravedog (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Bravedog (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not painfully invalid - we have precedents. Users, will be looking to WP for info now. Graham Colm Talk 21:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Bravedog (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - If being announced as 'Doctor Who's' new assistant can make an unknown actress notable then winning BGT and a place performing before Queen Elizabeth II at a Royal Variety Performance sure as hell does too. Trevor Marron (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the article is a stub from the TV series article..... Trevor Marron (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's got nothing to do with it Bravedog (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple independent references. 91.104.17.145 (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep simply on the basis that it was created about fifteen minutes ago, right after the announcement of the results; WP:BITE is very much applicable here. Reliable sources are very much bound to crop up in the next few days; I'm not one to usually root for things on such a basis, but they're going to get widespread coverage by any interpretation of common sense, so let's give this a chance to actually grow. I'd be stupefied if sources don't turn up in the next seven days, the length of a standard AfD, which can adequately establish this article's notability. Frankly, this is just embarrassing Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Graham Colm Talk 21:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look again, articles are hitting the news sites as we discus this. Trevor Marron (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Show me one thats got them without BGT.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - their bound to have lots of news happening around them over the next year, so it'll just end up gettign created again.

--86.162.191.195 (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep per Haipa Doragon. Nominator could have waited a few days/weeks to allow this to grow. Pyrrhus16 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The references are already been cited and it is hardly an hour after the winner has been announced, for one thing the media seem to be jumping on the fact they won over Susan Boyle. The references are being cited really quick and adding to it's notabality.Raintheone (talk) 21:48, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia vs russia 2003

edit
Latvia vs russia 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed, thus listed here : Game report on a single, non-notable game Passportguy (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll just explain my rationale for declining the speedy. I felt, still feel in fact, that an international match is an inherent assertion of notability. I grant you that it wasn't mentioned specifically within the article. As the threshold for getting through a speedy is lower, I felt that this had just about enough, though it was always likely to fail an AfD, which appears to be the case. GedUK  15:12, 31 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. Seddσn talk 00:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean M. Kelley

edit
Dean M. Kelley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not WP:Notable. He is briefly mentioned in a few sources. However no real assertion of reliability is made: An author of 3 books, a minister, and an employee of a Christian organization. There is nothing that says why he is important enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand you have to at least attempt a Google search before you vote. You aren't voting on the article as is, you are voting on the topic based on some research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"You do understand" that your comment is ludicrous? -- [9] HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets every requirement for verifiability and notability. You don't get in encyclopedias of religion and have an obit in the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times by being not notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per GRuban. Clear claims of notability, non-trivial coverage in relaible sources. Edward321 (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GRuban. The New York Times obituary calls him "a leading proponent of religious liberty" and the 1995 New York Times article calls him a "highly respected legal scholar." He was so prominent in the area of religious liberty issues and related sociology of religion discussions that even I've heard of him! Btw, I remember him being referred to as "Dean M. Kelley"; I think perhaps the article should be moved back there. -Exucmember (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Our standard practice is that NYT obits, small or large, always prove notability. I can't remember any exceptions in the last two years at least. For local papers where they are not necessarily either selective or reliable Hrafn is right than a single obit does not prove notability, but this does not apply for the NYT and the Times, which are selective, and I challenge him to find an example where it was held otherwise. This nomination was not even a violation of BEFORE, as the sources were already in the article when it was nominated. DGG (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not sure how i missed that. Copyvio delete GedUK  19:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banbury star

edit
Banbury star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability. A google search certainly indicates its existence, but nothing beyond that. I declined the speedy on this as there is an assertion of notability GedUK  19:22, 30 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, some suggestions to merge but the NRHP listing slightly strengthens the keep arguments (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Rutland City, Vermont

edit
Downtown Rutland City, Vermont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure that there is an officially designated area called "Downtown" Passportguy (talk) 19:03, 30 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 Melanocytic nevus. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facial mole

edit
Facial mole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article covers "facial mole" which is not a specific cutaneous condition, as support by (1) the fact a search for "facial mole" in PubMed returns no results, (2) a search for "facial mole" in the ICD-10 database returns no results, and (3) all the hardcopy reliable secondary sources listed at WP:DERM:REF have no reference to "facial mole." However, the topic of mole is a appropriate article topic; therefore, I suggest that this article be deleted, but would not object to keeping a redirect to mole or nevus if that is what the community wanted. ---kilbad (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Tnxman307, CSD A7: Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Widwi

edit
Widwi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Website with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. Was going to tag for speedy, but an earlier prod had been contested by article creator with no comment.

The two gnews hits don't show notability; gsearch comes up with lots of directory listings and random matches for this character string, but not notability. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa info here--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:30, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yerm Lunar Calendar

edit
Yerm Lunar Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, no sources Jc3s5h (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Even though mention was made back on March 8 in the article's talk page that the article was not notable, no sources have been provided and nothing else has been done to indicate the topic is notable. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indications of notability. Edward321 (talk)
  • Delete - no sourcing for notability. Note that a wikipedia editor claiming to be the inventor of the calendar has weighed in on the talk page for the articel agreeing that the calendar is not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seddσn talk 00:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crowe brothers

edit
Crowe brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

With articles existing on all members of the family, and nothing outside this article that implies that the significance of them being related is anything more than the fact that they are related and both played cricket. I would suggest delete, with no scope for a redirect. SGGH ping! 17:28, 30 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. by User:Maxim. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy Game Guides

edit
Strategy Game Guides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining speedy, but this is unsalvageably unencyclopedic. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! Some people (game players hardcore gamers) really need these articles to help them. To someone who just likes to play games, this article is not important. However, this article is really aimed towards hardcore gamers or people who really really want to beat a game. Or to people who just want to help. In this perspective, this article is a great edition to the game universe.

What do you mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoofanickymama (talk • contribs) 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think that it is a great article! IF you do not think so, how about we just leave it alone. It is just one article! Please let it stay! It is a very good article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoofanickymama (talk • contribs) 17:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


How could you guys think this is a bad article? I think that this article is a very creative post by the user! I am friends with apoofanickymama and he is really really great! let it stay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.17.113 (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC) — 69.138.17.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Redirect I dont even know where to start with what's wrong with this article. Redirect per Beeblebrox. Q T C 17:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that we can retain this article. The thing to do is to conduct this discussion politely to minimize hurt feelings. The author did put effort into helping us and deserves an explanation with few blue links to policy, and if possible, the text should be copied to some more appropriate place outside WP.

    I can give it a shot, but I'm easily distracted by shiny objects. --Kizor 17:46, 30 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand – Pakistan relations

