Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 November 26 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. This AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa P. Pica

[edit]
Teresa P. Pica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A.M. Cunningham School

[edit]
A.M. Cunningham School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Article is about a school that doesn't appear to be notable. No relevant hits on Google outside of the school's website, a Facebook page, and the article. No hits in news.  AcroX  23:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree to a merge. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NewFoundSpecFic

[edit]
NewFoundSpecFic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTE, does not appear to have received significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There seems to be enough coverage of the article in third party sources to at least maintain a stub. Both the Scope and The Evening Telegram are reliability sources to prove the magazine's notability in it's province. There is lots of evidence to support them, and their website provides lots of information to showcase their notability. It is also listed and mentioned in numerous databases on the Internet, such as libraries and writers markets. There seems to be a lot of other science fiction magazines that have less notable sources yet still are online, and seems this article has only been nominated for deletion after a bit of vandalism earlier this week. --Newfiechick88 (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC) — Newfiechick88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Scope fails WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a independent print newspaper that serves an equal purpose as the Evening Telegram. Therefore does not fail WP:RS--Newfiechick88 (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source to back up this claim? Does it have independent editorial review? Cirt (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the fact that it states this on the about section of their website? They have worked with numerous reputable businesses and have had worked with different music venues, challenges and charities. What more would you need to claim this? Meanwhile, what is an independent editorial review? --Newfiechick88 (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say that on their About page. Have independent reliable secondary sources written about it? Cirt (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says they are a newspaper that has over 500 distribution points in cities in Newfoundland. As well, a google search reveals numerous pages about them including them acting as a regional hub for the RPM challenge. I don't see how you can get the idea that they are not an important print newspaper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfiechick88 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That did not answer my question. Cirt (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of clarity: an independent editorial review is an OP/ED piece in which the journalist / collumnist gives a review of the publication. What appears to be being said here is that this is part of the desired requirements for notability. It's not enough to simply have its existance mentioned, it needs to have been actually extensively looked at. Sadly, a search online finds a few blog / facebook references to review, but no reliable secondary sources on them as of yet. I believe this in what Cirt is looking for. Feel free to correct me, Cirt. Yourbasis101 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support the deletion of this article for the above / below criteria. Not notable by wikipedia standards, as least not as of yet. Whomseemsxxtxx (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails notability. Whether you call it a magazine or a book (librarians would simply refer to it as a "periodical publication"), it doesn't make the significant coverage test. If Scope had reviewed it, rather than simply announcing its release, that might be a different matter (and yes, publications in the field such as Locus do review magazines), even though Scope is a pretty weak reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Worldcat shows only 3 libraries: Harvard, and the Universities of Newfoundland and Manitoba. The Canada Union Catalog adds their National library. the conclusion is that it is not notable even in the region where it is published. It is also not listed in Ulrichs, which is a minimum criterion. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm sorry, everyone, I see you are all saying delete, and I am aware some of you have significant experience, and way more than me. I just think it's a keeper. Sure it's relatively new and not a lot of libraries stock it, but give it a chance. I see your notability point, but there's also the ignore all rules rule. What we have here is a good faith effort to get people to write and read certain fiction. That effort may not be terribly notable right now, but it is new and growing. A Wikipedia entry will certainly help it along--no, not in promoting a commercial magazine, but in the laudable goal of getting people to write and read fiction. Wikipedia itself relies on people having writing and reading skills. So I would like to see Wikipedia rules not be so strictly applied that they delete the page of an up and coming literary magazine. Yes, if the magazine goes nowhere in a few years, then it's not notable. But I say give it a chance now. Give writing and reading fiction a chance too. Mushy? Yes, but I'd like to keep the page for now. "We are mainly looking for undeveloped and aspiring writers who need a stepping stone in the writing world." Let's not delete this page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you fail to get the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia with articles about notable subjects. Deciding to keep articles because we like them is not an argument, it is an abdication. Wikipedia is not here to help worthy causes or promote anything. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A Wikipedia entry will certainly help it along--" is essentially the definition of a promotional article for something that is not yet notable. The rule you;re suggesting we ignore is the fundamental distinction of an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know and understand completely what both of you are saying. But doesn't the thing's distribution throughout its home province prove notability? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please see WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Socks seeking deletion

Are socks seeking deletion? Let me spell out what I'm observing, and I'm asking others with more wiki knowledge to address whether there is a problem, then what to do about it.

I see several editors have striking similarities. They started editing at substantially similar times, they principally edit NewFoundSpecFic, they seek deletion, and they talk like they are well beyond being Wiki newbies. Please consider if Whomseemsxxtxx, Yourbasis101, and Takenabbyrocksdailyabove are socks.

Further evidence is provided here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Yourbasis101. Further, Takenabbyrocksdailyabove has already been blocked permanently after a single edit!

If indeed the socks are socks, do the sock comments get removed or struckout or something?

Thank you for your consideration. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you why I am trying to remove it. Our coverage of notable publications is compromised if we include ones quite so non-notable as this. Regulars here know I sometimes tend to want to keep borderline articles in this topic area, but this is not borderline. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that it needs some work, but since it was being developed when the socks started causing problems I think it should be revisited at a later time. These requirements are more confusing than you might think, nor as cut and dry. I personally would like the opportunity to learn how to improve the article properly before having to fight regulations I haven't even had a chance to find. I wasn't even sure how to vote in this until other people did. It is fairly well known in the province, I just need to learn how to explain it. Gwen (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale does not say why it should be kept. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, please, you can see "Gwen" is a newbie. Please, we can see you are dead set against this article, but please explain to the newbie a little more, given what she (?) said. Provide her with some guidance, like you did with me. Perhaps even tell her about her sandbox where she can work, if this article is deleted, to build the article, then bring it back in the future. Tell her to contact you on your Talk page if she needs help. I am certain you will support her efforts at the point where her work indicates pretty good adherence with wiki policy. These are just general suggestions; I'm not telling you what to do. We were all newbies once and we all got guidance from others. I'll help her too if she asks. Frankly, the other editors here are more experience than me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen, "It is fairly well known in the province, I just need to learn how to explain it." Please go and find evidence that it is "fairly well known in the province." Just paste the links on the Talk page, or here, and ask the other editors to help, and I'm sure they will, or I will.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of existing information backed up by reliable sources. It is not for giving exposure to something new that is not otherwise notable in terms of Wikipedia. Sometimes it's simply a matter of waiting for media to discuss it, and the page may be notable in the future. I'm not saying it is not now, I'm just talking generally. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As expected, I vote to keep the article. It is listed in the Writers Alliance of NL's newsletter constantly and linked on their website, mentioned in many market listings online, and appears to have another coverage to at least be left online - compared to the other magazine articles, it has a lot more notability than some. --Newfiechick88 (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This comment fails to give a rationale why this should be kept per WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"a lot more notability than some"? Sounds like you're trying to make the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, which is not historically a winner. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that guidance says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Tkazyik

[edit]
John C. Tkazyik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this mayor. Joe Chill (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's mayor of Poughkeepsie, New York, a major Hudson Valley municipality, and as such has received voluminous local coverage, mainly the Poughkeepsie Journal and other local newspapers and news organizations that are not in the Google News orbit. Thus he easily meets WP:POLITICIAN, which explicitly states that mayors tend to fall into the inclusion criteria. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does him getting coverage in a city that he is a mayor in make him notable? Joe Chill (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe WP:POLITICIAN requires coverage in out-of-town or non-regioonal newspapers. If it does, and I don't read it that way, you'd be correct that this mayor, like most mayors of even fairly large cities, would not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone read it that way, every politician would have an article. Joe Chill (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, unelected politicians are excluded, but every person elected mayor in a city with a media outlet? Possibly, and I don't think that's the worst thing in the world. I get the impression that every video game and rap musician and every TV character gets a Wiki article. More adult subject matter, if reasonably justified, is not a bad thing necessarily. In this case, let's not forget that Poughkeepsie is a city of high regional importance. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:POLITICIAN number 2. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weindel hypersponge

[edit]
Weindel hypersponge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested by author. The article seems to be some sort of joke or hoax: it is about a trivial and uninteresting variation of the Menger sponge, and there seem to be no verifiable sources (or google hits) confirming that anyone names it after Weindel. r.e.b. (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Saturdays. Most of the keep arguments are skirting policy at best and there is clear consensus that standalone articles are not justified in this case. Spartaz Humbug! 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Una Healy

[edit]
Una Healy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vanessa White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mollie King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Redirect to the band article per WP:MUSIC: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article". This is a non-issue. De728631 (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above refers to Una. Mollie seems to have a certain claim to a place here, but I'm not quite so sure about Vanessa outside the band. (Have decided The Saturdays are definitely not my scene - but then I recognise the notability and talent of Stevie Wonder even though I can't stand his music.) Peridon (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brittinea Campbell

[edit]
Brittinea Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A "myspace celebrity" who does not meet our basic criteria for notability at this time. While there are obviously a lot of Ghits on social network sites for this individual, there are also zero Google news hits, and I'm just not seeing any WP:RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral vote leaning towards weak deleteThis is a well constructed stub with references and a claim of notability. However, a search for "Brittinea Campbell" at Bing returns a whopping total of 49 pages. I have friends that have more returns at Bing. I'm generally an inclusionist, but there's little chance that an article about someone with so little coverage is going to be kept due to WP:V and WP:RS. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bixel

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Matt Bixel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod was removed due to previous AFD in 2006, rationale was: Unreferenced BLP on an unnotable actor; fails WP:PORNBIO Hekerui (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge: It might be more appropriate to merge here. While he is perhaps most notable under the pseudonym, he performed (and continues to perform) under his actual name (and others for that matter), and so it may be less problematic. (And maybe more respectful.) For example, unless the article will be devoid of all mention of his other work, it would be awkward to describe "Rhymes's" work in straight porn, etc. when that pseudonym would not be responsible. Perhaps "Danny Rhymes" should be the notable 'character', and "Matt Bixel" would be the individual. - BalthCat (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear consensus to delete or merge, so defaulting to keep. tedder (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J.R. Hughes Young Investigator Award

[edit]
Thomas J.R. Hughes Young Investigator Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This award is given by the Applied Mechanics Division of American Society of Mechanical Engineers. According to the article, previously it was known as the Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. It seems, perhaps due to the specificity of this award, that it has escaped the notice of any secondary sources and is not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. You really should read WP:NOTINHERITED, which actually says that notability can be inherited, but isn't always. I believe that the more notable an organization is, the more likely the awards it gives are to be notable. Awards are, by consensus here, recognized as a class of potentially notable subjects. Cookouts aren't. I have no idea why you're so intense about deleting perfectly reasonable subjects that you feel it appropriate to attempt to ridicule people who disagree with you, but it's not very civil and it hardly contributes to consensus decisionmaking. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only Wikipedia article with the words young investigator award in the title. However, there are thousands of Google hits for young investigator award even when restricted to the title alone. Articles on young investigator awards are not "perfectly reasonable", because the awards are so common. All I want is the consensus on notability followed in this case. Abductive (reasoning) 23:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MissbrauchsOpfer Gegen InternetSperren

[edit]
MissbrauchsOpfer Gegen InternetSperren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the notability requirements of the project for organizations due to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The organization is not really relevant in German and was deleted there so why should it be in the english Wikipedia? Tzzzzz (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This project is not the German Wikipedia. We have different guidelines and policies to apply and things that are not notable enough for inclusion in the German Wikipedia can and are included on this project. If you claim that it does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), please use an argument that does not consist of either "not notable for de.wikipedia" or "just not notable". The article lists half a dozen sources explicitly talking about the subject and crediting them with having a major impact on the movement against internet censorship in Germany, which imho meets the requirement of our notability guidelines. And of course the aforementioned deletion on de.wikipedia added quite a bit of coverage that also referenced the subject multiple times. Regards SoWhy 19:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It has been suggested that borderline AfDs which result in a "no consensus" closure may be deleted by default, but I don't think that's appropriate here. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Francis Ridsdale

[edit]
Gerry Francis Ridsdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia already has plenty of articles on notorious clerical child abusers like this one. See for example Oliver O'Grady, Sean Fortune and John Geoghan. It makes perfect to keep this one if we can keep all the other ones, since it would at least be more logically consistent than not keeping it. ADM (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Perhaps those articles ought to be deleted as well. NW (Talk) 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reason given above. jamesgibbon 20:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that the most recent event in the article is a conviction from 2006, how is WP:NOT#NEWS involved?
Strong delete. It doesn't matter if he was arrested for abusing children, once, twice, or thrice. This is still a completely negative hatchet job of a BLP where the only sources that we could use for a biography center on his child abuse. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." NW (Talk) 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a matter of interpretation, but while that passage would clearly rule out, say, the teenager who briefly became notorious for holding a house party that wrecked his parents house, it is possible that if interpreted widely enough, the passage could cover any convicted criminal whose actions cover one crime or series of crimes (as in this case). For instance, Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman, Fred West and Rosemary West and Steve Wright (serial killer) might be deleted if that passage is intepreted broadly enough. I'm trying to figure out how to interpret that passage.Autarch (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also: we shouldn't delete a biography just because it depicts its subject in a negative light, if all the available sources do the same. It should be little surprise that biographies of people convicted of sexual offences against children tend to be highly negative. However, due to the infamy of such cases, such people also tend to be pretty notable - as is the case here. Robofish (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article now covers the 1994 conviction as well as the 2006 one - there were 46 charges of abuse of 21 victims in the first case, with 35 charges of abuse of ten victims in the second. Also police were sufficiently concerned about his behaviour to investigate his bishops' knowledge in Operation Arcadia.Autarch (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources do not need to be in English Spartaz Humbug! 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luka nervo