edit
New Zealand – Pakistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

noting that NZ does not have a full embassy in Pakistan. the vast majority of coverage is about their sporting relations in cricket and hockey. there is a little bit of coverage like this and another ministers saying we want to cooperate but not enough for an article in my opinion. It is important to note how the NZ govt describes this relationship "New Zealand's relations with Pakistan have historically been friendly but slight". LibStar (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article is fine. And the article you link to, confirms they have a relationship , even if they consider it slight. Honestly now. Are you one of those who keeps saying to look for sources that say there is a relationship? The article is well written, and has information those interested in the subject would find useful. Dream Focus 17:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dream focus you say "And the article you link to, confirms they have a relationship". It may have a relationship but it needs notable relations to be a Wikipedia article. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Government websites or government run news agencies are not primary sources, that is an error on your part. The primary source for a signed economic agreement would be the text of the agreement, not a government website reporting the signing. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand only has three million people in it. Their economy is mostly based on foreign trade. They sent foreign aid to Pakistan to assist after natural disasters. They have also helped them in clearing landmines. New Zealand's official government website says, "New Zealand has also worked with Pakistan as a ‘frontline state’ in the war against terrorism." I don't know exactly what that means, I discussing it on the article's talk page, before adding it into the article. There does seem to be a notable relationship between the two countries though. Dream Focus 18:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the Biruitorul Biography Rule. Only information in biographies is notable for Wikipedia? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's so frustrating when someone can't just read what I wrote! All I said was that trivial details such as state visits quickly forgotten - something we'd never, for example, bother to mention in Musharraf's biography (or, if you want, in an article on the foreign relations of Pakistan) - ought not to be given any attention in this venue either. Let's stop prioritizing trivia already. (And to pre-empt your comment about trivia being a "personal opinion": so is "not trivia". The point being that we have to rely on WP:N - have multiple, reliable, independent sources covered the topic of "New Zealand – Pakistan relations"? No. Thus, delete.) - Biruitorul Talk 22:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you it is equally frustrating to see the "Biruitorul Biography Rule" used over and over instead of quoting Wikipedia policy. I see "multiple, reliable, independent sources" in the BBC, Associated Press, and New Zealand Herald.
I've told you there is no such "rule", and I have been acting pursuant to policy. (Is every story here worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? Of course not: we need evidence they fall under some topic that has itself been the attention of reliable secondary independent sources, which "New Zealand – Pakistan relations" has not.) Bait me one more time by bringing this up, and administrators will be informed of the matter. - Biruitorul Talk 19:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't keep invoking the Biruitorul Biography Rule at each AFD, stick to proven Wikipedia policy such as notability and reliability. The litmus test isn't inclusion in a world leader's biography. Wikipedia only requires that more than one reliable media report on a topic. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How someone considered it well written escapes me. For instance --"Both countries fought in the world wars, when pre-partitian Pakistan was part of India." Pakistan didn't exist until two years after the last world war. And "partitian" for crying out loud. If this was improved it would necessarily end up stub size so someone would still AfD it. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are using the Strawman fallacy. It is a fun technique where you find the weakest thing in the article and use it as a rationale to delete all the rest. The argument is a fallacy, and we shouldn't be using it here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How unethical. I commented on the standard of writing, and then commented on the article by saying "If this was improved it would necessarily end up stub size so someone would still AfD it." Also, would you say it is a strawman to point out (again) that Pakistan did not exist until 1947 and could not have "fought in the world wars" as claimed in the article? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! That is the definition of the strawman fallacy. There are 10 fact, and you ignore 9 facts and concentrate on the weakest one, and then say the whole article has to be deleted because that one fact is weak or wrong. You also may notice that articles on US relations have info before 1776. Articles on Iran relations go back to Alexander the Great. The area and people existed, even if the modern country did not yet exist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are still being unethical. It is patently rubbish for you to say I want the article deleted because one "fact" is weak or wrong. I gave one example. I didn't say that was the only thing wrong with the article. I have twice stated "If this was improved it would necessarily end up stub size so someone would still AfD it. " Regarding your "10 facts," you ignore "trivia is trivia" comments by other opposers. When trivia is removed we end up with a stub and someone will AfD it. I am pleased to see someone has removed one of the "facts", the bit claiming Pakistan fought in two world wars. Couldn't have, of course. The Indian army/ies yes. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Trivia" is a subjective term, stick to the Wikipedia Pillars of notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
State visits happen literally every week of every year; strange we don't feel compelled to mention them outside "rescue" efforts on this series of nonsense articles, isn't it? - Biruitorul Talk 19:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And at 50 per year, lets assume they take two weeks off for personal holidays, and 20K permutations of countries it would take 400 years of state visits to complete a cycle. Using that math, state visits aren't very common. In the end it is what is reported by reliable media, not some arbitrary number of them occurring, or if they are mentioned in world leaders biographies. Not every world leader has an published 300 page biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Above and beyond any presumption of inherent notability for such articles, the sources present in the article satisfy the Wikipedia notability standard. Any issues with quality of writing can be address through a process called "editing". Alansohn (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they can, but you end up with a stub at best and the article still gets dumped. Waste of time, but feel free. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say by anyone's standard the BBC, Associated Press, and New Zealand Herald are independent and reliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're independent, but that doesn't mean every scrap of information they put out is worth including in an encyclopedia. WP:NOTNEWS and all that. - Biruitorul Talk 19:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS has no such restriction. It prohibits an article on the meeting of two ministers, or an article on a treaty if it is only mentioned once in the media. It has no bearing on using that information in a larger article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Alansohn. The subject matter of bilateral relations between nation states is notable. The sourced info on the mine clearing program and trade clearly establish present day relations. Not so sure about WWII alliances but it could go in the background section. This article needs work, not deletion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is saying New Zealand officials can't find Pakistan on a map, or that sheep farmers don't send wool there. What we are saying is that the subject "New Zealand – Pakistan relations" has not been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources, and that try as one might, perform as many Google searches to dredge up bits of trivia as one might, one still isn't going to establish the notability of the purported topic. - Biruitorul Talk 05:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it trivia is just a way to denigrate what you don't like. The news sources are reliable according to Google and Wikipedia, and that is all that matters by Wikipedia rules to be notable and verifiable. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia is trivia: the information in the article bears no relation to other information, is chaotically structured, is impossible to link to, and is meaningless, regardless of how one may spin it. - Biruitorul Talk 19:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Trivia" and "meaningless" are subjective terms, stick to the Wikipedia Pillars of notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Meaningless, meaningless, all is meaningless" - Ecclesiastes 1:2. Wikipedia is meaningless. Our lives are meaningless. Existence is meaningless. Your arguments are meaningless. Maybe you should avoid these kind of arguments in the future for the good of this project ("which I choose to believe is not meaningless").--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Delete or else Merge to [Foreign relations of New Zealand]. Article is comprised of trivia and the sort of minutiae of an international relationship that, however well sourced and comprehensively annotated, simply isn't notable.Daveosaurus (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why only merge to New Zealand?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because that's the only article of the two I'm likely to have anything to do with. If anyone keeping an eye on the Pakistan article want the information they're welcome to it. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I bring it up in part because the Foreign relations of Pakistan is already quite long. Merging these articles would almost necessarily result in the loss of sourced information.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above bilateral relations between nation states is notable as well as details of the mine clearing program. Also there it has recently been announced that the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan is promoting its links with educational institutions in New Zealand. Pahari Sahib 12:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per additions by Norton and by Pahari. In this case, there's sufficient evidence of a growing relationship between the two nations. Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a guideline on the notability of bilateral relationships? If not, it seems like a useful thing to have. I'm sure this isn't the only debate along these lines (although possibly it is the most rancorous). --Helenalex (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, the guideline is good ol' WP:N, based on whether one can find significant coverage in independent sources. A couple of months ago, there were some other people who wanted to work out some type of policy. There was a lot of self-important talk about how the rest of us should hold off until their committee came to a consensus, and at least one closing administrator fell for that "wait for the outcome of our policy discussion" nonsense. They had one guy who wanted to rename all the articles for no apparent reason other than to rename the articles. Those of us who debate these regularly knew that there would be no consensus, and that it's up to the participants to judge each of these on their own merits, with a healthy reliance upon common sense. Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At first glance, this article seems to have content. However, closer reading shows that it is actually a list of 15 facts covering issues such as two state visits and competition in cricket. Much of the material comes from a reference where the NZ government has helpfully listed all contacts with Pakistan. That reference starts with "New Zealand's relations with Pakistan have historically been friendly but slight." We have no analysis (or even brief mention) in a source discussing the notability of the relations. The relations are not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:IINFO. Material demonstrates low-level and highly sporadic contacts that falls well short of "relations". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two fairly important countries. they have trade relations as well as diplomatic. There are a few pairings of these that are not appropriate for an article, but the material already present for this one is sufficient, as I think will be the case for all countries of this size. That the same information would have to me merged to two separate articles is one reason against merge as a solution. an even more significant one is that the article on foreign relations of each, would have over a hundred fairly long sections and be totally unmanageable. Looking at these one at a time in this fashio tends to obscure things like that. DGG (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article crammed with trivia by means of synthesis, and preoccupied with proving its own notability by connecting random facts, but utterly non-encyclopedic. Dahn (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like everyone was emailed their talking points to bring up in the AFD. You guys are well organized, but "trivia" is a subjective term, stick to the Wikipedia Pillars of notability and verifiability. They are the only things that matter here.
You are using the argument of "relative importance" which isn't a concern of Wikipedia. While it is true if you or I were to rank all the world's bilateral relations, this would be in the bottom third, and Russia-Ukraine relations would be in the top third, Wikipedia doesn't care. It wasn't written for you and me personally, it only cares about notability and verifiability, both are met here.
One more time: It looks like everyone was emailed their talking points to bring up the word "trivia" in the AFD. You guys are well organized, but "trivia" is a subjective term, stick to the Wikipedia Pillars of notability and verifiability. They are the only things that matter here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I understand your argument about WP:SYNTH. Are you trying to say that it is synthesis to say that references to treaties, official visits, trade volumes, or military cooperation or competition between countries relate to the relations of those countries? I would say that that's just common-sense under the definition of foreign relations.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are presuming notability is inherent in, for instance, the existence of a double taxation treaty. However, no relieable independent source considers these things notable. You are essentially putting x-y together, and drawing your own conclusion.
An independent source is required for notability not verifiability. A government website is verifiable. All Wikipedia almanac entries and gazetteer entries are derived from US Government data dumps. We use census data for townships, and official government biographies for all federal judges and state representatives. Click on the template for CongressBio and see how many biographies are sourced with only a government biography. You can do the same for the template for federal judges. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder: The first line of Wikipedia:Five pillars reads as follows: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." You may denigrate an almanac as a book of trivia, but Wikipedia "incorporat[es] elements of ... almanacs". Cheers. Pillars trump guidelines everytime. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Authors have dug up a bunch of random facts to throw together, but I see no sources proving that the relations between these two countries are a notable area of inquiry in political studies or anything. Appears to be a random cross-categorization. This is looking like it'll be closed as no consensus, but I just wanted to add my two cents. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Sawyer

edit
AfDs for this article:
Errol Sawyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted article brought back after userfication w/o anything concrete to show for it. No photography books published, awards won, well-known photographs, inclusion in anthologies, or anything else that makes a photographer of note. Main editor — major COI — claims notability on presence of work in museums per additional criteria in WP:CREATIVE (is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries), but only three claims can be substantiated and these only through a catalog card, search engine, and a list with over 3,000 names. Per WP:BIO's "Basic criteria," I would argue such sources don't contribute toward notability in the same sense that primary sources don't (no coverage involved). Only independent secondary coverage demonstrated is left over from previously deleted version: a review in PF Magazine that backs up nothing of note (mainly bio info) and a few sentences in a book on having discovered Christie Brinkley. The rest of the sources are self-published, don't verify the text, or primary.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination, this article fails to achieve notability. The additional facts of the previous deletion, the recreation by a COIed editor, the survival of a Speedy Delete request by the narrowest of justifications, and the obvious stretching of the thin documentation are all further evidence of the attempts to create notability through the existence of an encyclopedic article. Sawyer would be better served by an article written after he achieved acclaim, rather than this promotional item. TheMindsEye (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not worried about the need for readers to do some work (typing name in search field, etc) to see that claims that Sawyer's work is held by museums are indeed verifiable. However, the verifiable holdings may be rather less than what's suggested above. One of the three places is said in the article to have just two photographs; the article is silent about another (the V&A), which turns out to have what appear to be three catalogue entries for the same item: "Errol Sawyer, photographer" upper surface of jewel case. / Contains Powerpoint Presentations and Word documents. / Local Notes: / Donated by Errol Sawyer. / Subjects: / Photography, Artistic -- Netherlands. / Genre or Form: / CD-ROMs -- Netherlands 2002. A self-donated, self-published CD is, I submit, rather minor. ¶ I'm also worried about what sourcing there is. Take the claim that "Since 1984, Sawyer has worked on multicultural beauty projects for Vis-A-Vis Magazine." This is footnoted with a link to what turns out to be an article about beauty whose only mention of Sawyer (or photography) is "Photography by Errol Sawyer". So all the "source" shows is that at least once, directly or indirectly, Sawyer recently worked for Vis-A-Vis. ¶ A number of editors have tried their best with this article, and it's better than it was. Maybe the "Article Rescue Squadron", as invited by Genovese12345, can find some critical discussion of Sawyer's work. I'll postpone my "!vote" for some days. -- Hoary (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It seems much effort has gone into rescuing this article already, and the sources just aren't there - Vartanza (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I think there was just enough previously, and clearly enough now. His work is in the collection of several major museums, and several articles have been written about him--either alone would be sufficient. I really regret to have to say it, but I have the impression that the opposition to this article by the nominator is not necessarily in good faith; the history of the article shows excessive concentration on one minor point about the sponsorship or discovery of a particular model, and I think that' was the focus here--the questioning of the sources is in excess and pointy; the magazines listed are significant magazines,and print sources are just fine. I have tried to help the author find more, and to tried to persuade her not to includes some of the inadequate sources; I wish the article was stronger, but it is still strong enough. I cannot recollect the degree of challenge and disbelief shown here to any other similar article. DGG (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, what are these "several articles" that have been written about him? I've seen a single article (as a PDF briefly hosted by WP) in a magazine: Hoeneveld, "Errol Sawyer". What else is there in any magazine or book? Further, I don't think my characterization above of the "sourcing" for the assertion that "Since 1984, Sawyer has worked on multicultural beauty projects for Vis-A-Vis Magazine" is in excess. (It's certainly pointy: my point was and is that even what appears to be sourced may not be. I think that both you and I are free to make points. If we dismiss this AfD on suspicion of pointiness, we might as well dismiss the article for embarrassingly obvious pointiness; indeed, COI has already been claimed, although I'd say that OWN has been a much bigger problem.) But back to sourcing. Since I pointily pointed out on 31 May that it was off, and indeed since the "Article Rescue Squadron" announced a planned rescue effort, no improvement has been made. The article's main author probably has an unrivaled knowledge of what may have appeared in the press, etc, and I infer that what's cited in the article is all that exists to be cited; if it isn't, then let's see improvements by other editors. -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think DGG is a bit guilty of exaggeration in justifying his keep vote. But I agree with Hoary that there's likely nothing more to be found in terms of secondary citations/significant coverage to add to the inadequate amount the article currently has. If there was, the article's main editor would know to find it and have put a quick end to this months ago, but instead has been almost entirely focused on trying to "cite" existence of work in museums, when that work might just be more self-donated CDs like with the V&A, which no notable photog would have to resort to.  Mbinebri  talk ← 03:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, "weak" in that I suspect that Sawyer does merit an article but there appear to be next to no materials for creating one. The page at intute.ac.uk is much cited, but this is only incidentally about Sawyer and instead is primarily about his website; it seems unlikely that Mary Burslem (whose name appears on many of these entries) would have done more than repeat assertions either contained within the website or provided within any recommendation of it that she may have received. Since the start of this second AfD, neither the "Article Rescue Squadron" nor DGG nor indeed anybody else has actually done anything to rescue this article, which in the past has been fiercely defended by one editor (who at times seems to want to own not only the article but its talk page too). Not that it should matter much, but I like quite a bit of the little JPEGs I have seen of Sawyer's work; if his book City Mosaic is published (as has been promised) or there is some major exhibition then I'd expect that this would get some discussion somewhere. A new article could then be considered on its merits (and not speedied). In the meantime, this one can be userfied to Efsawyer. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're misinterpreting what the Intute page is. It's not about Sawyer's website — it's from Sawyer's website; i.e., it's a mirror, as the first sentence is, "This is the website of fine art photographer Errol Sawyer," and the publisher is cited as Fischer. Burslem is just the person who catalogued the entry apparently.  Mbinebri  talk ← 03:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's a copy of part of Sawyer's, then perhaps you can point to where within Sawyer's site is written "This is the website of fine art photographer Errol Sawyer". I can't. (The Flash on that site is an irritation, but there aren't many [quasi-] pages to look through.) The publisher of the site is indeed Fischer. "This is the website of" would be a clunky thing to say on that particular website but it's just the kind of thing that an exhausted cataloguer might write about it, and indeed the cataloguers often do write it: here, here, here, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SNOW delete. ÷seresin 17:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

edit
Joseph and Imhotep are the same person (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have declined a G4 speedy deletion request on this article. However, there is much that is similar between this article and the one that was deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep. While the author has in good faith rewritten his article and added references, it is still essentially a mass of synthesis, and the references used are not WP:reliable sources. LadyofShalott 15:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for considering this article again.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will approach it better this time having benefited from our previous discussions.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been thoroughly rewritten. The basic outline is much the same but the quality of the referencing has been substantially improved.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded and mentions all viable alternative points of view. --Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article attempst to consider all view points. When a source does not reach the same conclusion as the article that source is not used to support the article's conclusion but is included to give perspective to the arguement.--Drnhawkins (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC) This article does not contain synthesis WP says that synthesis is Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. This article does not do this. Please do not delete--Drnhawkins (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Comment - That's the thing though: you are developing a thesis. This is the very definition of synthesis. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. LadyofShalott 16:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were only 30 dynasties in Egypt and so we are talking about a finite number of possibilities. When we start to narrow them down by matching profiles then there are no other contenders who fit the bill. --Drnhawkins (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC) When it comes to dates, the main contenders are the 3rd dynasty of djoser and the 17th dynasty of Hyksos. These are world's apart, especially when the exodus is said to have been around the end of the 12th dynasty about 1445BC and Joseph preceded the exodus by 430 years.--Drnhawkins (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC) There are numerous articles on the web and in published books that conclude as I have. The number of reliable sources who have actually gone to Egypt, looked at the data, learned to read the heiroglyphics etc is somewhat limited.--Drnhawkins (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I have produced have produced a handful of what I would call reliable sources. Reliable sources on this subject are few and far between. We need to be realistic about what we can achieve. I would ask you, what reliable sources can you produce to say that Joseph was not Imhotep? As an encyclopedia, would you rather avoid the issue or publish a balanced article that considers all views and leans towards the consensus. The consensus is leading strongly towards Joseph being Imhotep.--Drnhawkins (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that the consensus on this discussion is not to delete is based on non biased informed decisions. --Drnhawkins (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, not all published books qualify as reliable sources, as per that page. Basically, as I see it, this whole article presents a few problems right off the top:

  • (1) It assumes that the OT Joseph were a real, historical personage. This assumption, so far as I am aware, is one that not even a majority of Christians share. However, by acting on that assumption as a reality, the article is inherently violating WP:POV.
  • (2)It also goes further to make the assumption that there would be extant historical documents about that person which can be used to indicate his identity. This is a very weak assumption. The number of sources from the era is extremely limited, and far from comprehensive. If Joseph were a historical person, there is no necessary reason to believe that the few extant historical documents would even mention his name. Note that we didn't even have external proof of the existence of Pontius Pilate under about 100 years ago. To assume that we would have such documents regarding a personage several hundreds, if not thousands, of years earlier is untenable.
  • (3) The article if it were to be NPOV would have to present all sides of the discussion with basically equal weight. This article very clearly fails to meet that criteria.
  • (4) As stated above, this article as it exists is apparently trying to make an argument for something. Such would be a very clear violation of wikipedia policy. We do not write articles to try to prove anything. All we basically do, and are supposed to do, is repeat what others have said in reliable sources elsewhere.
  • It might, emphasis might, be possible to make an article about the Historicity of Joseph, if there were sufficient reliable sources as per WP:RS to establish notability as per WP:NOTABILITY. But that article would also have to present with equal weight the possibility that the story of Joseph is a total myth, that it may be the conflation of several different individuals into one story, etc., etc., etc. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also agree that we would have to be realistic in what we can achieve. I, and I believe the rest of wikipedia, would take that statement as being, basically, a statement that, if there aren't enough reliable sources establishing notability, then the content or article should not exist. There is no inherent need for wikipedia to have an article on everything, particularly if by so attempting we act contrary to the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. If, as I think might be true in this case, there isn't sufficient reliable information on the subject, then there isn't an article on that subject here. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It reads as a soapy personal essay with alot of original research. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a lot of varifiable content which should be sufficient to justify it's own article.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Regarding Notability, WP says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.[reply]

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2] "Sources,"[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4] "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. This article satisfies all these criteria.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Where is the oposition and what do they say and what reliable sources do they have? People who say that Joseph was not a real person are not quoting a reliable source, be primary or secondary.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC) The book of genesis in the Bible is a translation of some of the oldest and well preserved manuscripts written before and after the flood of Noah (estimated to be around 2500BC). It contains considerable historical information about the patriachs of Nations in the Middle East such as Abraham, Ishmael & Issac, Jacob & Esau, Judah and Joseph and many others.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC) This article cannot be considered original research. Historians and archaeologist have long identified these two characters. The major objection has been the discrepancy in the estimated dates. The revised article addresses this issue much better by explaining how Egyptian history has been stretched out far too much by incorrect assumptions like counting the same dynasty twice or not appreciating that two dynasties may be contemporary. Most historians have aready revised Egyptian origins down from 5000BC to 3000BC. New insights noted by reliable sources have now shown that Egyptian history can now be contracted by another 1000years which will bring it into line with the Bible and Mesopotamian history. This article uses reliable sources to address the issue of dates. It does not use synthesis and is not a POVFORK. The identification of Joseph with Imhotep is so longstanding and is so widely held and prevalent that it cannot be considered FRINGE. What's more, the article is not merely a rehash of the previous article. I have made a genuine attempt to find reliable sources to substantiate the article which has been written in the Neutral point of view. There are numerous articles written on this subject available to those who would like to do a google search.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Dates can only be imputed by tracing the genealogies of key figures in the Bible and knowing who their contemporaries were, how long they lived and how old they were when they produced their offspring. The genealogical records are not as extensive as one would like for these purposes and so the dates ascribed to various figures in the Bible are only estimates.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Interesting but WP is a place for basic information, not advocacy. Any sourced information could be added to the articles on each man. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: article appears to consist of little (nothing?) more than WP:OR & WP:SYNTH. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article. A brief mention of this theory may be appropriate in the parent articles, to the extent that it's supported by reliable sources; but this kind of in-depth coverage of a WP:FRINGE theory is not appropriate for Wikipedia.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is still WP:FRINGE material that does not derive from WP:RS. Were it just fringe nuttiness, it could be presented from a neutral POV, but it is presented from a position of advocacy, as is obvious from the very title. The entire thing is predicated on a revisionary chronology that is only accepted by 'scholars' who are POV pushing, not mainstream. It is an opinion essay writ large, entirely dedicated to presenting an alternative interpretation to that accepted by mainstream scholars, without the slightest indication that this is the case - that most scholars think this interpretation is total BS. As such, it represents a prototypical POV fork. Agricolae (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider for a moment: what if the article is right - wouldn't it be tragic to continue to treat these characters as separate individuals. What are the implications if you are wrong in not allowing this basic fact to be commonly known.--Drnhawkins (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Please give this article a trial for say six months to a year to guage reactions and to allow others to contribute.--Drnhawkins (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence for the identification of Joseph and Imhotep is accumulating. If this theory proves correct, the appropriate thing to do is to merge the records of Joseph and Imhotep. For now, as it has not been proven beyond doubt, it is sufficient to have a separate article to deal with this topic. --Drnhawkins (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To omit is just as serious to include. So I emplore you to do what is right. --Drnhawkins (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case for is much stronger than the case against. To suppress true information is just as serious as spreading false information. Please do what is right. --Drnhawkins (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Asserting your opinions as fact is not helpful. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reduce this article to a one or two line reference in the articles on Imhotep or Joseph at this point in time will just antagonize people who disagree. It needs to be accompanied by a full explanation. As such, it deserves it's own article. --Drnhawkins (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC) people who belief this article is synthesis is are not quoting reliable sources and are of questionable neutrality. --Drnhawkins (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically this article asserts that Joseph and Imhotep are the same person. This is a widely held belief in religious circles because religious people have no trouble with the Bible as a historical document. --Drnhawkins (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making demonstratably false statements. If this were a widely held belief you be able to produce reliable sources supporting it. It is a fringe belief and based on your lack of sources supporting the belief, it is a non-notable fringe belief.Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, if you do not believe the Bible is true, you will have trouble believing that this article is true. --Drnhawkins (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People who disagree with it are really disagreeing with the Bible upon which this article heavily depends.--Drnhawkins (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been repeatedly explained before, one's belief in the accuracy of the Bible has nothing to do with the issue. Absolutely nothing in the Bible says that Joseph is Imhotep. The majority of Bible-believing Christians do not agree with you and I expect most Christian would find your acting as a self-appointed spokesman for them to be offensive at best. I certainly do. Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was not for the Bible, we would not even know about Joseph and this discussion would not be taking place. --Drnhawkins (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible as a Historical Document

edit

The book of genesis in the Bible is a translation of some of the oldest and well preserved manuscripts written before and after the flood of Noah (estimated to be around 2500BC). It contains considerable historical information about the patriachs of Nations in the Middle East such as Abraham, Ishmael & Issac, Jacob & Esau, Judah and Joseph and many others.