[edit]
Luka Nervo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no credible claim of notability whatsoever WuhWuzDat 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under CSD A7. Speedy was proposed and declined. I cannot think why it was declined, especially since at the time when it was declined the full text of the article was "Luka Nervo is a Croatian professional motorcycle racer that currently competes in the ST6 class as of the end of 2009.He rides a Yamaha R6". Where is the claim of significance? Since then we have had the additional information that he "started second but crashed" in a race. Well, starting second but not finishing is not a great claim to fame. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I declined the speedy per wp:athlete "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" as I took "professional motorcycle racer" as a claim that he is a professional in the sport of motorcycle racing. I don't know that sport or understand the languages that most of his google hits are in so am not sure whether the AFD should end in delete or keep.But I do think that the article's author should be informed of the AFD. (Twinkle anomaly, now resolved) ϢereSpielChequers 19:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no indication of real notability. A7 inappropriate since there is an indication of notability. The borderline between professional and semi-professional can be grey in some sports and it's better to err on the side of caution. PROD might've been a good way to go here but it's too late for that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Comment Insufficient data with only 1 English source and a not very clear understanding of what constitutes professional vs. semi-pro in this sport, but leaning to delete without prejudice for re-creation. Hopefully by the end of the AfD the article will clearly show notability and I can say keep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I do not particularly like this person's entry on Wiki and could care less if it is deleted or not, but he is notable per WP:GNG and WP:Athlete. Here is a few more sources I found; [4], [5], [6]... all reliable sources with in depth significant coverage of person, and there are many more, you just have to look. One of the ones I provided here is in English. The source that was provided in the article is actually IOEM, International Austrian Motor bike racing organization. This kid races international professional bike races. That passes WP:Athlete with flying colors. The source in the article listed under external links is actually another source, Cro-Moto.com.
Word of advice to editors above; actually do a search please. Also, if you do not understand the language of the sources, ask others for help. It comes off as ignorant that when you do not understand something you simply delete it... Turqoise127 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can we please try to keep this on track as a discussion about the notability of the subject rather than about speedy deletion. It has been clearly explained above why this does not qualify for speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the sources found by Turqoise127 and these which have significant coverage of the subject: [7][8]. The language in which sources are written has no bearing on notability. I can't understand most of the sources that are used in articles about molecular biology, but that doesn't stop the subjects of those articles from being notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The language is Croatian, and it is important that you be able to at least passingly understand what's being said before you point to an article as a WP:RS. Translation engines are your friend, however, and searching Google for the name plus translation gives a lot of motorsports articles talking about the rider at high level competitions. Shadowjams (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would also point out that it's important to be able to at least passingly understand what's being said before dismissing an article presented as a WP:RS in good faith. I do happen to have an (albeit passing) understanding of Croatian. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joeball

[edit]
Joeball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable sport, Delete, per WP:MADEUP WuhWuzDat 18:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I am even having trouble finding references on unreputable sites via google. Fails WP:NOR WP:Notability, probably WP:MADEUP as above as well. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax, stuff made up. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mormon

[edit]
Jack Mormon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article seems entirely descriptive of a non-notable slang term, and despite how many statements it contains overrall, I have found little that actually supports the content of the article which largely consists of irrelevant facts, stories, useless trivia and opinion attributed without fact. Plus, despite being "categorised" as a religious subculture, the article holds little foundation or structure on even actually defining the exsistence, notability and even purpose of the subject. It is very much a useless, unencylopedic mess with little resource to turn it around. As I doubt after looking on google, the name of a coffee company, a few random mentions of it and an urban dictionary definition is enough to supportit. Routerone (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um, no. Strong Keep. This term is well established in literature and in all culture in frequent contact with Mormons. EVERY Mormon knows what a Jack Mormon is. If we want to start culling Mormon articles, I can pick a few better ones, but this wouldn't be one of them. The LDS church even acknowledges and defines the term on its website here, offering as a source a reprint of a 1974 article in one of its own publications. Since you are Mormon as you clearly indicate on your user page, this smacks of being disruptive to make a point, as I think you know better. (BTW, I am not Mormon) Reswobslc (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article addresses a historic description of a religious sub-category, based on 19th century media and public perception. As such it is analogous to abolitionist or populist, similar sub-categories used in the US at the time. Given the fact that the term's meaning has evolved over time and developed slightly different meanings in the 20th and now the 21st Century, it is important that the article address the progressive change in social perception. This term is found in modern histories, based on contemporary newspaper accounts, diaries and journals. User:Routerone's concerns seem to be based on web searches, a very unreliable source for 19th century history. The web does not contain all the history of the world as modern techs generally have little interest in anything that far back. So...... articles like this are why we are trying to write Wikipedia! And, for the record, I am a Mormon. WBardwin (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Reswoblc. Numerous Google Books hits indicate that this term is still in use. My main concern would be that this article could tend to be perceived as a dictionary article, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Although "Jack Mormon" is more than just a "slang term" as the nom describes it, this article is really about the term "Jack Mormon" rather than, well, being about Jack Mormons. (And for the record, I'm not a Mormon.) -Glenfarclas (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Appears notable. The article itself has multiple issues. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep poor article quality is not grounds for deletion. Article could be, potentially, merged elsewhere, but I'd like to give it a chance to improve, like maybe three to six months, before proposing it for merger. John Carter (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A5, text that is already on Wikisource DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel One, Book One

[edit]
Samuel One, Book One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article consisting only of quotes (or paraphrasing) from the bible WuhWuzDat 18:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Lurie

[edit]
Henri Lurie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not apparently notable; no sources to verify content identified Scoop100 (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Blatant hoax ϢereSpielChequers 20:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Smith

[edit]
Gerry Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. {{Hoax}} tag has been added to article and concern expressed on talk page. Cursory search turned up a lot of hits, none of which corroborate this story. KuyaBriBriTalk 18:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was '. edit conflict - inadvertent duplicate Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Saints

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Durham Saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined the speedy on this because there's a weak claim of importance (reached playoffs in a league of unclear notability). However, notability isn't obvious, so I think this would benefit from more eyes. On the keep side, we have the argument that this is a team participating in a national league. On the delete side, we have a lack of reliable sources showing notability. In the middle, we could merge to University_of_Durham#Sport of British Universities American Football League. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Saints

[edit]
Durham Saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Football club with little or no claim of notability WuhWuzDat 17:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wuhwuzdat and I were both taking this to AfD at the same time; WWD beat me to the punch. Here's the rationale from my duplicate AfD "I declined the speedy on this because there's a weak claim of importance (reached playoffs in a league of unclear notability). However, notability isn't obvious, so I think this would benefit from more eyes. On the keep side, we have the argument that this is a team participating in a national league. On the delete side, we have a lack of reliable sources showing notability. In the middle, we could merge to University_of_Durham#Sport or British Universities American Football League. "--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of Durham, sport section. The same should be done with all other British American footabll university teams. The university football and rugby teams dont have pages and they are far greater in terms of participation and interest at UK universities. Notability should not be assumed on the basis that US college teams would have pages, as college football is far more significant than any form of University sport (except perhaps for the boat race?) in the UK. Petepetepetepete (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - pretty much every other club in the BUAFL has a page, there is no reason why Durham Saints should be any different! Especially as they have been more successful than some of the others, including having one of the top TD scorers in the entire league last year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.155.217 (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - The UK does not have the college sports culture that the US has. Most university sports teams and leagues are very little followed by anyone who isn't actually involved. Coupled with the fact that American Football is distinctly a minority sport in the UK (and even the American Football fans we do have tend to follow the NFL), we can't reasonably assume notability. This article - along with those of most other BUAFL teams - does not demonstrate any kind of notability. Unless there is clear evidence of notability in the normal way (and generally there is not) they should all be deleted. Pfainuk talk 19:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless anyone can find a suitable merge or redirect target. No university sports team is Durham in professional, BUAFL is not the highest level of amateur sport, and they don't have independent coverage in third party sources. And yes, if the other clubs in BUAFL are like this page, they should be deleted too. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The precedent for these pages has been set by the existence of others, for example Newcastle Raiders and UT Cougars. The argument that the team is not professional is invalid, no American college team is, therefore, are their pages invalid? Affiliation with BUAFL is the highest rank of recognition of University American Football in the UK, a requisite link proving the affiliation can be added. Questioning the validity of the league is absurd, as BUAFL has a page on Wiki, and has been running alongside BAFA under its various guises for over 25 years. Also, proposing to delete a site an hour after it is created surely does not allow any progression that would allow it to be improved? Rjboro790 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, match reports of the team are reported in the Durham Student Paper, The Palatinate, and links to these can be provided to verify scores or statements on the website. The claim that no other Durham student sports team has a Wiki page is also untrue, see: Durham University Centre of Cricketing Excellence, Durham University Boat Club. Rjboro790 (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)— Rjboro790 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WuhWuzDat 19:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The precedent for notability is not set by which other articles exist on Wikipedia - it is set by guidelines for notability that were discussed at length and consensus reached, which in the case of sportspeople is WP:ATHLETE. The highest level of amateur sports usually means the level of the Olympics or World Championships. (These guidelines are for individuals and not team so they can be relaxed a little for teams, but not that much, in my opinion.) Substantial coverage from independent third-party reliable sources can count towards notability instead, but it needs to be a lot lot more than match reports in a student newspaper. So, like it or not, the majority of university-level sports teams do not qualify for individual articles on Wikipedia. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I propose that all the other University American Football team pages be afd and treated on a case-by-case basis following the result of this. I find it hard to see how any of them satisfy WP:GNG. Petepetepetepete (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of significance or importance JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeedigunta sriteja

[edit]
Jeedigunta sriteja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged with PROD tag, but tag removed with no reason given. Cannot find any sources to prove notability of the artist. Fails WP:BAND NPeeerbvsesz (Push) 17:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: As a violation of A7. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 17:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Naphsj

[edit]
Chi Naphsj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a martial art whose secrets are "known by only five people in the world." No independent sources cited, and I find none. Contested PROD. Fails WP:V and WP:N. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clann Credo - The Social Investment Fund

[edit]
Clann Credo - The Social Investment Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  1. Make article that contains no hits on Google News.
  2. Write like an advertisement and stick a unreviewed template on the back of it.
  3. ????
  4. PROFIT!!! ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 17:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete Seems to be a candidate for A7 speedy to me. Completely non-notable company, bordering on spam. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy Delete - spam. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Striking per new information and some apparent improvements. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there's another good idea: rename it to Clann Credo. MuffledThud (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and rename - I've cleaned the article up, re-worded it to remove advertising tone and added detail demonstrating notability, with references from reliable sources. In its present state, it's worth keeping and further improving. MuffledThud (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note also that the AFD nominator actually tried to remove the article rescue tag in this edit (note the helpful edit summary). This, along with odd AFD activities noted by Craftyminion at WP:ANI#Five-year-old deletion discussion reopened, plus the unusual incivility of this AFD nomination, cast doubt on whether this was a good-faith AFD nomination. MuffledThud (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even more worrying is that two editors weighed in with "speedy delete" comments with obviously no effort to check for themselves whether the subject is notable. In the past I wouldn't have been so worried about that, because the closing admin would have discounted such comments, but I have noticed in the last couple of months that a few of the admins who have been the most prolific AfD closers have been basing decisions on vote-counts rather than arguments, so these unsubstantiated opinions are dangerous. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Note that the nominator has now been blocked indefinitely for joke AFDs and other unpleasantness. MuffledThud (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, I goofed. Marcusmax is right, and I was wrong. My apologies. Keep and hit me with a WP:TROUT Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live Today Magazine

[edit]
Live Today Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious attempt at advertising. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 17:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Here is an obvious consensus to delete. However, if they send at least one athlete to Olympics, this can be brought back with a click, let me know. Tone 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albania at the 2010 Winter Olympics

[edit]
Albania at the 2010 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created (presumably) because of the CTV website for "Nations Competing In Vancouver" shows Albania, but also note the disclaimer on that page that says "NOTE: the nations featured in this section were the competing nations from the Turin 2006 Olympic Winter Games, and may not qualify athletes for the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games." In this case, Erjon Tola was the lone competitor for Albania in 2006, in alpine skiing. The current NOC quota for skiing does not include Albania, and the FIS biography page for Tola shows that he doesn't have enough points to qualify for 2010. If something changes by January 25, 2010 (when entries are finalized) we can re-create the article but for now, this Wikipedia page is showing up on web searches as a statement of fact that Albania will participate. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Morrell

[edit]
Mike Morrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable candidate who finished third in a three-way race for California state assembly in 2004. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rovea (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resource room

[edit]
Resource room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Resource Room. The information is too short to be its own article. User:Jimsteele9999 did not follow instructions from Articles of creation. They told him to add information about resource rooms in special schools. Rovea (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this nomination. Stupid AfC. Rovea (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is your rationale that the artilce is too short or that it belongs in seperate school? You should exercise some restraint (e.g. discussing in talk page) before deleting pages, but that is not surprising with someone lacking in creativity. Still, if it is too short then suggest what could be added. And if you review what "they" told me to do it was to create a page outside of special schools for resource rooms because in fact according to special education law, specifically a Least Restrictive Environment, a resource room is a program placement MUCH different then a special school. For one, a resource room is in a general education setting and a special school is outside.

Jim Steele (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what I just said? I said the artilce belongs in special school. Then why did AfC told you to add the info about resource room to special school? Rovea (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you aren't reading closely. Did you read any of the verfiable sources I added on the page when I created it? No. Did you read what Least Restrictive Environment is before you started this process? No. You're wrong, because a special school is a school whereupon special education services are delivered in a special education setting. A resource room is where special education services are delivered in a regular education setting. Of course, there's more to it, but I thought it besto keep the explanation for you at the minimum.

Jim Steele (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep A standard part of many schools at all levels, at least in the US--needs expansion of course.There are certainly sources for it: The Google books search right above shows 4 books with exactly that in the title.-- a hundreds with clearly significant discussion. The google scholar search above shows thousands--and [11] shows 407 with that phrase in the title of the article. We normally accept subjects where the depth of the significant references is indicated by actual books with that title. It certainly meets GNG. Did anyone think to look? I commend the author for going ahead despite an incorrect judgment at AfC. I wonder how many other good topics get discouraged there. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crime structure in Grand Theft Auto series

[edit]
Crime structure in Grand Theft Auto series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources to support the notability of this subject. Any sourceable content should be merged into Grand Theft Auto (series). Eeekster (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Cantonese Slang

[edit]
Hong Kong Cantonese Slang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic opinion piece, unsourced. Eeekster (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Akhyar Farrukh

[edit]
Muhammad Akhyar Farrukh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An overly promotional biography on a non-notable assistant professor of chemistry. No real evidence that he passes WP:PROF. Total claimed publication count is 26, and highest citation count (according to Web of Science) is 4, 2, 1. Other main claims to notability would be "represented in Pakistan in first UNESCO-affiliated World Association of Young Scientists (WAYS) in 2004" and "Young Chemist Award by International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)". The former doesn't really demonstrate notability to me, and the latter is given for one's Ph.D., so I'm not sure that qualifies either. Perhaps will be notable eventually, but this can be recreated then (with a less promotional tone). Bfigura (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telacasters

[edit]
Telacasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article written by one of its members about an unsigned band which has just self-released its first album on the internet. No independent references, and I have not found anything but Myspace, Twitter, Last.fm etc and listing-type mentions. The article was deleted WP:CSD#A7, but the author has argued persistently for it to be restored and thinks he can show that his band meets WP:BAND so I bring it here to get more eyes on it. JohnCD (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh Eating Ants Records

[edit]
Flesh Eating Ants Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet notability guidelines of either WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC PKT(alk) 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm but the thing is this article is not any less notable than many of the other bands/record labels we have articles on. I know the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but if we must delete such articles I think we'd be better off deleting the rest of the similar level bands/labels as if often seems like double standards. Himalayan 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that's why I prod them or set them up for AfD. PKT(alk) 18:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well... Download, Ka-Spel, LPD and PlatEAU are all notable artists. It looks like FEA co-released with cEvin Key's Subconscious label, and I see a review on brainwashed.org which is an appropriate (but admittedly not great) source. Looks like they were short lived. - BalthCat (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is Download really notable though? The article is unreferenced, and the discography section does not mention Flesh Eating Ants Records as the being their label. Edward Ka-Spel has likewise been tagged as unreferenced for more than 2 years, and PlatEAU again has no references. The Legendary Pink Dots look like they actually might be notable, but their article is not well referenced. So, I don't think that the label is notable based on the notability of the artists. DigitalC (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without question all those artists are notable. This new fad where common sense notability is "invisible" if there's no JSTOR article is new and ultimately delitirious to Wikipedia as far as I'm concerned. The label is likely not notable, because of the limited number of releases and that it appears to have not been the exclusive label fo those releases. However the potential for those four artists to transfer notability to that label would have been significant if the label had been home to those artists for a period of time and was exclusive. - BalthCat (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Balthcat - what do you mean by "common sense notability is "invisible" if there's no JSTOR article"? Other than that, I think we agree, although perhaps IMO labels are generally far less notable than the bands they release recordings for. WP:NOTINHERITED is important. IF Flesh Eating Ants records had been around longer and done more, then this AfD wouldn't have been created. But they weren't, and didn't. PKT(alk) 18:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd caution some people in this discussion to keep in mind that "unreferenced" is not necessarily the same thing as "not notable"; an article can be poorly referenced but still about a topic that's unquestionably notable enough for inclusion. All of the artists mentioned above fall into that camp; I've even heard of them all and I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the genre. That said, past AFD consensus has established that the notability of a musical artist doesn't automatically confer notability upon the record label that puts out their albums; WP:MUSIC doesn't address the notability of record labels at all (though it probably should). A label with a roster of notable artists is certainly likely to be notable enough, but the roster doesn't confer notability in isolation — reliable sources do still need to be present in the article. Keep if additional sources can be found; delete, without prejudice against future recreation, if they can't. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 16 November 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 01:48, 18 November 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 14:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Connell

[edit]
Neil Connell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:NSPORT, unreferenced. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod removed by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn Tikiwont (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Liaison Committee for International Students in Australia

[edit]
National Liaison Committee for International Students in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organisation is no longer recognised by the International Education Association of Australia, the NUS, the University of NSW or the Group of Eight as a legitimate representative body - see articles here and here. This entire article is now entirely factually inaccurate and the current body is no longer notable as a representative organisation. Australian Matt (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed position to Keep after comprehensive article changes. Australian Matt (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The main rationale is that the article should be deleted as it is because, in its current form, the organisation is a very different one to the one written about in the article. I disagree with the "Once notable, always notable" mantra in this case, because we're actually talking about an organisation that is fundamentally different to the one described in the article. I don't believe any of the info in the article is now notable. Australian Matt (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also - the Sydney Morning Herald writes about lots of non-notable things - should Ella Rose Corby have a wiki page? As said in the intro, this group's notability rested with its representative status, but it is now a different group, none of the individuals on the page were members of the organisation in its current form. Australian Matt (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP issue. Organisations face a different notability criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing in the article, or in the references provided by an IP during the discussion, shows the significant coverage from independent sources required to demonstrate notability. JohnCD (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Education charter international

[edit]
Education charter international (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notability and referencing of this organization is lacking.

The references supplied with the article are either from ECI themselves, or links to statements by famous people who don't mention ECI. Every reference I have found so far with a Google search is either from a press release issued by ECI or CCLP Worldwide (its parent organization), website and press releases by the fictional country "Antarcticland", or from other organizations with similar provenance (Humanity Without Frontiers, etc.) ECI website has a lot of references implying endorsement by the UN and UNESCO, but they've only applied, and the UN hasn't responded. Their "Education Charter" is based on the publications and resolutions of many worthy organizations, but endorsed or recognized by none of them.

Nearly all the significant edits to the article since its creation at the beginning of the year have been made by User:Cclpw and User:Antarcticland -- apparent COI accounts from the parent organization and the fictional country.

This appears to be a non-notable organization which concentrates on self-promotion. ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Global Civil Society CCLP Worldwide is notable and progressive advocacy organisation which advocates and promotes the principle of Higher Education for sustainable better livelihood through its charter Education Charter International A total of over 20000 Organisational and individuals has endorsed the charter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.167.59 (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please see the link for name and details of endorsers of education charter here [12]

Global Civil Society is registered with UN Global Compact From Four Countries

India [13]

Germany [14]

Ghana [15]

Nigeria [16]

CCLP Worldwide is full member of UN Global Compact Society of India [17]

CCLP Worldwide is associate member of CONGO [18]

CCLP Worldwide has managed huge media coverage including the latest article being published on The Hindu daily New paper of India [19] and Indian Express at [20]

The Indian News Site Meri News has covered the organisation [21]

All the events and news are covered under the site at [22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.167.59 (talk • contribs)

  • The list of endorsers is largely a list of nonnotable private citizens.
  • The PDFs associated with UN Global Compact are form letters from ECI saying they agree with the Global Compact -- nothing from Global Compact itself
  • CCLP Worldwide, ECI's parent organization, has joined other organizations, but being a member of something doesnt necessarily mean notability or importance
  • The Meri News story is a reprint of a press release
  • There's no importance, significance, or notability demonstarted by any of the links and references above. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Qin's Moon characters. Already merged. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shao Yu

[edit]
Shao Yu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New user started the article without citing references, probably an unreferenced article and fails WP:N. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added references and plan to add more. PLease don't delete492star (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear if this is a reliable source or not. Assuming it is, this article still does not meet guidelines for inclusion as there is not significant coverage in 3rd party sources. --RadioFan (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I provided a reference that is a translation of the entire first season synopsis.

Note: The synopsis was made by the Chinese creators. It provides SIGNIFICANT coverage. Is it okay now? Also, the name in the translation for Shao Yu is Siu Yu492star (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately this reference doesn't help establish notability as it is a primary source. Sources written by the creator of these characters are fine as references but they dont tell us anything about how notable the subject is. Other people writing about the subject does establish notability.--RadioFan (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it worked. I think.. since I've never merged before..492star (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, List of Characters of Qin's moon's page is done. Go to the main page and then there's a link. all the character's short bios and links to their own articles are there.492star (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do you think its okay now?492star (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrapop

[edit]
Quadrapop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested prod, unremarkable game. Usage claims in the article are not backed up by references, does not meet general notability guidelines. A Google News search is not showing significant coverage, only passing mentions. RadioFan (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Wife (Internet video-project)

[edit]
Virtual Wife (Internet video-project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this web project is in any way notable. Google search reveals lots of "virtual wife" hits but nothing relevant. Fails WP:N, WP:VER and I suspect WP:SPAM andy (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes

[edit]
List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of passing mentions of homosexuality for a set of TV shows that is unusually specific. (I can understand the argument behind the post-Ellen part, but to couple that with the American restriction makes the list unnecessary. (oddly enough Queer as Folk isn't mentioned either... ) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the fence/Neutral for now, because it's comparably well-sourced and well-written, but the incredibly long title of the article is very unusual. One might as well create a spin-off that's called "List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes where the characters wear green pants and a dog is running around in the background". Or whatnot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the coming out episode of "Ellen" may have been an LGBT milestone, TV shows with LGBT-related episodes had already been around for years. Furthermore, the vast majority of the program cited in the article have no notability in their own right. Warrah (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Until LGBTIQ, etc. people are treated with the same rights and are no longer a lower class in their own countries ... LGBT issues as mirrored back in popular culture, such as television series, like this lists encompasses, will continue to be studied and analyzed. As such, we have many sources discussing LGBT issues in modern culture, and we will continue to have these. Looking at the nature of lists on Wikipedia, they not only help organize information, they provide context of an overall theme, in this case how have LGBT themes in American television changes since the infamous Ellen coming out episode. Each item does not need to represent a stand alone article as much as show the progression of the topic discussed providing clues to navigation and development. This list is reasonably well-written, is certainly source-able and maintainable. What remains is regular editing which remains not a deletion issue. The nom may build similar lists for other countries or frankly all non-U.S. television as this list seems quite large and anything non-US would likely be split off anyway. -- Banjeboi 17:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely unreferenced, often conjectural, weirdly indiscriminate. Inconsistent inclusion criteria -- ignores shows where major/running characters are gay, ignores soap operas, ignores SNL and other comedy shows. Most of the "themes" cited are actually minor plot elements; if made comprehensive at the level of detail it currently cites, the article will be outlandishly long, exceptionally unwieldy, and completely useless. The subject is encyclopedic -- but this lst isn't. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that the list is "completely unreferenced" is patently false as the article currently has a dozen footnotes and several books listed as references. The episodes themselves serve as primary sources for their content and a review of those episodes would put the lie to the claim about these being mostly "minor plot elements". The complaints about sorts of shows that the list "ignores" indicates that you are not paying attention to what the list is designed to cover. It is for episodes of series that do not regularly feature LGBT themes or characters. Otto4711 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list itself is obviously completely unreferenced, as anyone can see by looking at it. Some of the descriptive material in the lede is footnoted, but nothing in the list itself. Using the articles as primary sources for an article like this amounts to original research and interpretation. From WP:PSTS: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. It is also rather odd to claim I am not "paying attention" to a point when I set out in detail the results of adherng to that point. The inclusions and exclusions are made using arbitrary and subjective criteria, and end up "gerrymandering" the list to reflect a particular point of view, a conspicuous NPOV violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that upon watching an episode of, say, Law & Order in which Jack McCoy tries to have same-sex marriage invalidated in New York to compel testimony from one member of a couple, one may not enter on this list "McCoy tries to have same-sex marriage declared illegal in New York in order to compel testimony from one half of a couple" without a secondary source is ludicrous on its face. What's on-screen serves as a source for what's on-screen and a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge is completely capable of verifying the contents of the episode by watching it. Are there entries on this list which you feel are making something other than descriptive claims? Which ones specifically, and why can they not be fixed through normal editing? Regardless, your reading of PSTS is prohibitively narrow and would wreak havoc on our ability to write about fiction. As for your fundamental misunderstanding of the scope of the list, it has been noted repeatedly the list was never designed to capture series with regular gay characters, which would include soap operas. These series are captured on various other lists which are linked elsewhere in the debate. If one knows of episodes of SNL which feature gay characters then there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from listing them, although given the nature of sketch comedy shows they would IMHO probably fit better on the series list. Otto4711 (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop saying I misunderstand the scope of the list. I understand how you've gerrymandered the article. I said that the criteria are so arbitrary and subject as to cross the line on policies like NPOV and NOR, and render the list unencyclopedic. The idea that "Go watch it yourself" satisfies the principles of WP:V is ludicrous. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell you what: you stop throwing around bad-faith accusatory words like "gerrymandering" and I won't start throwing around words like "butchering zealot" and "pedantic bloviator". The parameters of the list are perfectly reasonable since the goal of the list is to examine those episodes that are distinct from the norm in their series. Complaining about omitting series which episodes all deal with LGBT issues is like complaining about a list of novelty ice cream flavors because it excludes chocolate and vanilla. And "go watch it yourself" fulfills perfectly the requirements of WP:V, specifically WP:SPS which reinforces WP:PSTS regarding the use of the episodes as sources for themselves. I am not making any claim about the episodes that cannot be verified by a reasonable person by watching the episodes. It may not be easy to watch the episodes, but availability of the sources to others is not the responsibility of the encyclopedia. Otto4711 (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gerrymandering" as "bad faith accusatory"? That's utterly ridiculous. And given the utterly wretched job that's been done in classifying shows, the only person who could possible by insulted by using the term in this context is Elbridge Gerry, and I doubt he'll notice. NYPD Blue shouldn't be on this list; it regularly featured gay characters, including two squad commanders and the PAA played by Bill Brochtup (who appeared in 156 episodes over eleven seasons, feature-billed for half the length of the series). Neither should Homicide, which featured a plotline running over seven years involving a regular character who eventually "came out." The article is infested with arbitrary choices and classifications like these, and is unsavageable. As for your interpretation of WP:V, it amounts to "Do all the research yourself." That's not meaningful verifiability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haw haw haw, it's funny to pretend that words don't mean what they mean. I'm not suggesting that anyone do any research, although if they choose to that is certainly welcomed and encouraged. What I am suggesting is that the possible unavailability of a particular source to a particular editor doesn't make the source unreliable not does that unavailability or the difficulty a particular editor may have in locating the source implicate WP:V. Verifiability demands that information be published in a reliable source. In the case of a TV episode, filming and/or broadcasting constitutes publication and the individual episodes are reliable sources for their own content. "Go watch it yourself" is no less reasonable that "go read the book yourself" or "go listen to the speech yourself". Otto4711 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear-cut and obvious keep - as creator and primary author. The nominator offers no rationale for deletion and the statement "list of passing mentions of homosexuality" indicates a fundamental failure to grasp the function of the list. The list is capturing episodes of television series which do not regularly deal with homosexuality or LGBT issues that do on one occasion or another substantively deal with such issues. That is why QAF is not included, because no episode of that series meets the criteria. LGBT representation on American television is the subject of any number of books, articles and scholarly works so the topic is clearly notable. Whether each individual episode listed meets notability requirements on its own is not relevant. The list is named as it is and restricted to American series because "The Puppy Episode" -- in which Ellen Morgan came out concomitant with Ellen DeGeneres also coming out -- is recognized in the literature as a major turning point in the representation of LGBT people on American television. I am unaware of any similar shift in the representation of any other cultural minority group in any country that is directly attributed to a single episode of a single television series and such shifts are not discussed in any of the sources I have seen. If such sources exist then please feel free to write another list. As noted, this is part of a series of Lists of American television episodes with LGBT themes and there is no justification for deleting part of that series. At some point this list will need to be split for size reasons. My plan was to start a new list in 2010, which corresponds with the basic scope of the 1970s and 1980s lists and roughly with the pre-Ellen 1990s list. Otto4711 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep While there is a meaningful list to be created, the one we have amounts to a rambling list of trivia listing episodes that have any LGBT content whatsoever, no matter how trivial. There is no definition of what "LGBT themes" means, there is no definable cutoff for just how LGBT an episode needs to be and hardly any of the entries in this laundry list have any sources. This is a poorly-written and documented list that would have been deleted long ago if it had covered virtually any other grouping of TV episodes (why is there no List of post-Brown v. Board of Education American television episodes with African-American themes?. I would shift to delete in future nominations should this one result in its retention, if the critical issues with this article are not met. Alansohn (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this business about the list capturing "trivia" and episodes whose LGBT content is "trivial" is being bandied about very freely here. I would be interested in finding out specifically which episodes included on this list contain only a "trivial" amount of LGBT content and the basis for this conclusion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The name of this list is simply atrocious. Secondly, I think the criteria for inclusion is overly broad. Right now it seems to only include primetime shows, though there is no indication in the title to limit e list this way. Daytime television has numerous gay characters on various shows with LGBT themes. Secondly, this list would seem to exclude shows that are primarily about LGBT characters. I'd say that every episode of The L Word, Queer As Folk, Will and Grace should be included in this list, since they are post-Ellen American television shows with episodes that deal with LGBT themes. This list also seems to exclude every single show on here! and Logo. There are also a large number of reality shows, ie Big_Brother_(U.S.) and Survivor (U.S. TV series) that have episodes that in some part deal with LGBT themes. AniMate 22:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto4711 and Benjiboi. Otto's response to the deletion argument "list of passing mentions of homosexuality" in which he says that the list includes entries for those series "which do not regularly deal with homosexuality or LGBT issues" highlights the rationale for the list. Benjiboi's phrase "they provide context of an overall theme" and the phrase "show the progression of the topic discussed" are important to understanding this article's notability. The deletion argument "completely unreferenced" is incorrect, as references are very obviously provided. The article is clearly notable and anything that needs cleanup or additional sourcing should be done via normal editing. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL. — Becksguy (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If references are "very obviously provided," why is there not a single footnote in the list itself? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Likely as they're not needed. It would be nice to have them there just to confirm we aren't making anything up. Is there actually any content that you dispute is true? Perhaps mentioning on the list talkpage alerting which plot summary you dispute would be more constructive. -- Banjeboi 16:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary source references are needed, per WP:NOR, for all "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." The assertion that a "theme" is present in any creative work, TV episode, novel, song, whatever, is plainly such a claim. This is a clearcut policy issue, not a question of what individual users find self-evident or not. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you likely mean well but your interpretation that the rather innocuous synopsis are somehow interpreting something thus violating OR seems misplaced. IMHO they are too short but I accept this is done exactly to avoid Undue and OR. -- Banjeboi 21:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:PSTS, a television episode serves as a reliable source for its own contents. The episode may be viewed by any independent editor to verify its contents. There is no need for a separate secondary source for each individual episode. The only time such sourcing would be necessary would be in the event of there being additional information about the episode beyond plot information, e.g. on the 1970s list there are comments about episodes of All in the Family, Barney Miller, Marcus Welby and others that are beyond the plot summary and are footnoted. There are no such instances of non-plot information in the post-Ellen list. There is one such example on this list and it is footnoted. Otto4711 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dead wrong. WP:PSTS allows only purely descriptive claims; the assertion that a particular "theme" is present and significant in an episode falls into the category of "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" which require secondary sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my god, by that logic we could never have any information about the genre of any work of fiction. Do we really need a secondary source that Star Wars is science fiction or that Shane is a Western? Otto4711 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's tendentious nonsense, and it certainly doesn't reflect consensus practice or the principles behind WP:RS and WP:V. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you can't cite a song genre to the song. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whats next? A list of post-Godfather television episodes with Italian-American themes? This is a poorly defined, ridiculously long list (that would be twice as long with more research) that serves no encyclopedia purpose. - Schrandit (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WAX is not a compelling argument. If there are multiple reliable sources that discuss how the representation of Italian Americans on television changed and was influenced by The Godfather then by all means let's have a list. The length of a list has no bearing on whether it should exist. The "encyclopedia [sic] purpose" of the list is to aid people who are interested in when and how American television series that do not usually deal with homosexuality address the subject. Several books have been published on the subject so clearly there is interest. Otto4711 (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: In the article there is a section titled "References" that list six books used as references, and another section titled "Notes" that contain twelve citations used as references, some from the New York Times, Time magazine, and other reliable sources. Having inline citations—or footnote summary—may be a preferred style vs. general reference summary, but inline cites are not mandatory and both are acceptable, per WP:CITE. — Becksguy (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnotes never go to episode content; all but two do exclusively to the lede, the other two support references to external events, not episode content. The books generally listed as references are not claimed to support the assertions regarding episode content; as the article's principal editor asserted, the episodes themselves are used as primary sources -- as is clear from his tendentious argument, above, that characterizing a "theme" of an episode and determining the theme's importance involves no analysis, synthesis, interpretation or evaluation. Besides, given the publication dates of the books, it's utterly foolish to suggest they support the full set of episode descriptions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. It is not original research to watch an episode of television that centers around a character's coming out and characterize it as having a gay theme. That's like demanding a secondary source calling We Wish You a Merry Christmas a Christmas song before identifying it as such. It's self-evidently a Christmas song based on its content and the episodes on this list are self-evidently gay themed based on theirs. Otto4711 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your quarrel is with the policy itself, which is pretty explicit on this point; there's no exception for "self-evident" commentary (which would lead to interminable tendentious debates on what is self-evident, of course). But how is it "self-evident" that "a gay couple's valuable dogs are kidnapped" is a significant theme rather than a minor plot device? "A time travel back to a Nazi prison camp shows a brief scene in which a prisoner is wearing the pink triangle"? "RuPaul guest stars as 'Bob'"? "One of the victims is a gay woman"? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My quarrel is with your interpretation of the policy, which I find both incorrect and heavy-handed. If you question particular entries on the list then resolve the situation through normal editing. Otto4711 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, the irony. A short piece of plainly stated English text requires interpretation although what it says is quite "self-evident," but determining the themes of creative works and the relative importance of the themes doesn't?
  • WP:N requires reliable sources independent of the subject that substantively discusses the subject. There are several books that are about how LGBT people are portrayed in non-LGBT television episodes, so clearly the subject is notable. You have offered nothing to back up the claim that this is OR, blatant or otherwise. The prose is thoroughly sourced and the episodes serve as sources for their own content. Otto4711 (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mangoe's OR claim is based on the use of "The Puppy Episode" as a dividing line. There are already two sources in the article that explain the cultural significance of the episode and the event. There are plenty more. What the episodes have to do with each other is that they are episodes of television series that do not usually deal with LGBT issues, but have done so in a particular episode. The information is useful for those interested in tracking how such series dealt with the material in general and is also useful for tracking trends in LGBT representation and for comparing how episodes of various series aired in a similar timeframe handled the issues. Otto4711 (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - the sticking point for some of the deleters is the use of the phrase "LGBT themes". While I of course strongly disagree that the phrase is problematic, I believe the issues can be resolved by renaming the list to something like "...episodes with LGBT story lines" or "LGBT plots" and restricting the list to episodes of series that do not generally deal with LGBT issues but have a primary or secondary story line that is LGBT in nature. Certainly even those who have trouble identifying a gay theme will have no problem identifying a gay story line. Otto4711 (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dangerous misunderstanding of Policy by delete voters