Dates can only be imputed by tracing the genealogies of key figures in the Bible and knowing who their contemporaries were, how long they lived and how old they were when they produced their offspring. The genealogical records are not as extensive as one would like for these purposes and so the dates ascribed to various figures in the Bible are only estimates. --Drnhawkins (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. For well over 3,000 years, Joseph and Imhotep were not believed to have any connection with each other. Thus, I don't believe that any harm will result from deleting this article at this time. If the view that Joseph and Imhotep were the same person becomes more commonly known (it does not have to achieve universal or even majority acceptance, just become a prominent and well-known opinion), we can re-create the article later. I also question whether the belief that Joseph and Imhotep were the same is widely held in religious circles, given that Imhotep is not mentioned in the Bible. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are 4000 years since Joseph and Imhotep. That's a lot of time that that they have been considered the same person. It is not hard to see how their connection got lost!--Drnhawkins (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you moved to China, would you still be called by the same name? There is a Chinese equivalent for most anglicized names. Many people would just choose a new name or be given one. The same is true of Joseph / Imhotep Egyptians knew him as Imhotep and Hebrews knew him as Joseph --Drnhawkins (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph was a very prominent figure in egyptian history - why doesn't he figure in it??

edit

If Joseph was placed second in charge of Egypt by Pharaoh, there should be some note of this in Egyptian records. [1] Joseph helped to save Egypt and the surrounding nations from a famine lasting seven years. [2] Joseph would have had to construct massive grain silos for storing grain in many Egyptian cities and indeed, massive silos can be found in many historical significant Egyptian cities today (eg Saqqara). Joseph married the daugher of one of the High Priests in Egypt. [1] He saved his country from a seven year famine and brought up all the land of Egypt except for that of the priests who did not need to sell their land because Pharaoh supplied them with food. The people became loyal subjects of Pharaoh because of what Joseph had done. [3] Joseph was, therefore, responsible for making the Pharaoh's wealthy and powerful. [11] Joseph served the Pharaohs from the age of thirty. [1] He died at the age of 110 years of age and was given a Royal Egyptian burial. [46] It is quite possible that he may have been involved with the design of the first and maybe the second pyramid. His family, the descendants of Jacob (Israel), produced mud bricks and became numerous in number in the 430 years that they lived in Egypt. There were over 600 thousand adult males (not counting women and children) who were lead out of Egypt by Moses during a time of great disaster in Egypt. [47] With a list of accomplishments like this, it would be hard to conceive that Joseph would not be mentioned in Egyptian heiroglyphics or memorialized some other way. --Drnhawkins (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is - he does figure in Egyptian history. He was known as Imhotep by the Egyptians.--Drnhawkins (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please give this article a trial for 6-12 months

edit

give other people a chance to comment on the discussion pages and make changes to the article when there is a consensus.

Isn't this what Wikipedia is all about???

--Drnhawkins (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article is the very definition of WP:SYNTH and also has POV issues, not to mention the creator appears to have COI issues. Skinny87 (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is this article simply an enhanced but not improved version of the first deleted article, it is the very model of a WP:SYN.WP:OR article , full of self-published sources (some fringe of fringe), an attempt to use the Bible as a historical doocument, an attempt to argue a particular point in a way that makes it look like anything but an encyclopedic article, a lack of understanding of Egyptology, etc. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not quote any reliable sources to substantiate your views. --Drnhawkins (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close as Delete

edit

Per WP:SNOW - The only keep (although they haven't !voted or presented policy reasons) is from the article creator, and all other !votes are delete, plus the previous AfD. Verbal chat 12:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Not Delete based on truth and principle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drnhawkins (talk • contribs)
Do you have any wikipedia policies or guidelines that back up your position? Verbal chat

At least the world will know where wikipedia stands so far as the Bible is concerned. --Drnhawkins (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The world can easily know if they read our policies and guidelines. Deletion of an article using such fringe and self-published sources would occur even if the Bible hadn't been mentioned. Was this the purpose of the article all along? Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the article has always been to say that the Hebrew Joseph mentioned in the Bible is the same person as Imhotep mentioned in Egyptian history. I am not trying to achieve anything more than that. If it is true it should be in an encyclopedia. --Drnhawkins (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imhotep/Joseph is an anchor point for historians to tie together the history of Israel, Egypt and Mesopotamia.--Drnhawkins (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"At least the world will know where wikipedia stands so far as the Bible is concerned." Wikipedia has no opinion on the Bible. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The matter at hand is the notability or lack thereof of the subject of this article. Wikipedia is not a soabox for religion or fringe theories. Dlohcierekim 13:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above fine arguments Creator appears to be out to promote "The TruthTM" as they see it. There is no WP:RS supporting this for an encyclopedia article. he has synthesized and and Original researched his way to a winderful thesis. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a publisher of synthesized, original researched theses. That the article mentions "other points of view" just makes it-- a thesis. Other editors have already given good reasons for delete. No policy based argument has been made to keep. Dlohcierekim 14:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as recreation of previously deleted non-notable fringe theory. Salt The article creator is highly problematic as he repeatedly ignores concensus or indeed any and all attempts explain reliable sources, fringe theories, etc, etc. His attempts to turn this into a religious issue, when it has nothing to do with religion are troubling. His attempting to act as a self-appointed spokesmen for Christians is troubling as well, frankly offensive, and seems a deliberate attempt to cloak personal opinions with some sort of moral authority. 14:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has been amended

edit

The article has been amended to read more like an encyclopedia article than a thesis. It is not original research.

The Bible says that Joseph went to Egypt and was appointed by the pharaoh to be in charge of all Egypt. Joseph stored up grain and so saved Egypt. He was able to buy all the land for pharaoh except that of the priest's by selling grain and so the pharaohs became wealthy and the people became his subjects. Pharaoh invited Joseph's family to come and stay in Egypt where they grew to become the nation of Israel over the next 430 years. --Drnhawkins (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One would expect Joseph to be mentioned in Egyptian history. The Egyptians, however, knew him as Imhotep.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The profile of Imhotep matches that of Joseph remarkably well--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article presents the evidence to say that the Joseph of the Bible is the Imhotep of Egyptian history.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the information is varifiable from reliable sources even though I have quoted some sites that are 'self published' --Drnhawkins (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have quoted numerous reliable sources that draw the same conclusions with the arguments stated.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Therefore, it is not synthesis. --Drnhawkins (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said that the Bible identifies Imhotep as Joseph.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I have said is that if Joseph was Imhotep, Egyptian history would be consistent with the Bible.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again. This is original research and synthesis of information. It is not encyclopedic information covered by reliable, third party sources. While interesting as a theory and a thesis, it has no place in an encyclopedia.173.171.151.171 (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So called 'reliable third party sources' do not like (and exclude) historians and archaeologists who believe in GOD

edit

This is not 'fair' as most of what you call 'reliable third party sources' exclude material that supports the idea that there is a God.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Please stop making new sections and keep your comments together. Most of these don't belong here. Verbal chat 15:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete It appears to be snowing; you have one editor (the author) commenting over and over again making no new claims to notability. Clearly an extremely fringe viewpoint, with an article made up of original research synthesis, some balsa wood and some glue. Whether the actual sources are reliable (and many are not; the last one is to Wikipedia itself!) is neither here nor there; the topic itself is apparently not. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:48, 31 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. Smashvilletalk 15:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Record (software)

edit
Record (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable, unreleased software Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete. "...an unreleased music software program..." There are many pages on Wikipedia devoted to soon to be released software. In fact, as soon as I find the header that states, "this software is soon to be released..." I will add it. I'm new here, so bear with me. In fact, if an admin is reading this, I wouldnt mind a pointer to the template. Thanks.

Oh, and for the record, its currently in beta.Ihegba (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not Delete What Qualifies as notability? Reply and I shall quantify.

There are plenty of reviews, and the product is referenced on the Propellerhead Software page, and not by me. I simply thought I would help by creating a stub for that link that can be expanded upon when the product is released. If you so insist that there needs to be significant notability other than that and the many previews online in news, then state what is required or provide me with a link to it.

The tabloids themselves were not included in the form of a public reception section in order to keep the stub lightweight. Ihegba (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a slight mistake, this article is not about the recording process, but a new product being brought out by Propellerhead Software called Record. Ihegba (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reviewing all the points I have added non-media and non-WP:COI (EDIT:and WP:RS) breaching links to the references on the article, and specified that it is unreleased software via a template. Other than that, I do not belive it breaches any rules of general notability, as it now contains references independent of the subject. If I am wrong, please notify me. Ihegba (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:N, WP:RS and probably should be a speedy delete as spam. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, maybe I am retarded, or have a mental illness that makes me blind to this, but after reading WP:N, repeatedly 5 times from top to bottom, I fail to see how this article fails. IT IS NOT SPAM. How could it be spam? Follow the darn links, its a program that exists and it has no relation to the actual process of recording and because you have not looked at the article properly you fail to see that. This is making me irate, so many people are looking at it, saying "hey this has nothing to do with software recording" and then voting delete. READ THE ARTICLE PROPERLY BEFORE VOTING Ihegba (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellyce Kausner

edit
Ellyce Kausner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage of the individual doesn't go beyond the context of a single event. Cxz111 (talk) 14:28, 30 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 Escala (group). Fritzpoll (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Leverton

edit
Chantal Leverton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All contents of the article can already be found in the article Escala (group). Cxz111 (talk) 13:25, 30 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swarl

edit
Swarl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining A7 speedy, judgment call. Although much of this is promotional of a particular yahoo group, there is potentially some salvageable encyclopedic information. You make the call. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 30 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian-Azerbaijanis Youth Organization (NAYO)

edit
Norwegian-Azerbaijanis Youth Organization (NAYO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a non-notable organization; Google searches do not turn up anything. If any of our Norwegian editors can confirm notability, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it therefore makes you a single purpose editor LibStar (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
obviously. I need then quickly create my second article:) Natura rerum (talk) 15:56, 31 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit
MENUdo (Homebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining speedy, although it's a close call. Language suggests the author is or is friends with the developer, but isn't explicit. 18 hits here, but they're all in Spanish so I can't evaluate. The given references are messageboards. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • snip* nvm......whats wrong with forums?

and also, you can use google's translate feature to view foreign articles [and yes. i am a friend to the developer. i am the beta tester] Fgghjjkll (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also... I don't see how it promotes a non-notable piece of software. For us (NDS Homebrew Users) it's pretty notable. Is it not notable because it's unreleased? If so then why has ID Tech 5 not been flagged for deletion since it's non-released. I agree fully with Fgghjjkll that this article should be allowed to continue. It is to educate readers about the application, not to promote it, You don't exactly see something in there like, "This App is better than the rest, Use it and only it, It will be the only thing you need", And the testers probably haven't explored the software completely yet so there may be parts they don't know about yet. In short, I fail to see how this does not pass the criterion for articles, and I believe that many of the beta testers would love to contribute while their testing the software. It wasn't made by a certain company but then again, neither was the Replacement Firmware FlashMe for the DS but that still has an article. This is simply a Replacement application for NintendoDS Slot-1 flash cartridges. I also believe that this article would become more proper given time. It was only started a little while ago. Thank you for your time and please reconsider the deletion of this article. ShadowEO (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MENUdo_(Homebrew)" Fgghjjkll (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to save it please add suitable references that meet Wikipedia's criteria: "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I'm unable to find any. andy (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK....give me time to find those "Reliable Sources" you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgghjjkll (talk • contribs) 22:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Save - I added a source from a site called GameGrep to the references of the article. We are working on references, also keywords you might want to add into your searches XMBLite Nintendo DS NDS Soulanger, He named his project after a Flilipno dish that is made with cheeseburger I believe. Thank you for giving us the time to look for references. ShadowEO (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