Its important to understand that Wikipedia:No original research in no way prohibits editors from relaying self evident facts without support from secondary sources! If it was prohibited, literally tens of thousands of articles with synopsises of important primary works would be in violation of policy! While most of those articles dont analyse or evaluate the work as such, they do advise on the theme in a deeper sense than merely saying "this chapter deals with homosexual love". And rightly so. If we enforced policy the way some delete voters are arguing, wed have to rip a huge chunk out of the heart of this project – a good encyclopaedia gives summaries of self evident truths about a topic so the reader doesn't have to digest the whole primary source - but secondary sources by their nature rarely waste time advising on the self evident, so the effort needed to find all the required sources for a "Hullaballo" interpretation of policy would be totally prohibitive for a volunteer project. Its great to see collaborative editors like Otto trying to find a middle ground with the deletion camp, but in this case it would be damaging to the encyclopaedia to compromise with them at all. IMO our clear message should be that policy and consensus are 100% behind keeping this article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The problem here is WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS on multiple levels. The list is indisciminate/synthesis since it does not demonstrate that each member of the list got its inspiration (or that its producers got the courage) from the Ellen show. The list is indiscriminate in that many of the members are not themes. For example; on CSI: NYs episode "Trapped", the killer is a lesbian. Seriously? Ellen's show made that happen? And how is that a theme? Abductive (reasoning) 02:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Assassin's Creed III

[edit]

The result was speedy redirect to Assassin's Creed (series) (non-admin closure). Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Assassin's Creed III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too early. There's no coverage CynofGavuf 11:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no way this will end up in a consensus to merge, it is generating more heat than light, and AfD is not the proper venue for discussing mergers anyway. Future merger discussions should take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Temple Library

[edit]
Inner Temple Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not independently notable of Inner Temple. While there is coverage of the library, it mainly in the context of or as part of the Temple, and I see no reason to keep an article around when a similar subsection is elsewhere. Arguments that it is notable for age are non-starters; by that logic, almost every building in the Temple is! Ironholds (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Inner Temple as described. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The library is part of the Inns of Court. Further, the subsection says, "The original Library existed from at least 1506, and consisted of a single room." To me, add it up (along with other things) and the library itself seems quite interesting and notable, at least to those interested in libraries, more notable than being placed in a subsection of a larger article. I say consideration should be given to moving the subsection into the Library article to keep, then add a link that says see more detail there, and so on. And the article could be built up -- I wouldn't kill it at this early stage. If it proves useless in the future after good faith efforts to make it Wikiworthy, that's a different story to be considered at that time. For now, I say it's a keeper. That aside, as this is library related, let me point out a possible COI. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It being old is not a valid keep reason - as said, that could cover every building in Inner Temple! Find me some independent coverage that passes WP:GNG and we'll talk. Ironholds (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe someone has added quite a few such references quite recently. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And more, just now.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The version I read would appear to easily meet the basic notability guideline. Other sources I found confirm this library's status as an archive of important legal manuscripts.[23] Generally speaking, very old state-related institutions can't avoid becoming notable, by dint of sheer persistence. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and link in both directions to the main IT article, so that details can be kept/added that would be inappropriately, err, detailed for the main article (which has to cover an awful lot) but appropriate for a subsidiary article. At the very least, merge, redirect to the appropriate section and keep the redirect categorised. My COI is that I'm a member of Inner Temple and sit on a couple of its committees, although I have no authority within the Inn and have nothing to do with the running of the library. BencherliteTalk 19:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Merge to Inner_Temple#Library. There is where it belongs, why was it split out? WP does not to be redundant. What would make the Library seperatly notable from the rest of the Inner Temple. If the Inner Temple did not exist, neither would this, they are 1 and the same, and so should their Articles be. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, it wasn't split out. Until a couple of days ago, the Inner Temple article looked like this, and the library article (which has existed since April 2007) had the best details about the library until Ironholds did a tremendous job in expanding the main article very recently. Don't let that confuse you into thinking that Inner Temple always looked as good as it does now! BencherliteTalk 01:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What it looked like in the past is irrelevant. They are 1 and the same structure, Why does it get 2 Articles? Is 1 Independantly notable from the other? Simply because Part of the structure was spoken about in a Ref does not mean that they were talking about a separate building, on the contrary, they were only talking about the part of the structure that was of intrest to them. Arguments to Keep are overlooking the obvious, WP already has a Article on the topic. Strong Merge. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 16:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are two subjects here - the library as an institution, and the library as a building. I believe it's probably appropriate to have articles on both. And there's only one right now, which I'm not sure treats which of the two. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Independently notable, just as the libraries of the really major universities are. (And essentially Inner Temple counts as such a university, in the context of British history. ) the Bodleian wouldn't exist unless Oxford University did, but none the less it is independently notable. And ditto with all major first order subdivisions of such historic institutions. A major academic institution, and there are sources to show it, as you;d expect given 5 centuries of history. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A search of LISA, the standard abstracting database for library science and library history, turns up six articles with substantial discussion of the library or its collections in their own right (rather than in the context of the Inner Temple). EALacey (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep historic importance, cultural and constitutional influence.--Brunnian (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Extremely notable library - this AfD nomination is ridiculous. What next, Big Ben? NBeale (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confident, in time consensus will change. Pretty soon, arguments like "the library as an institution, and the library as a building" will be seen as a flimsy excuse for 2 articles on the same topic. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall it seems that consensus supports deleting the article in accordance with WP:POLITICIAN. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yen Chou

[edit]
Yen Chou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed a local election. All media coverage about the person is about her bid for public office. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It doesn't matter what she was running for if she gets significant coverage in reliable independent sources as a result. The seat may not be notable but (according to the media) her bid for it apparently was. (Also it's worthing noting that this particular City Council covers a constituency of more than 8 million voters which means that of its 51 members, any two of them are proportionately representing more people than the entire population of the capital of Australia.)- DustFormsWords (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Icloud

[edit]
Icloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn web service. writing is promotional, which is fixable, the real problem is that the references just don't show this service as being exceptional. there are five references. ref 1 is to the company - self-published, does not show nn. ref 2 is to information week - probably a good ref, unless information week was paid to review it, which happens. ref 3 is cnet news - NOT A GOOD REF. icloud gets one sentence in this article referring to subscriber numbers. this article has dozens of these one-offs. ref 4 is reuters - this is a republication of a press release. the award is not notable either. ref 5 is tattletech - a blog. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, @Kate (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who Were The Beatles?