That's not an adequate reference. Please read and follow wikipedia policy on references. andy (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read them, and I'm trying really hard to keep this article here. This is a very big project for NintendoDS Homebrew and is as of yet in closed beta and unreleased as my recent edits to the post say. The author prefers to use the GBATemp forums for status updates and announcements and there's nothing that any of us can do to change that. I don't understand why you can't accept GBATemp citations, They post news about homebrew applications. The snippets for such news are on the front page but sure, the actual articles themselves are in forum posts, that's so that people can comment on the application/news post. If you take a look at it maybe you'll see that, just go there and click any news post and hit either Source or View post. In fact, here is a link to the specified post and if you see, all news posts are replicated on the forums via an automated news posting bot. GBATemp News Post for project in question ShadowEO (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status updates, news posts, discussion forums etc are not independent and reliable third party sources. What's needed is a reference to some statement or analysis by a respected industry magazine, guru or whatever, or something like that. Please read WP:RS. andy (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

youtube videos...are they not adequate enough?Fgghjjkll (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify this to me, We're getting this article deleted because we cited references to forum posts and videos when Moonshell only has official pages and a reference to BatchDPG? so if we had an official page for this software, would the page be saved? ShadowEO (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see that Moonshell has been tagged as inadequately referenced and quite right too. Maybe it should be challenged. Any editor, yourself included, is at liberty to challenge any article through a deletion process such as this one. But that's not a reason why this article should not be deleted. It appears to fail two key wikipedia policies - notability and verifiability. I fail to see how unreleased software can be in any meaningful sense notable, unless it's a forthcoming version of or enhancement to something that's already notable. andy (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically though this is an enhancement of the FlashCart firmwares as it adds features to them. ShadowEO (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well? What I said is true? This has been up for a day now. Usually you guys answer us almost about an hour after we post, Is there something wrong? ShadowEO (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

IRC quotes? legitimate IRC quotes?Fgghjjkll (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SPeedy A9 GedUK  19:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Cappiello (2008 album)

edit
Lorenzo Cappiello (2008 album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparent hoax. None of the chart positions verify. There's a 17 year old boy on MySpace by this name, and this seems to be him. —Kww(talk) 11:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a quick and easy Google search throws up nothing relevant except what the nominator said about MySpace. According to the article the album reached number one in Italy... a search would bring up more than just papers on scientists with the same name. According to WP:MUSICBIO, a musician is considered notable if they [have] been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable - obviously, the MySpace page fails the 'multiple', 'non-trivial' and 'independent' parts of this criterion. JulieSpaulding (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JulieSpaulding. It looks like this album doesn't exist. Even if it did, it's nowhere near notable. Timmeh!(review me) 13:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A9 as artist has never had article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:15, 30 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. Seddσn talk 00:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The chris chavis experience

edit
The chris chavis experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable college radio show. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 11:09, 30 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 keep per WP:SNOW. It is blatantly obvious that this article won't be deleted, given that she has been cast in one of the most notable television roles in the whole of Britain. Besides, she's notable for being the "seventh Python" of the Kevin Bishop Show (although, admittedly, that didn't get as popular as the Pythons). (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Gillan

edit
Karen Gillan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not yet a noteable actor by WP:ENT and fiming has not even started for the new 'Doctor Who' series that will apparently make her of note. As for now the BBC press release even accepts that: "Little-known actress Karen Gillan has been unveiled as the next assistant in Doctor Who" Little Known does not sound noteable. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is obvious? Oh and there is no such thing as 'Speedy Keep'Trevor Marron (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is - see Wikipedia:Speedy Keep. I don't feel it's appropriate here, however, as this is a good faith nomination. Scog (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable because associated with Doctor Who and its large obsessive fandom. They will want to read about her.Abigailgem
But still clearly fails WP:ENT, as it is about the actor, not Doctor Who. quote:
Entertainers Shortcuts:
WP:ENT
WP:ENTERTAINER
Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
  • Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc
Perhaps the article should be reduced to a stub for now. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable as she has been cast in a leading role in a major TV series. Several news sources have seen fit to report this. All information in the article is well sourced and the article is linked from several Doctor Who articles. What is gained by deleting this article (and continuing to do so when it is recreated) until she starts filming (in July) or appears on TV (March/April 2010)? Maccy69 (talk) 11:09, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium–Cyprus relations

edit
Belgium–Cyprus relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

whilst noting that both countries have embassies, there is a real lack of coverage on actual bilateral relations. almost all of it is multilateral or statements by the European Union rather than Belgian govt in Brussels. English search. French search.Minor bilateral agreements including one on money orders. LibStar (talk) 09:13, 30 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 SNOW keep. Consensus is clear. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Yambol bus crash

edit
2009 Yambol bus crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Just fails WP:N. I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is at all notable. Car accidents happen every day and this incident seems to have recieved the same, or maybe less, coverage than all of the rest of them. DJ 09:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just how is this a run-of-the-mill accident. 16 people have died. It is huge news everywhere. Notability? NOTABILITY?! This page is notable and for you to tag it for deletion is really silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koshoes (talk • contribs) 09:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable and covered by all major news agencies. Plus, obviously an event worth a Day of national mourning is worth a wiki article as well. I'm not sure how you decided it has "recieved the same, or maybe less, coverage than all of the rest of them." While google itself is not a source it gives 5750 hits in English alone.--Laveol T 10:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, what the hell, is this for real? Can people's ignorance get any further? Todor→Bozhinov 10:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep - 16 die and update indicates 17 :(( ... 29 May was declared a national day of mourning in Bulgaria. I think that enough for a little country like Bulgaria...DJ please stop starting this actions! Thanks! TouLouse (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the number of dead has little relevance, since this is not a memorial site. However, this event is certainly notable according to WP:NOTE since it has received so much media coverage. Also, it is certainly a notable event for resulting in a Bulgarian national day of mourning. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The circumstances for this accident and the fact that the nation is mourning because of this crash which is incredibly tragic is definitely notable and there is no reason for deletion at all. I also strongly disagree with the nominator's reasoning because comparing this with a run-of-the-mill fender bender is troubling and appaling. Nate • (chatter) 11:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a serious incident. Jingby (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's time for a conclusion (to Keep), and aslo delete the Afd template.-- TouLouse (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have this WP:SNOWBALLed please? Todor→Bozhinov 11:59, 30 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.


Ivan Taslimson

edit
Ivan Taslimson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced biography of a living person. I could not find coverage in reliable sources from a brief search. The entire prose section of the article appears to have been lifted from this blog; the rest is effectively a résumé.  Skomorokh  08:37, 30 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 main article, merge the others. Clear consensus that the protests as a whole are notable, but there is consensusal articles that the additional articles are unnecessary - I'll enact this by redirecting the articles, but the material will be available in the history for merging Fritzpoll (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Tamil protests

edit
2009 Tamil protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Group of articles nominated for deletion on the grounds of notability. Essentially cover a series of protests held over a brief period of time. From what I can gather, none of them have had no medium or long term impact, and generally very little short term impact besides what is normally expected from a protest. Sourcing is predominately from organisations with a vested interest in the protests. Wikipedia is not a news source, nor is it a location to detail every single non notable protest associated with a particular issue. While thcoordination of the Tamil communities across many countries is commendable, the protests are not collectively recognised as being important on an international basis. These articles should be deleted and merged into Sri Lankan Civil War, or at the very least merged into one main article Guycalledryan (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on the grounds of notability:

  • Merge all the articles into a single article While I don't think we need seperate articles to document the protests in each country, they were notable enough to merit a Wikipedia entry. The protests may not have drawn much covarage in US, but they did garner significant coverage in Canada and Sri Lanka. We're also trying our best not to clutter the Sri Lankan Civil War article, so a merge there wouldn't be the best option.
The nominators response to a question on his talk page "In contrast, the Tea Party protests received incredible amounts of media and political coverage" shows he's clearly refering to American media, whereas Wikipedia is supposed to contain a balanced world view. Just cos an event isn't considered important enough for Fox to give 24/7 coverage, doesn't mean it isn't important. These protest played a significant role in the end game of the Sri Lankan conflict
Also, note to closing admin, Eelamstylez77 appears to be canvassing to ask editors to vote to keep these articles. [11] --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for "canvassing." It was not meant to be that way, just a notification to other editors. I also didn't know it was prohibited in Wikipedia. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • support all of Snowolf's argumentation. WP should strive to present a world wide view, including smaller countries. Merge all of those articles together seems the best way to assure this coverage without overcharging the SL civil war article. I also noted the canvassing. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you felt that way then why did you even bother editing it in the first place? Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non sequitur.99.245.37.46 (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge together - coverage in Canada certainly has been extensive and the protests have reached the point where a member of parliament is facing some heat for being at one. My understanding is that coverage and impact in other countries--apart from the USA--has been likewise extensive. //roux   18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • conditional Keep/Merge smaller articles into main - I'm not familiar with the coverage of the other demonstrations around the world, but the Tamil protests in Toronto, Canada were a major news item for several weeks. I'm of the opinion that the 'protests in canada' article is strong enough to stand on its own, along with any others from the list of a comparable size. However, I think that all the articles in this series are in dire need of cleanup if they are to remain. POV is a major concern for me with these articles (along with most articles around this conflict), as the main contributor seems to be one of the protesters. I will admit that Eelamstylez77 has done made a very honest effort to respond to POV criticisms and has improved the Canadian article accordingly. I think the style of the articles also needs to be improved if the result here is keep. Updates are also needed since the 'end' of the civil war has changed the situation drastically. These articles have potential if the POV is kept in check. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree with the assumptions made by the nominator. The protests in Canada, particularly in Toronto, were the subject of extensive media coverage for weeks, and gave rise to a number of debates over the appropriate scope of peaceful protests and how a multicultural country like Canada should address issues such as the civil war in Sri Lanka and the record of organizations such as the Tamil Tigers. The article on the Canadian protests is already sufficiently long that it would be inappropriate to merge the Canadian article - the articles on the protests in Norway, India, the U.K. and Australia are far less well developed, and I would support merging the Norway, India, U.K. and Australia articles into the general article until such time (if ever) that they are better developed and can stand on their own. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all articles,as protests they are notable just like tianamen square etc --Icemansatriani (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole.99.245.37.46 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No.--Icemansatriani (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 2009 Tamil Protests as notable as the Tiananmen Square protests? Uh, yeah - hyperbole.99.245.37.46 (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IP address user, I wonder what part of the world you come from. Its about time you read some 'world news' on news sites and newspapers. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? WP:CIV, if you please. Read the site rules if you need refreshing. And what news organizations you know of have compared the Tamil protests to Tiananmen Square? LOL. Please.99.245.37.46 (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:CIV? I don't believe I said anything offensive. And I'm talking about news channels such as BBC, CNN, CBC. Try a Google search of Tiananmen square protests and Tamil protests. They both give the same amount of hits.Eelam StyleZ (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Read some 'world news' on news sites and newspapers"? I say again, WP:CIV. And ... no Google gives far more hits on Tiananmen Square protests than Tamil protests. 20 years after the fact. FWIW. If you really think the two are comparable, you should take your own advice.99.245.37.46 (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm good with the knowledge I have, thank you very much. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the average opinions raised on this page, merge small Tamil protest articles for now with the 2009 Tamil protests for now but definitely keep 2009 Tamil protests in Canada and probably 2009 Tamil protests in the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no reason why Canadian Tamil protests article should be deleted and the UK protests have also made significant news overseas as well. Other protests are still stubs and are incomplete, meaning there is alot more to be written on them. But for now I guess it would be okay to merge them into the main article and later isolate them into separate articles if they are well developed. Bottom line, definitely do not delete. These events deserve to be documented and are encyclopedic. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note to closing admin, the notifications, alleged as canvassing, I sent to the editors were the creators and contributors of the protest articles that have been considered for deletion, as they said. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WHY ARE YOU VOTING TWICE ON THIS PAGE? Please delete one of your votes. You've been canvassing hard since this article was nominated - I, for one, don't buy your explanation.99.245.37.46 (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. I see the above posting as an elaboration of his opinion stated earlier, taking into account other editor's opinions. No need to use ALLCAPS by the way, there is no need to get emotional. This AfD will be closed as keep anyway. BTW, it would be very nice if you could register.Jasy jatere (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It's another entry, with another vote recorded. If he intended to elaborate, he should modify his first vote. People shouldn't be registering two different opinions here, thus the ALLCAPS. No need to register.99.245.37.46 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Perhaps WP:CIV could help? :) Also, what proof do you have about my "hard" canvassing? I don't play politics here. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice comeback with WP:CIV. lol You sure are playing politics. Please read the site rules if you need refreshing. You've already admitted your canvassing and apologized for it - you should have left it there.99.245.37.46 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I don't need your certification right now -- let's try and stick to the point. I did not deny what I did. You just claimed I was canvassing "hard." I don't think I begged random editors or desperately persuaded them. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you have anything against me, lets just get it cleared up right now. You are CONSTANTLY reverting my good faith edits to the Canadian article for NO particular reason and I don't want this to turn into an edit war. I'm sorry but I haven't had a problem with any editor but you since I created it. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the main article and merge any important unique information from the others. There is no particular reason for keeping them all when there's an appropriate main place that can accommodate all the material. DGG (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What we have to keep in mind if we are to merge is that protests in Canada and UK have their own notability with thousands of mainstream sources on their own. Taprobanus (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that merging all of the articles makes a lot of sense, although I agree with DGG that some of the less developed articles could be merged into the main article. If we merged all of the articles, the information on the protests in Canada would immediately seem like a good candidate to be split-off into its own article, due to length and number of sources. I'm not sure it makes sense to merge now and likely split not long thereafter. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree Taprobanus (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia–Luxembourg relations