[edit]
Who Were The Beatles? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources for this film CynofGavuf 10:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted per G4 by User:Chamal N. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed seddik

[edit]
Ahmed seddik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, unreferenced puff piece for minor academic, media history greatly exaggerated: the only CNN "reaction" I can find online was one sentence from him in coverage of Egyptian reaction to Obama speech. Prod removed by anonymous IP account. MuffledThud (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, didn't think to check variant spellings, been AFD'd twice already. I'll speedy it now, thanks. MuffledThud (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Beaton

[edit]
Ron Beaton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local celebrity, but no widespread coverage CynofGavuf 10:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encore (Van Halen album)

[edit]
Encore (Van Halen album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This will be a high importance album when it appears. But for now, not nearly enough information yet to merit a separate album article. This page should be temporarily redirected to Van Halen, specifically Van Halen 2006-present, until album information becomes available. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 10:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie (Level Editor)

[edit]
Reggie (Level Editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Totally non notable software, not even released yet, written by totally non-notable person. Fails WP:N and WP:VER andy (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lola Karimova-Tillyaeva. More accurately deleted and redirect as the compelling argument is the lack of proper sourcing independant of the founder Spartaz Humbug! 18:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan 2020

[edit]
Uzbekistan 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fund apparently used as a plaything by Lola Karimova-Tillyaeva. No reason for it to have a separate article apart from her, but creator of article disagrees and reverted my redirect. Orange Mike | Talk 02:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This fund seems to be fairly notable, especially compared to similar initiatives in Central Asia, which is why I bothered to take the time to write an article about it. It currently has a fair number of hits on Google (just under 10,000), and while the majority of those are primarily about the fact that people were paid to go to the opening dinner, it does illustrate how much attention this organization is getting in Europe. This is not like the "playthings" of the Karimov daughters, such as their spas, nightclubs, and cafes in Uzbekistan, but is an organization spending (and receiving) a lot of money in a prominent international setting, quite different from anything we've seen previously. Also, considering the critical state of Uzbek-EU relations, a major PR push like this could potentially have a political dimension (this has only been discussed on a political blog or two and by Wikipedia standards is OR for now, but still worth considering). In the meantime, Uzbekistan 2020 is the first international organization established by a daughter of the president of Uzbekistan (which in itself gives the organization a lot of notability), it is building connections with other charitable organizations (raising over $200,000 for the Fondation Claude-Pompidou, for example), and has received a fair amount of worldwide media attention, especially in Central Asia and France. Otebig (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I realise that in some ways it comes down to a matter of opinion, but I consider this topic to be "interesting [and] unusual enough" to be notable. As Otebig points out, it's also significant in a number of ways, and has been receiving attention. The organisation itself probably has three possible directions (1. continue to do some ridiculous and controversial things, 2. continue towards living up to its mission, 3. fall silent, never to be heard from again), all of which are noteworthy (and my guess is that it'll probably be some combination of all three). People interested in charitable organisations in Central Asia (I know some people who have actually researched this topic) will surely be interested by this, and I suspect some scholarship will emerge soon that addresses this organisation. Maybe the article was added a little soon, but since it's there already, keep it—otherwise someone'll just be adding it again a year or two down the road. —Firespeaker (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, @Kate (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunstroke (song)

[edit]
Sunstroke (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

barely notable, no context in article at all, barely even a stub Alan - talk 08:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offshore (song)

[edit]
Offshore (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

barely notable, no context at all in article, can be merged into main article without taking up much space at all WP:NSONGS Alan - talk 08:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somersault (Chicane album)

[edit]
Somersault (Chicane album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

may possibly fail notability. All referances in article are to reviews and the content is lacking Alan - talk 08:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's very simple. Just because an artist has a song that did well on a chart, doesn't mean it needs it's own article. Most of his songs don't ahve enough on them to constitute their own articles. The info can be left on the main article instead of people having to click to another page jsut to see one sentance and a single chart peak position. Another way to put it is, jsut because something can be done, doesn't mean it has to be done. If the articles had more context, if the songs were mroe notable (used in tv and/or movies, had contraversy, had a story behind the lyrics, etc.. then it would be a lot differant, the articles would be worth having and reading, but as it stands, there's nothing there! Alan - talk 18:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:NALBUMS, "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Chicane is a notable artist. And it's not like the article consists solely of a track listing; there is sufficient information to meet WP:N.  Gongshow Talk 18:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily notable enough for an article. Presumably when the nominator searched for additional searches per WP:BEFORE he found this from Billboard magazine which is the second Google Books result, and this and this from the London Evening Standard from Google News? What about this from the BBC and this from the first few pages of Google results? Prehaps the nominator should acquaint themselves with WP:BEFORE and also our notability guidelines before wasting our time with these nominations? Articles will get deleted if the subjects lack notability as defined by the community, not because one editor doesn't find them interesting enough.--Michig (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the News UK archive I can also add reviews from the Birmingham Mail and the Daily Record, and substantial articles discussing the issues around the album's delayed release and problems with piracy from The Independent and the Belfast Telegraph. --Michig (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was just brought up for AfD last week and kept. -- Samir 10:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far from the Maddening Crowds

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Far from the Maddening Crowds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lacks notablity and context, what's there can be merged into main article Alan - talk 08:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom- per Samir below. Let's not waste any more time on this one. But can someone followup and add some cites, please? - Allie ❤ 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flop (band)

[edit]
Flop (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A textbook example of a non-notable MySpace band.??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Willoughbyrusty (talk • contribs) 23:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A textbook example of a non-notable MySpace band. Fails WP:BAND in a rather big way, on just about every single point. There's not much left to be said, but the plethora of redlinks on that page kinda sums up the situation Allie ❤ 08:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Although the article looks as though they may be worthy of an article (e.g. their album list), there's not one news article that I can spot that's actually about them. Shame, really, the article (redlinking and a couple of random gags aside) is actually better written than some notable band articles.. SMC (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe I'm missing something, but this band had a major label album release on Sony (Whenever You're Ready released on Sony 550 and distributed by Epic Records [29]), and two album releases on Frontier Records which in its heyday was a not-insignificant punk rock indie label (Flop and the Fall of the Mopsqueezer! [30], World of Today [31]). Articles on the band from the Washington Post [32], Baltimore Sun [33], Worcester Daily News [34], and a paragraph in the Toronto Star [35]. Also they disbanded in 1995, so they should not be characterized as a MySpace band. If you throw on the single on the Hype! soundtrack released on Sub Pop in 1996 [36], I think this is a clearcut keep. -- Samir 08:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Samir, their releases qualify them for criterion 5 of WP:BAND. I especially like the geographic diversity of the press coverage (Baltimore, Toronto, Worcester MA) but they HAVE to be incorporated into the article, I'll do it tonight if no one else does. J04n(talk page) 11:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milivoje Kostic

[edit]
Milivoje Kostic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article with no encyclopedic content, started by User:Mkostic2, about a full professor with a low h-index (~11), and claims of being in Who's Who. Abductive (reasoning) 07:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete an h-index of 11 can mean 10 publications with citation counts of 200, and one of 11, or 11 papers with 11 citation counts. It makes a difference. Using Web of Science, the only adequate index for this area of study in the time he was most productive, I find 38 papers listed, highest citation counts 28, 25, 11, 10. , which is not impressive, but not terrible. (Scopus gives a similar result) Neither of them include the citations to his review articles such as the one in Advances in heat transfer, or his encyclopedia articles, but they are in G Scholar. He is a full professor at U Northern Illinois, a reserarch university , though not of the highest level. Advances in Heat Transfer is a major review series. The encyclopedia articles might be considered to give him some degree of notability regardless of the citations, since many of them are likely to be much more read than cited. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That he's been invited to do a review is a sign of notability. Invited reviews are written by notable professors. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's a fair amount of wikipuffery: who's who listings, minor travel awards, etc., but once one gets past that there seems to be no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. The low h-index isn't itself a reason to delete, but it does eliminate one way of proving him to be notable, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. H-index is not impressive for the kind of field he works in and nothing else in the record appears to indicate WP:PROF notability. Nsk92 (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Delete - he's not a cartoon, doesn't belong. He has been invited to write review articles, and he's notable enough to be the writer of encyclopedia articles, also an invited position of noted authority. Professional journals and encyclopedias find him notable, but wikipedia relies solely upon h-index? This, and his full professorship is enough to establish notability. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this one does not satisfy PROF in the way we normally assess articles/people by that standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GS cites 87, 11, 3, 2.... Does not make it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I find the same figures from WoS as DGG: 28 pubs with cites of 28, 25, 11, 10, ..., but these indicate an h-index of only 6 (the other figure of 11 comes from GS, I presume) – not a notable research record for a senior-level full prof. While it's probably true that full profs at top-tier institutions are mostly notable (not by virtue of their position per se, but because one does not typically get such a position without first being notable), I don't think the same thing can be said of NIU (e.g. from the article "NIU is listed in the fourth-tier rankings"). All the who's-who and other WP:PUFF do not confer notability by themselves. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Almost no evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. certainly no real consensus to delete although there maybe an argument for a merge. That doesn't require AFD to rule, you can use the article talk page to do that. Spartaz Humbug! 18:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 11

[edit]
Interstate 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails the google test. All hits are speculative articles of what _could_ happen in the future. Interstate 11 does not appear in any U.S. Department of Transportation or state department of transportation logs. Dave (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it is more or less certain that there will be Olympic games in 2012 and that they will be called the "Olympic games". Neither construction nor name is certain in this case. If they were actually building the road, I'd probably be OK with an article; but at this point it's just proposed improvements to US 93 that might result in it be redesignated as an interstate.
The article for the road being discussed already exists and has inherent notability because it is an officially numbered route. A future I-11 may follow a completely different route to different destinations in a different part of the country than what is being speculated by the Las Vegas Sun. The preference of the general notability guideline for the topic "I-11 as a future highway between Phoenix and Las Vegas" cannot even be be met because there is a lack of multiple reliable sources.Synchronism (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about [38] (an Associated Press article about I-11) and [39], an article about I-11 from the Phoenix side of things. Looks like multiple to me. Angryapathy (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast Gaming

[edit]
West Coast Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable gaming community group; doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. A gaming community that hasn't received any kind of third-party coverage (that I can find) doesn't need an article. SMC (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mango Languages

[edit]
Mango Languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete Some GNews hits, but these mostly seem to be press releases. The ones that aren't consist of town papers discussing how the local library offers subscriptions to their products. The mentions in larger papers like the Boston Globe are trivial two-sentence items [40]. Per WP:CORP, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." cab (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of reliable secondary sources means questionable notability. I find only the same sort of passing mentions and local promotions that CAB did. Cnilep (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawing nomination in light of new sources and article improvement.. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–Latvia relations

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Iceland–Latvia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2 of the 3 references are government announcements, neither countries have embassies. the only thing they seem to have in common which is definitely not a measure of bilateral relations is that they were both quite affected by the GFC. other than third party coverage seems close to non existent. [41] LibStar (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which one should it be redirected to? we cannot have double redirects? LibStar (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that is hardly a reason to keep. how does this article satisfy WP:N or WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GedUK  08:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheamus Trott

[edit]
Sheamus Trott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any reliable sources discussing it CynofGavuf 06:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to NASCAR's 50 Greatest Drivers. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best NASCAR Drivers of all time

[edit]
Best NASCAR Drivers of all time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Opinionated and unsourced. Delete, and possibly redirect to NASCAR's 50 Greatest Drivers. Airplaneman talk 06:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  07:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Grant Writing Day

[edit]
National Grant Writing Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The same (now blocked) editor created this and American Grant Writers Association, which is already up for AFD here.

While a "History of grants in the US" article might be interesting, that isn't what this article claims to be about. What it claims to be about is an unknown self-promotional event put on by a non-notable group. I was able to find NO references of any kind that mention either "National Grant Writing Day" or "National Grant Writers Day" (the editor used both at different times). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Croatia relations

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Belarus–Croatia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

there has been no real improvement since the last AfD, and it really should have been closed as "no consensus" note it was closed by an admin who is now banned from closing bilateral AfDs. my original concerns stand. non resident embassies. 3 minor bilateral agreements, and almost no third party coverage except football clashes [66]. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that is hardly a reason to keep. how does this article satisfy WP:N or WP:GNG? you have provided no evidence of significant coverage of the topic. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references in the article speak for themselves. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. When neither country has an independent embassy in the other, that's usually a tip-off that we're not dealing with a relationship that is too significant. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the same reasons of the last AFD. Are we going to have to have the same discussion every 6 months, for the exact same article, just because one editor doesn't like something and is determined to keep trying until he gets the results he wants? If someone who speaks the native languages of these nations were to search major credible newspapers in those nations, you'd surely get plenty of coverage of agreements between them. The official website of the nations is always a good place to look for information as well.[67] Not sure why that link was removed from the article, but I'm putting it back in. Dream Focus 03:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if you want to keep an article the best way is to show evidence of third party coverage. If someone who speaks the native languages of these nations were to search major credible newspapers in those nations, you'd surely get plenty of coverage of agreements between them that is purely an assumption on your part and we do not keep articles because you think there are a lot of sources in another language, that's a pretty weak argument for keeping without evidence. any article can be renominated for deletion, this is within the WP rules. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly doubt there is coverage of these events? Do you honestly believe the newspapers of two nations involved in a treaty, would not publish an article about it? Dream Focus 12:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 references including 2 from primary sources ie government websites? LibStar (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say they are a primary source. When a government news agency issues a statement on a trade agreement, it is a secondary source. The text of the agreement is still the primary source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is sufficient information here to show notability. Multiple bilateral agreements [68] and expanding relations [69], a common Slavic heritage[70], an oil pipeline from Russia that crosses Belarussian and Croatian territory [71], along with joint membership in the Central European Initiative not to mention voluminous third party coverage of Croatian-Belarussian sports, easily justify the existence of this article. For two relatively young countries, there is a large amount of information available in English, a language which is not the official language of either country. Suggest searching for more third party sources in Belarusian, Russian, Croat and Croatian.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adequate sourcing to support article. Two countries, same neck of the woods. Bilateral trade is microscopic, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two countries, same neck of the woods. is not a criterion for bilateral articles, there have been numerous examples of 2 countries within Europe having their article deleted. the key test here is WP:N. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As seems fairly typical for these sorts of articles, every bit of information that can be gleaned has been, and yet there is still very little to go on. Yes, they are both in Europe, but that's about it. Absolutely minimal coverage in third party reliable sources. Quantpole (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole is fun, but not useful ... the article doesn't even mention that they are both in Europe. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to the opinion above mine, which says they are in the same neck of the woods. I do not pass comment on how 'useful' your comments are, so I would appreciate it if you could do the same for me. Quantpole (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then avoid hyperbole and stick to issues of notability and verifiability. Saying "Yes, they are both in Europe, but that's about it" doesn't discuss any Wikipedia rules for inclusion. It is just an amusing rhetorical devise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not engaging in hyperbole, but expressing an opinion. It is one that I am not alone in holding. In future, if you start debating the validity or usefullness of my opinions, you will be ignored. In AfD I am only interested in discussing the merits of articles. Quantpole (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a collection of meaningless trivia, not a valid encyclopedic topic. Yes, they have ambassadors (though not in each others' capital); yes, minor officials from both once met in Switzerland; yes, they both belong to some obscure body; yes, a few million dollars are exchanged between them annually; yes, they've signed a few pieces of paper together. And yes, I'm sure Croatian officials could find Belarus on a map, and vice versa. But no, none of this is in the least tantamount to the "significant coverage" demanded by WP:GNG. It's stuff we'd never normally notice outside this series of nonsense articles that some have decided to "expand" in a game of "watch me do this", and it's not something we should countenance. - Biruitorul Talk 03:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't try to define trivia, it is too subjective. It does define significant coverage and it "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This article certainly meets the standard as defined by Wikiedia. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per outstanding improvements by Richard Arthur Norton. Even if all cant agree that the sources are high enough quality to establish noteability, there's a good IAR rules case for keeping these articles. Specific X-Y bilateral relations are not only of accademic interest but of great practical importance in many ways, e.g. to companies trading or considering trade opportunities between the two countries, or for organisers of international summits and other events. Even merely collating the primary sources would be valuable, and thanks to Mr Norton we're well beyond that here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those additions add nothing of substance beyond "X and Y signed an agreement on Z", which is precisely the problem. This is trivial cruft at its worst, and short of declaring war on each other tomorrow, there is nothing that can elevate this article beyond trivia. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  07:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzkriegbliss

[edit]
Blitzkriegbliss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real hits on Google,basically just endless sites selling mp3's. The only real info I can find is that only 106 users have ever listened to them on last.fm. Can't find anything notable at all. Ridernyc (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  07:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relation Between bending and turning

[edit]
Relation Between bending and turning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay-like, not for an encyclopedia. Please see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK Airplaneman talk 06:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Freeman

[edit]
Kimberly Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite a good-faith effort to clean up and improve tone, this is a non-notable performer in a non-notable band. Only WP:RS given are an awards listing for a non-notable local award for the band, and an interview with an Austin magazine/blog that isn't a terribly major player (INsite). A google news search didn't turn anything up, either. tedder (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless I could be convinced that One Eyed Doll is notable. Her previous band, Giant Squid (band) is notable, in that they released two albums on The End Records which IMO is a "more important indie label". So if One Eye Doll were notable then she would have been in two notable bands and could be included. The local press isn't impressing me, and I'm seeing no other way for them to pass WP:BAND. Sorry J04n(talk page) 06:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Since Kimberly Freeman, Jason Sewell, and Scott Sutton--both who were part of the original Giant Squid --and are listed on Giant Squid's site I believe Kimberly at least deserves to have a wiki as to who she is and what she has done and is doing since. In Austin, there are more than just one articles listed as references--as well as awards she has won, and I believe that less than important people who haven't been signed by labels (and not as well written and cited) have wikis. The band One Eyed Doll IS notable in Austin, it has been declared the most notable band in Austin by many magazines that I have cited and as the live music capitol I believe you can take their word for it. Please allow this wiki to be approved. I have followed your guidelines and it is relevant and does meet the criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GypsyDoll (talk • contribs) 10:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC) — GypsyDoll (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As far as other wiki articles are concerned, see WP:OSE. Are there any magazines that are notable, let alone reliable? See WP:BIO for the general guidelines of notability of an individual. tedder (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response #2: I believe that this submission for deletion is unfounded. I do not live anywhere in the Austin, TX area, but yet I still know of One-Eyed Doll, and Kimberly Freeman. She is a wonderful performer, and since she has four albums out, 2 of which are with One-Eyed Doll, and she is working on a third album for the band, I push for acceptance of this wiki. I have been in contact with fans of Kimberly Freeman, and her band, from Romania, France, Great Britain, and all over the United States of America. I entered "Kimberly Freeman" into Google.com and found plenty of results that bring you to her music, pictures of her, videos, and her official website. Entering "One-Eyed Doll" brought similar results. If Google seems to accept Kimberly Freeman's existence, why can't Wikipedia? Maybe if you would approve this Wikipedia entry, there would be many and more fans, which would increase notability. Please do not delete this.J Harless (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC) — J Harless (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please read WP:GOOGLEHITS. To look at it another way, I exist in Google, there have been a couple of newspaper articles about me, but there's no way I qualify for an article- so only basing it on Google results isn't a great test. tedder (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re from Author: The Austin Chronicle, The Examiner, Billboard, are notable magazines and she has been in these and these are cited throughout the entry. She has been part of the signed band Giant Squid, even interviewed Jeffrey Star and vice versa. There are wikis for reality tv stars who have done less. Please do not delete. This is a notable indie band and the wiki entry is according to guidelines and policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GypsyDoll (talk • contribs) 21:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see my reply above? WP:N standards have not been met, among others. tedder (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tedder is correct. Simply being mentioned in passing in a publication is not enough. Steven Walling 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Application and Data Integration

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Application and Data Integration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just looks to me like this page was started as a stub back in 2005, has pretty much been ignored since, and the subject matter is covered far more thoroughly on other pages. In particular, the Enterprise Application Integration page seems to do a far better job. KotetsuKat (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) RMHED (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Wayne

[edit]
Randy Wayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unwikified WP:BLP stub with no reliable sources - since 2006. This actor of moderate renown does not seem to meet WP:ENT or WP:BIO more generally, judging from a Google search.  Sandstein  22:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the article was better before it was converted into a fluff piece recently by the suspiciously named Oklahomapr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), though that does not help with the notability problem.  Sandstein  22:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this argument of yours really fair? The film Frat Party has just been released, that could be the bona fide reason for it being a redlink, I have no idea. Did you examine the IMDB entries before your comment. I took another random one: To Save A Life where he also starred, it is also a 2009 release. No big effort to examine potential notability of that, [73], [74] [75] and [76] (only examined the first 50 Ghits, my default setting. Based on this I switched to "keep". Power.corrupts (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, some solid roles here- Sons & Daughters and The Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning seem to be decent enough to suggest he's worth considering, and with all those extras (and some rather promising recent/future films) I'd say the article's worth keeping. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loki installers for linux gamers

[edit]
Loki installers for linux gamers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website, no reliable sources provided. GlassCobra 05:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete, while I suspect this should be a straightforward delete, this sentence "project has earned the respect of well-known Linux gaming professionals, such as Ryan C. Gordon and Timothee Besset" troubles me - perhaps this is a "lead" to provide notability or at least proper referencing. Otherwise, delete. SMC (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Oh man, you know an article is in big trouble when the first reference is to a forum post. Anyway, delete per WP:WEB, WP:N, WP:RS, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I do agree this article could use improvement, as I have been trying to do myself when I have the time to devote to Wikipedia. However, the website is an-in valuable source for Linux gamers and an important support project for many older Linux ported titles. It was reading an un-cited sentence talking about work-arounds to get the Loki port of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri running that got me to create this article. I wanted it so that these statements could be verified by an article. And has been noted it has the support of other notable people with articles. Tag it for improvement, but delete... I do not think so. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone with any experience in Linux gaming (as I have, I am even a developer) would know the importance of this site. While, this statement in no way shows this article's notability I felt that it should be said. Also note that this site was mentioned by a news source (LinuxGames) which also has an article. I agree as well towards an improvement tag but this article should be given a chance. Comrade Graham (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just a quick look at how many games have these installers (and are hosted by this website) indicated that this is definitely notable. The article has its weaknesses but it can be improved. Kc4 (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not convinced by the keep arguments - being useful to Linux gamers is not notability. Has the website been the subject of media attention? Discussed in any books? Won any awards? I searched the LinuxGames website but could not find the news item mentioned by Comrade Graham. If someone could provide a link, that might help go towards notability, but as always I'd like to see multiple sources. Marasmusine (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are at least 6 news posts on LinuxGames.com which mention LIFLG - http://www.linuxgames.com/?s=liflg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.151.242 (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see, thanks for the link. No significant coverage, then. Marasmusine (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, you do not think there are enough sources. However you will notice a new citation on the main article from the french Linux website Jeux Linux, and I found a few other websites: www.linuxsoft.cz/article.php?id_article=247

http://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/loki http://www.playonlinux.com/fr/news-p34.html http://www.holarse-linuxgaming.de/search/google/liflg?query=liflg&cx=002436057543815263110:6jd9luoqxnu&cof=FORID:9&sitesearch=&cr=countryDE&hl=de&safe=off#914 as well as finding several mentions on the website http://www.linux-gamers.net/ which I can unfortunately not show since the website is down (and no, that is not the same website as LinuxGames). I did dig up one of the entries badly preserved in Google cache though: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:japAn9-ca2YJ:www.linux-gamers.net/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=0&start=860 liflg http://www.linux-gamers.net/&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As these sites haven't been discussed yet at WP:VG/RS, I'll need to examine the editoral process they have, as sources require "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (if anyone can read .fr or .cz they are welcome to assist!) Marasmusine (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are two books in German which reference LIFLG:

http://books.google.de/books?id=vz5kSUGT5I4C&pg=PA406&lpg=PA406&dq=liflg transgaming&source=bl&ots=JZB7Xk7EnJ&sig=O_saUFfeW5QXLkZBh_eQ9ylKs2U&hl=de&ei=Fg4US4-wE4mQsAakxNXpBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDIQ6AEwCA

http://books.google.de/books?id=H4Up_J32vogC&pg=PA245&dq=liflg transgaming#v=onepage&q=liflg transgaming&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.156.89 (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sure it's notable, but only for a very small group of insiders. Therefore NN for WP at large. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but that statement doesn't make sense. Notability is an arbitrary cut-off point, yes, but it doesn't require fame. If it did, we should destroy our coverage of asteroids, customs of old Indian tribes, violent crime in the 17th century, cutting-edge quantum physics theories, obscure but significant sayings, etc., etc., etc... Furthermore, there's no way we could establish how many people would have to know about something before its inclusion stopped hurting Wikipedia and started helping it. Even if we could, testing for that would be about as easy as kicking dead whales down the beach. Notability, regardless of its other merits, does not depend on fame. If this is notable, it's notable, period. --Kizor 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, that is coherent. Though we should investigate the sources above before making any definitive statements. WP:N, after all, avoids subjective judgement. (Subjective judgement can be a reason for keeping outside the criteria of WP:N - making one rule for all subjects everywhere would be madness, after all, and N's a means rather than an end - but I don't think it works as a reason for deletion.) Do you happen to know any German? --Kizor 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, you are entitled to your opinion, but what makes this article any less notable than any others? It is interesting that with so many articles on Wikipedia that do not have any citations and do not have any sources, that this is the one that is being threatened for deletion. It has been mentioned by several online new-sources, mentioned in a few books (though I will admit I did not know that when I made the article), and has the respect of some notable programmers. What more does it need? Just because not everyone on Wikipedia is a Linux Gamer does not mean linux gaming topics should not be covered.Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, I think Chargh has put his finger on a sensitive spot. We must work to ensure that our decisions to delete are prudent and fair, because if they're not, they're invariably hypocritical. --Kizor 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, changing from weak delete. I'm not too bothered about the fact that other crap exists arguments are being thrown around like solid policies. As Chargh mentions, it's received some respect from notable programmers, received coverage in books, and has received online coverage (which admittedly isn't as solid as the books). The catch is that all of this will need to be referenced, thoroughly; if that's done, then I see no reason to delete. If however it isn't done and no proof of this notability emerges, this article may wind up facing a second AFD. SMC (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruzwana Bashir

[edit]
Ruzwana Bashir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being an Oxford hack then later also being someone's girlfriend does not constitute notability. See Wikipedia:NOTNEWS & Wikipedia:BLP1E - it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event QC88 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only two, as "girlfriend of a notable actor" does not confer notability, unless there is significant amount of coverage (however, it could still be included in the article if the subject meets WP:BIO, as it can be verified by multiple sources). snigbrook (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:N, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Moonraker2 (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Metropolitan90. Being girlfriend of some actor is pretty irrelevant, and presidency of Oxford Union doesn't look like position of sufficient notability.--Staberinde (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that presidency of Oxford Union would not result in inherent notability, but there is significant coverage from reliable sources. The fact that it was two similar events (although with different results), several months apart, may be enough to avoid WP:BLP1E. snigbrook (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Also the fact that coverage has continued, although less substantially, since 2004 also adds slightly to the notability. However, I don't have any strong opinions on whether articles such as this should be kept, merged or deleted (unless the subject requests deletion). snigbrook (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xinru Liu

[edit]
Xinru Liu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. hardly any coverage in gnews. some coverage in gscholar but nothing that seems to meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - the award for Outstanding Research Works done between 1977-1991 from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is potentially a "notable award or honor" per WP:ANYBIO, and I would expect sources supporting its notability to be largely foreign language and not necessarily easily found through English language Gnews and Gscholar sources. Per WP:FAILN, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Name in Chinese is 刘欣如. Almost useless for a google search because there's some minor 80s pop star by the same name, but if you search e.g. "Liu Xinru" "Ancient India" in Chinese there's only about 600 GHits and she doesn't seem to have published any major works in Chinese. Normally I'd be the first guy jumping up and down reprimanding LibStar to be bothered to search in foreign languages ... but in this case, she's got a Ph.D. from a U.S. university almost a quarter of a century ago and has been teaching in the U.S. system for the most recent 15 years of her career. And even the "Award for outstanding research works" she received from the Chinese Academic of Social Sciences (#181 in this list) was for a work published in English by Oxford University. If she's had any major impact in her field, you should be able to find it in the English-language literature. I'll defer to someone who actually knows the field to assess that. For what it's worth, I do see a couple of independent reviews of her 1998 book Silk and religion in GScholar. cab (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has won award from notable organization, and having at least two books published by Oxford University Press indicates significant stature in/contributions to her field. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Writing books is not enough. What counts is having them noted by others. On basis of top cites found in GS 32, 16, 5... this has not occurred yet to a sufficient extent. Unless further evidence emerges this seems to be another case of an article on an assistant professor created too soon. Xxanthippe (talk).
  • Keep Whether writing books is notable depends on the books. We can judge the books by citations--but in the humanities it takes many years or decades for citations to books to accumulate. GS will be more useful 20 or 30 years from. We can judge by publisher: Her latest in by OUP: Liu, Xinru. The Silk Road in World History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009 in a major series, The Oxford New World History, My tentative judgment from that alone is that someone who manages to get a contract to write sucha book for such a publisher is likely to be notable--presses like OUP are good at judging such things, probably better than any of us. OUP India published her earlier book: Lui, Hsin-ju. Silk and Religion: An Exploration of Material Life and the Thought of People, AD 600-1200. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996. She did one for McGraw also, Liu, Xinru, and Lynda Shaffer. Connections Across Eurasia: Transportation, Communication, and Cultural Exchange on the Silk Roads. Explorations in world history. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2007. Not a research publisher in humanities, so it's likely to have been a textbook. But Liu, Hsin-ju. The Silk Road: Overland Trade and Cultural Interactions in Eurasia. Essays on global and comparative history. Washington, DC: American Historical Association, 1998. published by the most important US historical association itself--it's a short supplementary book, but when the major associations publish these is because they intend them as part of a series for standard teaching use. The reviews cited by cab confirm it, and meet WP:AUTHOR. Whatever additional is in Chinese can only add to it. I'm not sure why she's still as Assistant Professor, and I have been very reluctant to say keep for people at this rank--I do not think most of them notable; she's one of the exceptions, as the publications are enough to show her a leading author in her field-- DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Citation counts are low, and she's still an assistant professor after nearly 25 years as an academic. I think it's clear that she is a serious academic (from the publications discussed above by DGG and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz), but it just doesn't seem that her peers consider her stature very high. I hesitate to purely use gradations of academic status to judge somebody's contributions to the field, but in the absence of major citation records, that's all we really have to go on here - most tenured professors have contributed chapters, articles, or sections to books and compilations by major university presses - that's an indicator of a serious academic with real contributions, to be sure, but not so much a cut above the rest as to pass WP:PROF. RayTalk 16:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Her academic rank and TCNJ's site is puzzling. According to [77] she moved up the ranks at the Institute of World History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, where she is "1993 - present [full] Professor", and was in 1994 the Director. Also on that page, "Spring Semester of 2000-Present Part-time faculty, Department of History, the College of New Jersey" so her assistant professor rank there may be because she is a part-timer. But she is listed as full time here, which also lists a part time 2007 Ph.D as a full professor. John Z (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. I think her Chinese academic rank should be taken more seriously, it looks like she's an assistant prof in NJ because she's part time. The defects, or necessity to weight differently, of gscholar in the humanities are well-known. Gets about 300 gbooks hits, more than I expected, many in Chinese, and this suggests to me that she probably is notable in her field.John Z (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with your comments about GScholar, but not about her status in China. Her Chinese name is rather common. It's not quite "Mary Jones", but close. Most of the Chinese GHits are for an unrelated 80s pop star by the same name. The little coverage that does exist of her in Chinese relates to her English-language works. I'm quite aware of the issues of systemic bias when it comes to evaluating foreign humanities scholars, but in this case I think it's fair to say her notability stands or falls on what we see in English. cab (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The gbooks hits seem to be for this Xinru Liu - the first few I see relate to Buddhism, e.g. ISBN 9578517661 ("some hits in Chinese" is more accurate than my "many" above)John Z (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.
  1. Books with established publishers OUP - McGraw Hill
  2. Full Professor at World History Institute, The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Beijing) and other posts there.
  3. referenced all over 'our encyclopedia'.[[78]] (given the nature of the references and how they are used this seems important and not really so self-referential)
  4. Keynote type lecture: The Georgia State University World History Lecture for 2008 Presented by The Department of History & The Program in World History and Cultures The Asian Studies Center - [79]](Msrasnw (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jocko Abramovitch