edit
Latvia–Luxembourg relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination with no resident embassies. only 2 minor bilateral agreements [16]. almost all coverage is in a multilateral context, [17] or a recent football match between the 2 countries [18] and [19]. only multilateral coverage in French search. not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The countries have bilateral agreements in force which have been reliably sourced. Not that multilateral relations should just be discounted. What do people exactly think isn't notable about these relations?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are 2 minor agreements (eg Mutual Protection of Classified Information) that unless covered widely in the media do not make a for notable relations. A relationship does not automatically mean notable relations for a Wikipedia article. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The relations of these two nations have been significantly covered by independent media (the BBC) evidenced by the sources in the article. [20] [21] [22]--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
precedent has shown simply having 2 minor agreements does not mean notable relations. do you have evidence of significant coverage of their relations? LibStar (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which precedent? If it actually exists it should be reconsidered. Independently sourced references to bilateral treaties should clearly support a finding of notability.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of what? Items that one Wikipedia editor tells us are relevant to a topic he may have invented altogether - a synthesis, in other words? - Biruitorul Talk 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They have a clear reference from a very notable and reliable source, about what that source refers to as a bilateral agreement between the nations. [23] What better source could you find? Dream Focus 10:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 quite minor agreements from a primary source is hardly a basis for a bilateral relations article. have you found any significant coverage from independent sources that would meet WP:N? LibStar (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the sources from the BBC on this article. They are clearly independent and indicate a notable relationship.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not quite: what those sources address is something which one Wikipedia editor tells us is relevant to a topic he may have invented altogether - ie, a synthesis. - Biruitorul Talk 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almanac entries almost always rely on government website entries in Wikipedia. Every SCOTUS case is directly piped in from the SCOTUS website, the same for townships from the census data. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that is always true, primary sources can be used to verify information but not to establish notability. Please review the guidelines that reflect community consensus. Drawn Some (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are inherently flexible, and the GNG goes out of its way to repeatedly emphasise the fact. I think it particularly inapplicable to this sort of "relationship" topic. If they get in the way of improving the encyclopedia , by including subjects where there is a good deal of material, we ought to judge accordingly. The only reason WP:N still has consensus as a guideline is that there has been an agreement that we need some rules for the general purpose, and we have never had agreement on something to replace it. I think it obvious from the discussions that the last few months at AfD that the GNG would never have obtained sufficient consensus if now suggested as a new proposal, especially if proposed as applicable to all types of articles. So many exceptions would be raised as to prevent the necessary agreement. DGG (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're essentially saying WP:IAR, which isn't a very convincing argument. W/R/T the GNGs, they're there, inter alia, to guard against WP:OR/WP:SYN. If a topic hasn't been covered in secondary sources, it's going to be very hard--perhaps impossible--to write a neutral encyclopedia article on the topic and to avoid original research. So the GNGs basically say, don't write articles on topics for which only primary sources exist. Yilloslime TC 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A government website is a secondary source when discussing the signing of a treaty. The text of the treaty itself is the primary source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but it is an independent source? According to WP:N, that's what's needed to establish notability: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Yilloslime TC 17:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We recognize inherent notability in almanac and gazetteer entries. In almanacs and gazetteers the information just needs to be verifiable. Anyway the information stays in Wikipedia even when the articles are deleted. We are only debating whether they deserve their own article space. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do I expect any different? still lacks wide independent coverage for notability, more than 1 BBC article from 2000. LibStar (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why should your personal opinion of what constitutes notability ("bilateral treaties and diplomatic meetings") be of any account, as opposed to significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources - a standard applied across Wikipedia? - Biruitorul Talk 18:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been a standard across Wikipedia. We recognize inherent notability in almanac and gazetteer entries. Notability for biographies in the encyclopedia portion requires a litmus test of notability. In almanacs and gazetteers the information just needs to be verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The policy on Notability says "significant" coverage not "wide" coverage. "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." WP:N The BBC's coverage (sourced on the page) of a topic is adequate to indicate significance. Appeals to made-up policies should be disregarded.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH is not a made-up policy; the BBC doesn't discuss something as such, but rather something which one Wikipedia editor tells us is relevant to a topic he may have invented altogether. - Biruitorul Talk 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little unclear about what you're talking about. Are you saying that it's original research to say a bilateral agreement between nations indicates an international relationship?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable topic for an article due to lack of significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Should be completely deleted with no merge or redirect. The random unimportant information included by people trying to save the article constitute WP:SYNTHESIS at best. Drawn Some (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above: no notable coverage. Eusebeus (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a mistaken view that these articles deal with diplomatic relations primarily. Commercial relations count too, especially as throughout history they have been the reason for the establishment of diplomatic relations first as consulates, and then upgraded as other aspects of political involvement increases. Any non-sporadic commerce or investment is sufficient to make these notable: they build a web, a concept that should be familiar here. DGG (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this articles aren't about relations between states then what are they about, DGG? You seem to be propsing renaming to All contacts between private citizens, corporations or governments in nations x and y. Where are the sources?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sure they're about relations, which includes all of economic, political diplomatic , and cultural relations in this case, and in many others military ones as well. DGG (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, just the ones reported in reliable media, after all it is Latvia–Luxembourg relations. Relations cover all those topics, and they are notable when covered by reliable media. A private German citizen flying a single engine plane and landing in Red Square should be covered in Wikipedia in German - Russia relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to marry a Grand Fenwickian and our marriage were announced in my local newspaper (let's say, for this example, the West Windsor & Plainsboro News), would that be relevent to US-Grand Fenwickian relations? Could I get in wikipedia!?! This is just beyond. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reductio ad absurdum isn't a helpful argument. We all learned that in Junior High School. For instance in Wikipedia all townships are notable, but not all houses are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, we are equally aware of the limits of extrapolation: in this case, it is not something inherent we're discussing (i.e. something covered as such), but something which one wikipedia editor tells us is relevant to a topic he or she may have invented altogether. in other words, it's a personal synthesis. There is also an obvious slippery slope in including all sort of info in such articles: not only does it make the articles look ridiculous, it exposes the absurdity of "rescue" attempts, whose transparent goal is not to inform about something notable, but to make something of no consequence look relevant.
What's more, who in hell would even think of replicating this level of trivia in articles that cover more significant topics, where immediately relevant info on immediately relevant phenomenons is in abundance? Of course, that's provided one cares about maintaining an encyclopedic character, and not primarily about making experimental topics such as this one look relevant by means of hot air.
It's always an issue of "positive discrimination", for some visionary rationale that eludes scrutiny. To paraphrase Bali above: we are not only asked to tolerate All contacts between private citizens, corporations or governments in Latvia and Luxembourg as a valid topic (when it's not even a workable topic); we are also led to believe that this only works for small countries, or for relations where there isn't much to say on a relevant, diplomatic, level. Supposedly "there is a mistaken view that these articles deal with diplomatic relations primarily" (the "primarily" here is especially intriguing, since it makes the phrase conveniently ambiguous). Fine then, let's go with that assumption. But can you imagine what it would entail for All contacts between private citizens, corporations or governments in Canada and the United States, or for All contacts between private citizens, corporations or governments in France and the United Kingdom? Dahn (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When the media takes notice it becomes notable by Wikipedia definition. And again please don't use the Reduction to absurdity argument, it isn't valid argument. Please stick to Wikipedia Pillars of notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"When the media takes notice it becomes notable by Wikipedia definition." - absolutely not, as I'm sure you know. There are plenty of subjects that will not ever be even mentioned, let alone transformed into separate topics, on wikipedia, even if they were covered by the press. The exact difference between some media coverage and the stuff of wikipedia articles is carefully outlined by WP:N, WP:NOT etc. And, again, coverage of random topics which an editorial voice (of a wikipedia editor) ties together into a single subject is not the same as the subject having received coverage in the press. It may be an essay, an illustration of one's creativity, a piece of journalism, a press review, a prank, the result ofthis AfD being wrongfully seen as a dare... but it is not a wikipedia article. Dahn (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possibly cite some Wikipedia policy? This isn't a vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Random, non-encyclopedic, not based on any analysis other than the editorializing of a wikipedia editor. The text prioritizes ridiculously trivial topics for the sake of making itself look better, proving in itself that the topic is simply not worth a separate article. Dahn (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All topics are covered in the article on international relations. Please stick to issues of notability and verifiability, this isn't a vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? Dahn (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've done it Dahn. You've been added to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/The League of Extraordinary Deletionists. It's like your very own scarlet letter (actually a poisining the well exercise, but whatever).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least I'm in good company. Dahn (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article was deleted before discussion could take place. (Non-admin closure) Greg Tyler (t • c) 10:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick parish

edit
Rick parish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Extensive article with details of a businessman, but lots of trivia and reads rather like a self-written puff piece. No clear notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted. I have speedied this on its way as an attack page per CSD G10, particularly given that there were defamatory allegations about living people in it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool the truth

edit
Liverpool the truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable trivia points about Liverpool FC. Oscarthecat (talk) 08:11, 30 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. After reading all of the comments in this discussion, it's fairly apparent that the consensus is to keep this x-y relations article. Although there are mixed opinions, there was no consensus to delete, and the keep reasons are strong. Jamie☆S93 18:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Estonia relations

edit
Australia–Estonia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination. non resident embassies noting that Estonia covers Australia from its embassy in Tokyo! most of the article is from a primary source (Aust foreign ministry). two way trade is AUD29M = USD23M (which is a very tiny fraction of Australia's total trade) . Australia has a working holiday scheme with most European Union nations so that's not really noteworthy. almost all coverage is about sport or in multilateral context except the first article of this search. LibStar (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are guilty of just looking at the first 10 results of a Google search again. The same search was able to pull together a significant article. You give the impression of due diligence by performing a search, but are making no effort to look beyond the first page, and you are denigrating what you find there on the first page. It is called the strawman fallacy when used in rhetorical debate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a working holiday visa scheme is not enough to establish notable relations, Aust has one with Belgium, New Zealand has one with Norway and Mexico but none of these country pair articles exist. I doubt that's enough for a bilateral article to exist. LibStar (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many grains of sand you examine, none of them makes a hill. And yet, a sandhill is nothing but grains of sand. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
with reasoning like that, not sure how it's adding to a concise discussion. you need more reliable sources to prove WP:N. LibStar (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think something moves beyond a news item when they start writing chapters and books about it. --Martintg (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the fact that Estonia sees very little need to attend official meetings with the Australian Government or to assist the 8000 odd Estonians living in Australia. it's not a short flight from Tokyo-Sydney-Canberra. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources adress these relations in any depth, regardless of how much can be written about a cultural exchange program. Hipocrite (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources found by Martintg push it over the top for me. However, I think that Australia's de jure recognition of the Soviet annexation of the Baltics is probably best treated in either an article of its own or in Foreign relations of Australia rather than in this cruft-pile of an article. Yilloslime TC 05:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is reliable and verifiable, and I find it well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This topic is mentioned in two books, but those books discuss Australia's relations with the Baltic States, and an individual article on relations between Australia and Estonia is not warranted. The article lists: embassies/consulates; recognition/repudiation of Soviet annexation; political visit; visas arrangement; negotiations for a social security agreement; people from Estonia who settled in Australia; modest trade. There is simply nothing notable in the relations between Australia and Estonia (but an article on Australia's recognition or non-recognition of Soviet occupation may be worthwhile, although it is currently only one sentence in Baltics). Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. feydey (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no discernible relationship to not directory,--that there are many things worth talking about is not the same as indiscriminate, but rather, proof of justification for an article. Meets WP:N. The sources are adequate, and the various sort of relations --diplomatic and other--noteworthy. I look forward to the expansion of these articles, all the thousands of them. DGG (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed as moot. Article in question was speedily deleted by User:WereSpielChequers. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia West

edit
Sylvia West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod declined without comment by anon IP. Appears to be totally nonnotable, barely any assertion of notability. No assertion that this even comes close to meeting WP:PROF and her books are all apparently unpublished. Frankly this looks like a vanity page. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:08, 30 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 Paul Erik's print sources. Good work. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country-rap

edit
Country-rap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be a case of WP:SYNTH — a loosely defined genre tied together only in that they're "country song that sound like rap." The only sources are Allmusic biographies which only give the opinion of one reviewer, followed by a list of unsourced, random rap influences in country songs. Yes, "Getcha Some" and "I Wanna Talk About Me" can be cited as examples of rap-influenced country songs, but does that mean they actually are "country rap" if they're the only two songs of that sort in Toby Keith's catalog? Do any of the other songs cited truly form a "genre" of sorts, even though they're the only rap-styled songs in those respective artists' catalogues? Is "Honky Tonk Badonkadonk" country-rap just because it uses hip hop slang? Is Kid Rock country-rap just because he's done rap songs and had country hits? Except for the fact that many sources cite Cowboy Troy as a country rapper, nobody seems to agree as to what "country rap" even constitutes.

Besides this source, I could not find one non-trivial discussion of this as a legitimate genre. The only hits on Google/Google News were for a Bellamy Brothers album called Country Rap, one news source discussing a non-notable band in the early 1990s that claimed they had done a "country rap" song on a lark, and false positives brought on by country and rap being back to back in a list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:20, 30 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 to delete. WP:LOCAL is still an essay lacking consensus to be a guideline, and thus shouldn't be heavily relied upon in AfD arguments. While the topic has primarily local interest, this discussion landed in the direction of "keep", because the bakery has received enough non-trivial coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Jamie☆S93 22:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoa Locale

edit
Cocoa Locale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I created this article, and it's sourced with news coverage in major papers in Montreal as well as the Ottawa weekly -- but I'm not sure it's encyclopedically notable. I rely on your good judgement. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I think the Ottawa weekly was a reprint of the same piece in the chain's sister publication in Montreal, Hour. I didn't realize that when I added it. I also did come across a small mention in Air Canada's inflight magazine referring to Cocoa Locale as a "cult sensation," but again, local restaurants often get such write ups. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not defined by whether a business has reached celebrity status; it is defined by how many news organizations have covered it. A casual glance at the references in this article proves that this business is indeed notable. Deleting this notable, sourced article would be doing a disservice to the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 24 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 05:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A local bakeshop doesn't seem like the kind of topic a serious encyclopedia should be covering, but it has been discussed in reliable sources -- so we have to have it. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Some good sourcing for this article. But I've been to Cocoa Locale, I've lived in this neighborhood for 15 years. It's somewhat locally notable, but nothing more. Papers often cover new or cutesy businesses. The fact that this got covered four times doesn't show anything more than local notability to my mind. Hairhorn (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has had some local coverage, but I don't think it has had "significant" coverage. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Texas Collegiate League. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Generals

edit
Victoria Generals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable collegiate basketball team. Hardly "professional" - their league is set up to be a professional one, certainly, but in the traditional sense "professional" means "players do this as a job". Ironholds (talk) 03:58, 30 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. Completely inappropriate title deleted as attack. لennavecia 18:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of homosexual abuse by Sathya Sai Baba

edit
Allegations of homosexual abuse by Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy deletion rationale by tagger was: "This is redundant file. The same exact copy can be found in the Sathya Sai Baba Main article under the section - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Reports_of_sexual_abuse. This subsection was initially created due to WP:POV fork. It is really being difficult to maintain 2 copies of the same article." Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the reasons why I would recommend deleting this article:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Texas Collegiate League. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazos Valley Bombers

edit
Brazos Valley Bombers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable collegiate Baseball team. Hardly "professional" - their league is set up to be a professional one, certainly, but in the traditional sense "professional" means "players do this as a job". Ironholds (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC) *Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:16, 30 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boise Angelesization=

edit
Boise Angelesization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested prod, non-notable neologism RadioFan (talk) 03:42, 30 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 18:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra of Mauretania

edit
Cleopatra of Mauretania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is entirely based on someone's personal website whose credentials can be found here [25] - I don't think this meets our criteria at WP:RS and can find no other evidence of such a person. Dougweller (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see doubts that Cleopatra Selene's daughter was really called Drusilla (in R.E. and P.I.R., both by Stein, I think); but I haven't found any speculation naming a daughter Cleopatra. N p holmes (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Instead of deleting it because of sourcing problems, why not try and find sources to corroborate it. Anyone who existed 2,000 years ago who is still in human memory is notable and therefore worthy of inclusion. --Genovese12345 (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Did you read my nomination rationale? I did try to find other sources to corroborate it, and failed. If I could have sourced it I would have sourced it. If you look at my other edits to similar articles yesterday you will see me sourcing them. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete While the web site cited is well researched and well reasoned, it represents one author's opinion, and but never itself goes beyond the point of speculation that such a person existed. Further, this is, effectively, a POV fork, as most authors name this daughter of Juba and Cleopatra Selene as Drusilla, and a page exists for her already. Even if such a daughter existed, the sole act of existing is insufficient to merit a Wikipedia page, and given that not a single piece of evidence names her, a page for her under this hypothetical name cannot be justified. That Juba and Cleopatra Selene have been speculated to have had a daughter of his name can be indicated on their pages, but we don't need pages for non-notable genealogical hypotheses. Agricolae (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agricolae sums it up well. Pure speculation. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Perhaps not all high schools are notable but consensus appears to be that this one is. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eumemmerring College

edit
Eumemmerring College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I originally proposed deletion of this page, which was disputed. I am henceforth bringing it to AFD. The school in question no longer exists as an entity. The website is no longer accessible and it's entry has been removed from the schools registry. The page contains nothing of historical or encyclopedic value, IMO. Thanks. — Manticore 02:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was ever notable, then it's notable forever. Wikipedia does, and should, contain all sorts of information on subjects of purely historical importance. See WP:NTEMP.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the school was split into four high schools on each of its four campuses and it is a key part of the history of each of the new schools. There is still plenty of material available on the web to verify the content e.g. here and I note that it has been rated the best secondary college in Australia, here. TerriersFan (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This argument that all high schools are notable (and inherent notability as a concept) is bogus and continually repeating it does not make not make it any more true. High schools, like any other entity, should meet WP:N and there is no evidence that this school does. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - whether or not you consider that high schools are notable this school clearly meets WP:N. If you carry out a Google search you will find plenty of reliable, independent sources. In addition being considered the best school in Australia is a clear claim to notability and there is a further claim that this is the richest school in Victoria, here. TerriersFan (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, this HS is notable by any reasonable standard. Second, the general argument is not that all HSs are notable, but that all high schools are considered notable at Wikipedia, precisely to avoid the problems of debating each one individually to weed out a few percent. Almost always sources can in fact be located with enough digging. in local print sources--and, given Google News Archive, this will continue to get easier.This has been a stable compromise for over a year now. Stubbornness in denying this working consensus is getting a little pointy. DGG (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Copyright violation, also author request (blanked page) - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peycho Kanev

edit
Peycho Kanev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested on the grounds that this poet was nominated for a "Pushcart." Problem is, this award doesn't seem to be much more notable than this writer. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It's his standard of official bio. It's actually published on quite a few more websites than only Madswirl. -The Pushcart is actually quite respected among many in the actual literary community and it is a very small percentage of writers that are ever nominated. So, by the literary community's standards it is a rather huge deal to simply be nominated. I'll remove the article if no one wants it on the site, but it doesn't seem very impartial or educated to vote articles for deletion when you don't seem to have a very informed assessment about the reality of the community or the community's assessment of the subject the article is in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardwellsII (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 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 00:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Memorial

edit
The Rolling Memorial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable truck, probably a remnant of 9/11 hysteria. its just a truck. badmachine (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Dank under WP:CSD#G11. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siconnex

edit
Siconnex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vanity page, no assertion of notability, ... the usual Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:26, 30 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, G5. Author is a sock of Komodo lover (talk · contribs), who has his own LTA page. If your abuse has progressed to the point that you need your own LTA page, as far as I'm concerned you're community banned. Blueboy96 00:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla-Cat

edit
Gorilla-Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, minor fictional character Passportguy (talk) 02:26, 30 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 (A7) at 06:34, 30 May 2009 by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) --- cab (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gueely

edit
Gueely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable producer. Ridernyc (talk) 01:45, 30 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 (A7) by Tnxman307. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G&C Records

edit
AfDs for this article:
G&C Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable record label. Ridernyc (talk) 01:36, 30 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. per A7, as a result of a simple mistake. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher William

edit
Christopher William (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Should be CSD being forced to AFD. A total of one hit one hit on google. Ridernyc (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - Fails WP:NOTE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. not notable. Another spammy entry from an online-only label. Hairhorn (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry for the mess. When doing CSD patrol I sometimes make the opposite mistake that many editors do when doing new page patrol. At first glance the article appeared to assert importance/significance. It wasn't until later that I noticed that this was part of a self promotion campaign. I also apologize for inadvertently removing the AFD tag when restoring the speedy tag. In my defense, G&C Records had not yet been nominated for deletion when I removed the speedy tag. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jer note

edit
Jer note (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

- ShootinPutin109 Talk. 01:23, 30 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 00:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uwe Diegel

edit
Uwe Diegel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possibly autobiographical, page created by user name matching subject's. Only other editor goes by the name of subject's company. Prod was deleted, no explanation for notability, so I'm bringing here. There are a fair bit of references on patent listing websites, but nothing else; one newspaper reference in 'Le Bien Public', but can't get to the article (March '05). Doesn't pass WP:BIO. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:20, 30 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 Major League Baseball mascots#Former mascots. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Charge

edit
Chester Charge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article, likely hoax - I cannot find any trace of this purported mascot on Google. The only other mention is on another Wikipedia article, added there by an anon user Passportguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Looks like this is a case of unlikely but true nonetheless... Passportguy (talk) 03:35, 30 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. Sort of a weak keep, but a keep nonetheless. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greentrax Recordings

edit
Greentrax Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

lacks references, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Fails WP:CORP RadioFan (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Didn't find any articles in GNews solely about Greentrax recordings, but there are oodles and oodles of articles mentioning the record label in one way or the other. Add to that the fact that two notable artists are signed up to the label (or at least not challenged for notability yet), I think there's enough for this label to qualify. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:CORP tells us the same thing as WP:N, notability is demonstrated by "significant coverage in secondary sources", which I'm not finding. Even if there were hundreds of notable acts on the label, notability doesn't transfer. There is no provision in WP:CORP for record labels with notable artists. If this company were notable, someone, somewhere would have written something about.--RadioFan (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there are cases where, in effect, notability does transfer. The most obvious example is where an writer is considered a major author, all books written by the author are considered notable. A chart single makes the artist notable even though the claim to notability is primarily on the single itself. Actors are usually considered notable through association with notable programmes, films or plays. Obviously there are some claims of notability by association which shouldn't be accepted, but the fact that a) it's association to two notable acts instead of one, b) being the record label of a notable act is a much better claim than most claims of association, and c) there is quite a lot of mentions in third party sources (most non-notable organisations can't get more than a few trivial mentions), I'm prepared to give benefit of the doubt. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Please make a good faith attempt to confirm that sources aren't likely to exist, WP:BEFORE, 30 seconds on google found this archived writeup on the label and founder http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-26388056_ITM appears to be from a scottish paper The Sunday Herald riffic (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I found that as well. While it's about the founder, not the company, since this company is likely the founders primary claim to fame, its likely a reasonable one to use to show notability. But 1 article still isn't significant coverage. I'm seeing a lot of hits on the name but since the company name is mentioned in press releases and reviews of artists, it can be difficult to find coverage of the company itself. Did you find anything else that is specifically about the company (that isn't a press release, there are a number of those showing up but they done help here)?--RadioFan (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GetGreat.com

edit
GetGreat.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

promotional website, not notable Spanneraol (talk) 00:43, 30 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 00:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Hart (disambiguation)

edit
Kelly Hart (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary page PatGallacher (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnecessary page on two counts.

Firstly, we do not have an article on the skateboarder at present, and until we do we are not in a position to judge his or her notability. It is the responsibility of those who consider this person to be notable to write an encyclopedic article.

Secondly, even if we do get such an article, this page would still be unnecessary. Either one person of this name would be clearly more notable, in which case the second would be a hatnote from the first, or else they are of roughly equal notability, in which case "Kelly Hart" should be a disambiguation page. You only need a page like this if there are three or more people of this name, Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear on this. PatGallacher (talk) 00:21, 30 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 00:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Allen

edit
Tessa Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability - sounds like a stage mother's list of all the commercials her little star's been in. PacificBoy 07:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 30 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, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Chants of Guru

edit
Divine Chants of Guru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable studio album. This is what I get from the Google search. Also, by looking at the article creator's contributions, I suspect a COI. Salih (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:06, 23 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) 00:05, 30 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, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Student Liberty Youth Magazine

edit
Student Liberty Youth Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable magazine. Google and Google News searches turn up nothing to support the article's inclusion. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this user has been indefinitely blocked as a probable sock puppet of User:McWomble--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:03, 23 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) 00:04, 30 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, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignition Consulting Group

edit
Ignition Consulting Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have found no reliable third party sources that have more than trivial coverage of this company. The COI author asserted that it met our guidelines stating the following on the talk page:

This entry is notable because of the extensive and distinctive work Ignition Consulting Group has done for developing a value-based compensation model for advertising agencies and their clients. Coke is one of the first major companies to begin adopting such a model and have recently cited Tim Williams as one of the leaders in the value-based compensation movement (cited in a recent industry event and webinar hosted by the American Association of Advertising Agencies). This is big news to have a major company like Coke finally adopting the value-based compensation model.

Ignition Consulting Group along with Tim Williams has been cited and interviewed on the topic of value-based compensation quite extensively as it is big philosophy change in compensation structures for advertising agencies and their clients.

I have included references of papers, studies and interviews on this topic in this entry. If there are specific changes I need to make to make this entry more Wikipedia friendly please let me know. Thank you.

Unfortunately, the sources added appear either not independent or trivial in nature.

I have found some indication that Tim Williams is notable in his own right, however, so I am open to this content being moved into a larger article about him. ThaddeusB (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An AFDbot notified me...and since I think I deleted previous versions, and placed an initial CSD notification I think it fails to reach the bar for inclusion. Syrthiss (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 30 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Clovelly

edit
North Clovelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable location Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Geographical places are inherently notable. OK, the article needs improvement but that isn't a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Geographical places are not and never have been inherently notable. Where are you getting this from? Ironholds (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:IHN#Items with de facto notability, the place is obviously populated as it has a bus service. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup: "Cities, Towns, Suburbs, Villages, Neighborhoods within large cities" - that isn't the same as "geographic places". Most places within the UK have a bus services, in this case one that runs through Clovelly generally rather than just North Cloverly. North Cloverly is a location within Clovelly, so out of "Cities, Towns, Suburbs, Villages, Neighborhoods within large cities" the only point that could cover it is "neighborhoods within large cities". Read Clovelly and tell me if you think it qualifies as a large city. Ironholds (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That Clovelly is a small town in Devon, England. North Clovelly appears to be in Australia. 12:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Clovelly, New South Wales then? Makes sense, references all the right bits. One problem - Clovelly itself is a suburb.Ironholds (talk) 12:19, 24 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 00:02, 30 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. لennavecia 05:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine Rykiss

edit
Lorraine Rykiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is an indication of notability, that she is a concert pianist. When I looked for reliable sources all I find is trivial coverage of her in sources about Paula Abdul. I can find no indication she is notable in her own right and notability is not inherited from her daughter. A new name 2008 (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 23 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) 00:00, 30 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. Mfield (Oi!) 01:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SALIN

edit
SALIN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no assertion of notability; fails WP:ORG Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 23 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) 00:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insignificant organization, and minor mentions like that do not add up to notability. That an group is listed among related or allied groups by a national notable organization does not make the group notable. That it competes with a subchapter of a national group does not help either--far from it, it shows the local and non-notable status--especially given the utterly trivial nature of what is said about it--groups that finance themselves from snack sales at meetings are not likely to be notable. That its cofounder talk about it in an article he wrote is the definition of non-independent source, and the reason why we have that rule. But this is all as expected, state level professional organizations almost always are non-notable. My colleagues above have a good deal to learn about WP standards. DGG (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To DGG: According to Wiki's own guidelines, "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." " SALIN IS a significant organisation for South Australian LIS for what it DOES, not how much money it makes (BTW, what is YOUR definition of a "not for profit" organisation?!). It does not 'compete' with the subchapter of the national group, but rather supports it. Many of the SALIN committee members have used SALIN as a launching pad to serve on committees of that national group. Many of the SALIN members have taken out membership of that national group - this hardly supports your claim of competition. Now, as for what SALIN does: it supports new entrants to the LIS field by offering a supportive environment in which they can learn how to complete job applications in the LIS field; ofers networking opportunities in a non-threatening environment and other professionl development opportunities. It might not be rocket science, but it is an important stepping stone for many people who are new to LIS in South Australia, giving them confidence in their abilities and knowledge prior to making the move to serve on ALIA committees (our national group). Many notable South Australian librarians and information professionals have come through the ranks of SALIN - attending events first of all, and then serving on the committee. Ask any Librarian or Information professional in South Australia if they have heard of SALIN and I am sure you will get a positive response. That's not what I would regard as "not notable." Minnametsa (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Minnametsa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment to Narson Did you consider that perhaps many of the members and supporters of SALIN work at the same institution, which just happens to be one of the biggest libraries in the state?? This would account for the same IP addresses, and further gives weight to the significance of this organisation in SA. These people are busy professionals who hardly have the time (or the inclination, need etc.) to canvass support for an organisation that they already believe in just because some small-time wikipedia editor decides to flex his/her muscles. Minnametsa (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)— Minnametsa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Read WP:MEATPUPPET. Canvassing seems to be exactly what they're doing. I'm going to emphasise again: Organisations like this must pass the notability guidelines at WP:ORG. No matter how many times you spout "ask your nearest librarian, he'll know what it is! See? It's notable!" it means squat if the subject matter fails WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just struck out the duplicate keep votes from an IP address (I don't believe that IP's votes generally count in AfDs anyway) and tagged User:Minnametsa as a SPA. I agree with Narson's comment about something dodgy going on here, though I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a single editor (hence the same IP being used alongside a SPA). Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as not meeting notability and sourcing requirements for an encyclopedic article. 'Notable' on Wikipedia is not a synonym for 'well-known'; the sources given do not establish notability per "significant coverage in reliable independent sources". EyeSerenetalk 13:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ORG. One hit in Google News, and that looks like a press release. It's a nice little club for librarians in Australia that has occasional library tours and dinners. That's not notable. --John Nagle (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any evidence that this topic has been covered significantly in independent sources. --Leivick (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. In one of the article's references, SALIN is mentioned but is not the focus of the study [32]. Another reference [33] was co-authored by a SALIN founder (or cofounder) and therefore is not an independent source. –Megaboz (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There does not appear to be much in the way of independent, reliable sources so fails WP:V. I'd be willing to change my position if more sources were given. But right now, I'm not seeing it. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 HDMI. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HDMI Extender

edit
HDMI Extender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable by itself to warrant a article. if we have this we might as well have Component Extender, Composite Extender, DVI Extender. and the list goes on. Steph1393 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Roberto Silveira

edit
Jorge Roberto Silveira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO as a politician. Has been tagged for notability for a couple of months since its creation (by me) and nothing has happened to the article. -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) 21:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silvano Coletti

edit
Silvano Coletti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability, completely unreferenced, google gives 170 hits mostly from blogs and directories - TexMurphy (talk) 16:02, 30 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_30&oldid=1142643736"