[edit]
Jocko Abramovitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:N and WP:MUSIC. The references in the article have nothing to do with the text. Google turns up nothing substantial. @Kate (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With all due respect to Mr. Abramovitch, it has already been established that simply being a member of the Special Forces or having been awarded the Silver Star is not considered "notable" enough for inclusion in of itself (a decision I strongly disagree with, but I'm in the minority). Being a successful DJ is certainly not notable, nor is having your picture taken with Rob Zombie. Nothing here meets Wikipedia requirements for notability and therefore the article should be deleted. Rapier1 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Remove - With all due respect to Mr. Novack and Ms.Katerenka, winning a Silver Star is by its very nature a noteable act...being won by a man who wasn't even born in the US makes it more noteable. He is a BBC personality giving him prominence in his field, a contemporary of Pete Tong and the founding member of a band listed here in Wikipedia. The subject was on the Billboard charts in two countries and is regarded as a noteable personality in dance music. 'Notability' is defined as being worthy of note or having prominence and therefore the article should not be deleted. User:72.37.129.126 10:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I agree with you. I had written an article about my father, a Vietnam War US Army Ranger LRRP commando who was awarded two Silver Stars and three Bronze (with combat V) along with a Purple Heart, only to be told that since the Silver Star is only third in precedence, it wasn't notable in of itself (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick M. Novack). Furthermore, one of the references in the article is a deadlink, the other doesn't even mention Mr. Abramovitch. There are no credible sources listed here to back any of the information in the article. I understand Mr. Abramovitch wanting a page here to improve his visibility and possibly boost his success, but he has to earn that before becoming notible enough to merit inclusion according to WP:BIO. Until that is rectified, I can't say anything but Delete Rapier1 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"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." I can't find any coverage of Mr. Abramovitch anywhere. And, as Rapier1 mentioned, and I mentioned in my nomination, the references that you have given have nothing to do with the subject of the article. GwenNovak talk to my master 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. \//\ - 09:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Winning a Silver Star alone does not meet Wikipedia standards of notability per WP:NOTE, unless the recipient of the award has received significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, of which there is none regarding Mr. Abramovitch. Therefore, the article should be deleted. Laurinavicius (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Lions season 2010

[edit]
Brisbane Lions season 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Toribio

[edit]
Julio Toribio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Smells like a walled garden, full of primary sources and possible self promotion. Lacks encyclopedic notability demonstrated through non-trivial coverage by reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Poulette

[edit]
Jim Poulette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. The article was largely written by the subject himself, who removed WP:PROD, WP:COI and WP:ADVERT tags, calling them "BS" [80]. His claims to fame are (1) a book with no evidence of notability, (2) a patent with no evidence of notability, (3) some articles, photographs, letters, with no evidence of notability. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Ratnavel

[edit]
Roy Ratnavel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:AUTHOR and WP:SPAM. WP:SPA creator User:Bizz Facts is presumably making a claim for notability because of Mr. Ratnavel's published op-eds in the National Post. However that alone does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Moreover, this appeal to creative notability is completely discredited by the article's naked shilling for Ratnavel's investment bizz. Bizz facts indeed. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Algernon J. Pollock. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Pollock

[edit]
A. J. Pollock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't have a strong opinion about this subject, but if consensus is to delete, please redirect to Algernon J. Pollock, frequently cited as "A.J. Pollock" for his influential early 20th century evangelical writings. Ἀλήθεια 04:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um, you're supposed to provide a rationale for deletion; otherwise, it's grounds for a WP:SK. But I'm going to bite on this one and say delete as failing WP:ATHLETE. Status as a "top prospect" for the Arizona Diamondbacks doesn't exactly make him Stephen Strasburg. KuyaBriBriTalk 05:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.K., fine. This article is not a candidate for speedy keep. I nominated not because I was so thoroughly convinced that it should be deleted, but because I questioned whether it was notable enough to keep. My !vote would be delete. Truth be told, I'm more interested in the redirect to Algernon J. Pollock. I probably should have just left this article alone before moving it per WP:NAME, and let it languish in "unfindability", but I wanted to give it a fair shot in AFD. Ἀλήθεια 13:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and replace with disambiguation page - regarding your rationale for listing in AfD specifically. I'm not commenting on whether or not the article should be kept. Ivanvector (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a comment. Why do we need a disambiguation page with only two articles? The nominated article has "This article is about the baseball player. For the Plymouth Brethren evangelist and writer, see Algernon J. Pollock." at the top. Place a similar note on the other page and call it a day. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the convention for a dab page that would only have two entries? I would think the dab page would be more appropriate, so that if someone searched for the topic they would get a list of both articles, instead of Wikipedia assuming that one of the two is the default. Does that give undue credibility to one or the other subject? I'm asking, I don't know the answer. Ivanvector (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that more than a week later, no one has come to the defense of the notability of this article as it stands. I am going to change to a redirect. Ἀλήθεια 14:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of right now, the article that was nominated for AfD has been replaced with a redirect to the evangelist's page. This probably shouldn't have been done while the AfD is still open, however I don't think any of us that have commented would disagree with this action. Can this AfD be closed properly now? Ivanvector (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. More heat than light was generated in this debate, and there's no agreement on his notability. Can I remind everyone to stay civil, and that there is no need to respond to all those who disagree with you, especially at such length. Fences&Windows 00:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mun Charn Wong

[edit]
Mun Charn Wong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article does not meet WP:NN per WP:BIO or WP:MILMOS#NOTE, most of article is about Wah Kau Kong and belongs on that article page. 3 of five references are regarding Wah Kau Kong and not of the subject of the article, and the other two are obituaries, thus falling under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Publication references is to Wah Kau Kong and belongs on that article page. Book references to Americans first: Chinese Americans and the Second World War by Kevin Scott Wong has 10 mentions of the subject of the article, 5 of which are references, and the other 5 are not in depth regarding the subject of the article. Furthermore in the book Football! Navy! War!: How Military Lend-Lease Players Saved the College Game ... By Wilbur D. Jones there is only 2 references to the subject, one is a reference, the other only mentions the subject in passing. Given that the the two of the three references that are primarily about the subject are obituaries, the subject of the article (even with his honorable service which is commendable) does not meet WP:NN in my humble opinion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was when I last looked at it. His notability lies in being one of 12 legends in Transamerica Insurance; arguably, life insurance sales people are no less notable than any other occupation where national recognition, and there are some who have made a fortune from their commissions. I'll keep an open mind on arguments for and against the article. Mandsford (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is much more about Wah Kau Kong. And basing the notability of Mr. Wong on his success as a life insurance salesman is dubious at best. National recognition by his employer is not the same as national recognition by the media. DarkAudit (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is about Mun Charn Wong. I agree the original editor did a poor job of it, but I am attempting to clean it up. Wong was a notable businessman from Hawaii and has been published in the field. His accomplishments have also been recognized by secondary sources, including books and newspaper articles. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is directed towards Mandsford. Since there is not specific notes on notability regarding business people, the subject of the article is subject to meeting Notability via WP:BIO#Basic criteria and WP:ANYBIO. So far there is no mention of the subject being nominated or awarded a "Notable Award". Therefore, the subject wold be notable via being the primary subject of indepth coverage. So far as of this posting, he is the primary subject of three indepth coverage references, two are obituaries and one is noted in my comment below, as it was added after the AFD began. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Viriditas has added the reference "Hawaii agent Transamerica's top insurer". Pacific Business News. 28 (31): B14. 1990-10-15., the first non-obituary reference where the subject of the article is the primary subject. Please make note of this. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Viriditas has added the reference Wong, Randy (2007). "Exploring Initiation Through the 'Other'" (PDF). Journal for Music-In-Education. 1. New England Conservatory/Music-In-Education National Consortium: 45–52. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help), the subject of the article is mentioned once, and only in passing. Please make note of this. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To expand upon my initial reason for nominating the article for deletion, in the most recent edit summary the above listed reference was used to show how the subject of the article introduced his grandson to a notable musician. However, knowing a notable person, or being related to a notable person does not make that person notable themselves. See WP:BIO#Invalid criteria and WP:NOTINHERITED. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject meets notability guidelines and is covered by at least a dozen sources. Subject was one of the first Chinese-Americans from Hawaii to serve in the Air Force, and at least two books mention his WWII career including his football skills as a quarterback. He was interviewed by a historian at Williams College for a book published by Harvard University Press, and a military historian for material published by McFarland. Subject received a select, prestigious business award from the Transamerica Corporation which was covered by Pacific Business News and two obituaries, one in the The Honolulu Advertiser and the other in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Subject published an article in the magazine Insurance Sales, appears in at least two video productions (one made for TV), had his work recognized by U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka on the Senate floor, served as the president of various Chinese-American organizations and on the board of notable service organizations, and established a scholarship in Aerospace Studies at the University of Hawaii. More sources can be found offline in local Hawaii-based newspaper indexes and foreign-language sources. (For example, I just found a detailed biographical entry for Wong in Men and Women of Hawaii; A Biographical Dictionary of Noteworthy Men and Women of Hawaii, which was published by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin in 1972. I am currently scheduled to review several old indexes from that paper and another Hawaii-based paper that are supposed to contain articles about him. The problem is that none of these are online.) Article was previously deleted and restored in deletion review in 2006. Article on Wah Kau Kong was split out of this article several days after DRV, not before. In response to the prod and AfD from an article alert, I have expanded the article from 3,119 bytes to 11,849 bytes and I believe more sources can be found to expand it further. Viriditas (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on atheltic career, subject does not meet notability requirement set forth by WP:ATH. The award which the subject was awarded by their employer is not a "notable award" as per WP:ANYBIO. The associations whom the subject was the President of do not appear to be notable per WP:ORG. After the commendable improvement, the subject is the primary subject of 2 obituaries, one article, and one videorecording by his own organization.
It could be argued that the subject meets notability per the number of references currently provided, in so much that that in being secondary or minor subjects in the present number of referenced sources should meet the second part of the first bullet point of WP:BIO#Basic criteria. It could also be argued due to the number of references the subject meets notability per WP:GNG.
That being said the subject does not appear to meet notability of "Significant coverage" bullet point of WP:GNG, and multiple references of the subject where the subject is not the primary subject of the reference may not garuntee that the subject is notable as stated in WP:BIO#Basic criteria. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've already said your part several times; Is your argument and rationale for deletion so weak that you cannot allow me to say mine? Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you can clearly see, I am not stopping you from making your opinion known regarding the article. As with other AFDs, other users are allowed to comment on other users rational as to why they believe an article should be deleted, kept, moved, merged, etc. My comments have been only about the article, and have been civil, and are not directed to you the editor, but rather the rational that you are using in your comment.
I have not attacked you as an editor, and I respectfully request that you focus your comments to the rational used in the afd process, as you yourself are permitted to rebut any rationals which you believe are not keeping with the policies and guidelines used to support an action regarding an article.
Please stop directing comments towards me, the user, as I believe that your most recent comment/response is a form of harassment.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing about you in my "keep" vote at all, and there's no reason for you to keep responding to my vote as you've already made your very strong beliefs about this article known several times. The fact is, the man meets the notability requirements as a whole. Nobody claimed he was a professional athlete, the article clearly claims he played football in the Air Force and was an amateur golfer. However, these things have been covered by reliable sources. You seem to be confused by this. As for the business award given by Transamerica, it is a notable business award and was given to less than a dozen people in the entire history of the company and was recognized by at least three newspaper sources. The fact is, Wong has received significant coverage in the references provided, and there are more in Hawaii-based newspaper indexes, and in at least one foreign-language source. Frankly, none of your rationale holds. You claim that this article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but that doesn't make any sense at all, so I can only assume you misunderstand what NOTMEMORIAL means. The fact is, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and the notability criterion has been satisfied. The Wah Kau Kong material was taken out of this article after the last deletion, so that it could be expanded, not so that both articles could be merged, again. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The harassment I am refering to is the statement:Is your argument and rationale for deletion so weak that you cannot allow me to say mine?
This comment is directed to me the user, and not towards the discussion, and falls under the following:(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts
As for the award from his employer, the award itself is not notable as it has not meet notability itself, to warrant an article.
As for NOTMEMORIAL, at the beginning, as the article had previously been written, of the deletion process (PROD) the article's references supported that line of opinion, thus why I included it.
As for the number of references in secondary and tertiary reliable sources, I have already commented on those per my comments on the subject's notability per WP:BIO#Basic criteria. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The harassment appears to be coming from you, not me. I have not responded to any of your comments on this page - it is you who keeps responding to me, and no response from you is required. This is commonly referred to as harassing an editor and should stop. I know your position, and I do not need to be repeatedly informed of it. I find your nomination for deletion to be in error, as a misunderstanding of basic policy and guidelines. The fact that an article on the Transamerica Corporation Award does not exist does not imply in any way that the subject is not-notable. It merely hasn't been written. If your nomination criteria has changed, then you should be mature enough to say so. I see no retraction from you above. As for notability, the subject has been recognized for his contributions to society by his community, his workplace, historians and academics, his U.S. Senator, and multiple news outlets. He has appeared in various videos and created a scholarship at the University. His notability as one of the first Chinese-American people from Hawaii to join the Air Force makes his WWII veteran status notable, and his football and golfing has also been recognized. As the primary researcher responsible for bringing the attention of Wah Kau Kong to the public, his work has been credited in reliable sources. He is also a notable life insurance executive who was recognized by the life insurance community as a leader in his field, and this was covered by Pacific Business News, a standard business publication. Additionally, he has published an article about life insurance (which was considered notable enough to be included in a published survey of important marketing literature). He has also appeared in a television production and conference video that is listed in WorldCat. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The addition of the reference to the 1990 Pacific Business News article establishes notability as far as I'm concerned. Mr. Wong completed 1989 as "the top insurance agent worldwide in the entire family of Transamerica Life companies", and Transamerica is one of the largest insurance companies in the world. It has 1.5 trillion dollars worth of life insurance policies alone, as well as assets of more than 100 billion. Mandsford (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if notability boils down to "Wong's photo occupies the No. 1 position in Transamerica's gallery of fame in the Los Angeles headquarters of Transamerica Occidental Life" and some tangential references in other fields then this seems a weak basis for a biography (or memorial) article. A mention on the Transamerica Corporation might be viable, or the creation of an "Transamerica Occidental Life" page if that company is so important (it does not currently exist). I originally came to the article to provide a third opinion but I was aggressively rejected by Viriditas, which seems to be the pattern here too.—Ash (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're saying that you originally might have had a different opinion about the merits of the article, but that you changed it because someone made you angry, then that suggests to me that the argument between Viriditas and RightCow has gone beyond irritating and on to a major distraction. For all the chatter that's gone on so far, there have been only five people who have said "keep" or "delete". The discussion is about a man named "Mun Charn Wong", and, frankly, nobody cares what any editor thinks about any other editor. Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your opinions, that's not what I said and it's not what I meant. I have struck my superfluous comment however, as I don't wish for you to misinterpret any further.—Ash (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is about as perfect an illustration as one could hope for regarding the concept that "successful" and "notable" are not always the same thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:BIO - significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Multiple obituaries in serious newspapers qualify. RayTalk 20:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the coverage which you mention, the subject of the article is not the primary subject of the reference, and are secondary or tertiary at best. Article's subject is the primary subject of two obituaries, one article in the Pacific Business News, and one film by an organization which he was the president of. If you were to remove the obituaries and the video from his organization, he's only the primary subject in one reliable source reference. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would anybody discount obituaries? They're quite often the major source for otherwise little-known details about the lives of moderately prominent people. RayTalk 15:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obituaries are opinion pieces. Normally one authoritative obit is sufficient in an article and any facts it mentions (apart, possibly, from circumstances of death) are better supported by sources published at the time. Obituaries often often cast the subject in a more positive light than independent sources published before death occurs. Consequently articles heavily reliant on obituaries for facts may suffer from POV issues. I recall this being discussed more generally and extensively elsewhere, though I have not tracked down that discussion yet.—Ash (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Opinion pieces? This is the first I've heard of that. I can certainly buy that obituaries are likely to be more positive than articles focusing on particular controversies in which the subject is involved, but for notability purposes a solid profile in an obituary is the same as one in the news section. Or are you implying that a newspaper doesn't stand behind the facts in its obituary section? RayTalk 19:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any article "may suffer from POV issues", even those that don't cite to an obituary for evidence of a fact. That doesn't make the source unreliable, nor is it anything that can't be addressed by editing. Generally, a published source is always going to be more reliable than a webpage. Mandsford (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am only providing information to you regarding what references have the subject as a primary source. I am not telling you that obituaries are not reliable sources in and of themselves. However, if the majority of sources where the subject is the primary subject of the source are obituaries, than there is a possibility that the article may fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
      • In supporting keep you stated that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet notability per WP:BIO. Thus, I was pointing out to you that those references where the subject of the article is the primary subject of the references are limited, compared to the overall number of references used in the article, since the majority of references have the subject of the article as secondary or minor subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You are directly accusing me of WIKILAWERING and GAMING by secret collusion with another editor. Such allegations are not acceptable, stop making unsubstantiated accusations or make a report for investigation using the correct WP:ANI process.—Ash (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I ever mentioned nor made any claims about "gaming" or "collusion". You have a vivid imagination. How about putting it to good use? Viriditas (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest you strike your paragraph above and rephrase it so that you are not accusing me of collaborating on reposting questions in forums when in reality I have posted one question in one forum. As for your inability to understand what GAMING is, when you stated "in an attempt to change the outcome of an active AfD", that is a direct accusation of gaming. You are an experienced editor, so please don't pretend that this is all my "imagination".—Ash (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to remove whatever troubles you. I don't see it as "gaming" as that applies more to policy. I see it as forum shopping, and I made that clear. Forum shopping is a subset of canvassing. Gaming is a subset of disruptive editing. Is forum shopping disruptive? I suppose it depends. Viriditas (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are still accusing me of forum shopping in order to change the outcome of this AfD, a straightforward accusation of gaming. However as you appear so unconvinced by your own words that you recommend I edit your comments rather being prepared to raise your complaint using the ANI process, I suggest that is taken into account when closing this AfD. If you are not prepared to stand by your comments I don't think they need count for much here.—Ash (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I suggest your continued bad behavior here, including your original personal attack against me above[81] and your admitted bias in coming here to make a vote be taken into account, and I suggest that your "delete" vote be stricken from the final tally. I also suggest that your forum shopping and misleading statements about other editors be taken into account, as well as the fact that your opinion on the use of obituaries on Wikipedia was refuted on Wikipedia:RSN#Obituaries by multiple editors. I also suggest that you refrain from turning AfD's into grudge matches against your perceived opponents and you limit yourself to article space for the foreseeable future. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas please be WP:CIVIL. Please do not direct your comments towards the editors contributions and not the editor themselves as you did here:

You have a vivid imagination. How about putting it to good use?

— Viriditas
RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A complement and a suggestion to help improve Wikipedia, no incivility, unlike the repeated attacks from Ash here.[82] And RightCowLeftCoast, your attempt to redefine the reliable source guideline in order to discriminate against "local" newspapers is the silliest thing I have ever seen. Your questions over at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Obituaries are simply forum shopping. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, now I'm being accused of making attacks - I guess you'll make up some rationale that you did not mean a "personal" attack so you'll not actually get your finger out and use the ANI process to report me? I would have thought that if you could in any way back up your claims of FORUMSHOPPING in order to change the outcome of an AFD (GAME), WIKILAWYERING and personal attack, then rather than wasting your time and everyone else's by taking an AFD off-topic, you should be using the correct wp:dispute resolution process. You have made six times more contributions to Wikipedia than I have, so I find your behaviour bizarre. I would have hoped an experienced editor would focus on the article and issues rather than randomly lash out at other editors. :( —Ash (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope that an administrator will come along soon to close the discussion. It appears that there are seven opinions regarding whether the article should be kept or deleted, and the last one of those was registered back on November 25. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO I see nothing here that passes our standard. Eusebeus (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ash, WP:BIO. Crafty (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Votes made "per user" aren't given as much weight as votes with actual reasons. And Ash's rationale above was proven to be in error in at least three different instances so votes "per Ash" should be discarded. To be specific, Ash argued that notability boiled down to the subject's life insurance award, when in fact Wong's contributions include his research on Kong, and his publication on this subject is featured in A Bibliography of Chinese in Hawaii at the Hawaii State Library [83] and formed the basis for U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka's commemoration of Kong in the Congressional Record on December 1, 1994. Wong's work is also highlighted in the video produced for KHON-TV called, "Profile of America's first Chinese-American fighter pilot, Wah Kau Kong." Furthermore, Mun Charn Wong was responsible for establishing a scholarship in Kong's name at the University of Hawaii. Both the prestigious life insurance award and his research and scholarship work meet the "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" criteria of WP:ANYBIO. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not re-phrase my comment to suit yourself when people can read my original text on this page. Just because you made a comment and declared yourself right (or more correctly, declared other editors wrong) does not make it "proven". If you want to seriously propose my opinion here should be struck from the discussion then use the WP:ANI process and have them struck, otherwise grow up and stop hounding other editors and harranging people in this AfD.—Ash (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have consistently made false or erroneous statements about sources, articles, and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For example, on Talk:Mun Charn Wong, you claimed a source wasn't available online after I said that it was, and you refused to revise your opinion. In the process, you misinterpreted the policy on verification, even after I gave an explanation and links to the relevant policy. You offered a third opinion based on your misunderstanding, and refused to change your position when you were corrected. Here, you claimed that Wong was only notable for one thing, when you were repeatedly given information on this AfD and on the talk and article page showing that he was notable for multiple reasons and met the criteria for ANYBIO. You explicitly claimed that obituaries are opinion pieces, and after being shown that you were mistaken in your belief on RSN, you never once came back here to revise your opinion. So, there is a pattern. You make false claims and never go back to revise them or admit that you are wrong, and when you do go back, you either ignore the information or hedge your original statement. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems to be primarily a memorial and does not meet WP:BIO. OccamzRazor (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MEMORIAL has nothing to do with this article. Wong is listed in Men and Women of Hawaii; A Biographical Dictionary of Noteworthy Men and Women of Hawaii. (1972) as well as multiple reliable sources independent of the subject indicating his notability in both his work and his contributions to the community and research on Chinese-Americans in WWII. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How many more times are you going to repeat your opinions?—Ash (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • How many more times are you going to make false claims about Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Show me how WP:MEMORIAL directly applies to this AfD. You can't, because it doesn't. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps you haven't actually thought about what WP:MEMORIAL says? If the article does not meet the notability requirements than all MEMORIAL says is that Wikipedia is not the place to memorize them. As for making false claims, as you appear to be on a campaign to make an endless list of random uncivil accusations against me without being prepared to follow any of the WP:DR processes then I guess that "false" has a special definition here, one that only exists in your head.—Ash (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I note that you could not answer the question becuase WP:MEMORIAL does not apply to this article. MEMORIAL applies to articles created by editors "to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others." Is there any evidence that anyone is doing this? MEMORIAL is part of our general, site-wide proscription against using Wikipedia as web host, and when MEMORIAL applies, it is most commonly found in terms of unknown people who have not received coverage in reliable sources like Mun Charn Wong. You are misinterpreting it to apply it to subjects who you feel are not notable, and that was never the intention of the policy. MEMORIAL was solely intended to prevent editors from using Wikipedia as a personal web server. It has absolutely nothing to do with this AfD. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've had a good think about this and I believe his achievement is notable like that of Ben Feldman (insurance salesman). Selling insurance and being the best at it is a notable achievement that is mentioned in news stories and passed down in companies, Dmcq (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. I have looked at the notability of the person in the article that you linked, one source is from a possible non-reliable source, and another source is from a blog. I will be tagging this article appropriately for clean up. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And here is another great example of the continued problematic editing by RightCowLeftCoast.[84] The user cannot be bothered to do any actual work on Wikipedia invovling research or writing, so he tags Ben Feldman (insurance salesman) for "expansion", "missing references" and "notability" problems, as a precursor to his usual prodding and eventual deletion nominations. I am curious about how many notable articles have been brought to deletion by RightCowLeftCoast in this way. His questioning of the notability of Ben Feldman is unbelievable. A quick three-second search on Google confirms that Feldman is widely considered the "world's greatest life insurance salesman". I am concerned that RightCowLeftCoast misunderstands the purpose of tagging articles and consequently, the nature of the deletion process. I am removing the notablity tag from Feldman as a result of this blatant misuse of tagging and processes. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I agree with the nominator that this article doesn't meet the standard set out in WP:BIO. Absent the obituaries, there are really no reliable references to articles that are focussed on the subject. Incidentally, the bickering during this discussion has been pathetic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The I must conclude that you voted without reading the article. He was the subject of a report in the Pacific Business News in 1990 sample (full article available in online databases, and I have it) detailing the prestigious life insurance award he received, and he was one of the subjects of military historian Wilbur D. Jones's book about WWII published by McFarland, and his research on Kong is recognized by the State of Hawaii in several places (discussed above) and in the Congressional Record, and he established and maintained a scholarship at the U of H which has been in place for decades. Clearly meets the criteria of ANYBIO. The further reading section also details his entry in a book on notable people from Hawaii, and I've found article abstracts in Hawaii newspaper indexes from the 1970s that I am in the process of getting access to. Wong also played with celebrity golfers and won an amateur award with the help of Larry Ziegler in 1986 at San Francisco's Olympic Club. This was covered by the San Francisco Chronicle. He was clearly a notable member of his community and his contibutions have been recognized by U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should everyone who's name is mentioned in the congressional record be considered notable? If this were the case every individual who has spoken in front of congress would be notable, every person who has a post office named after them would be notable, and every person whom a congress person were to insert into the congressional record without actually speaking about them in committee or on the floor would be notable.
Does establishing a foundation mean that the individual has meet notability? I have not seen any indication that an individual is notable for that reason on WP:BIO.
WP:ANYBIO states that the individual has received a notable award, or has often been nominated for one. So far the subject of the article has been verified to have been awarded an award by their employer. Although his employer is notable, that doesn't automatically confer notability to its awards to its employees.
As for Jones' book the subject is mentioned 5 times, that are not references, and each time the subject is mentioned it is not in a manner that provides significant coverage of the subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The I must conclude that you voted without reading the article. —Viriditas Or, you could assume that I did and come to grips with the fact that users disagree with you. This is part of what I was referring to when I said the bickering in this discussion was pathetic. It's not necessary to respond to every user who disagrees with you with unfounded assumptions about what they have and have not done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough references altogether, with enough coverage, to satisfy the GNG. The argument against them is essentially that they are too specialized; two obits, but only from local papers, not the NYT. Prominence as a very major company's top salesman. An article on him in Pacific Business News. Various book references. But these different sources have more than enough substantial coverage, and add up, showing that he was not just was well-known in one narrow area -e.g. it's not as if there was even more coverage, but all concentrated in Transamerica publications.John Z (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not believe the award from his employer constitutes a "notable award" to meet WP:ANYBIO, and even if it did I still believe the article should be delted per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Click23 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reliable and verifiable coverage of the subject, especially in terms of obituaries, meets the Wikipedia standard for notability. Alansohn (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Flagg

[edit]
Josh Flagg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject lacks notability, and this entry was written primarily by its subject. Grofield (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — Grofield (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Eastmain (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:COI is not a reason for deletion, and the references appear to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Eastmain. Not only is he notable for hosting a show on a major TV network (about 800 GNEWS hits), he also got fairly wide coverage online over his activities outside the show. Why the sudden interest in the subject by this new editor, I wonder. MuffledThud (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From this page, his "activities outside the show" seem to be allegations of art theft. An arrest and some appearances in a reality show do not make one notable enough for permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia. If Flagg were really notable, I doubt he would have needed to create his own page. By the way, the "sudden interest" is that I stumbled across the vanity page and needed to register to complete the AfD process. In the past, I have made (infrequent) anonymous edits on a range of topics. Please avoid these ad hominem arguments.Grofield (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He is definitely notable as a TV star. Million Dollar Listing cannot be considered as anything other than a hit series due to the number of people watching consistently. He is notable under Wikipedia guidelines.Joshua D. D'Lima (R) Texas (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep While the original article definitely has WP:COI issues, the subject is notable, and this has been established. The article should definitely be watched for any conflict of interest violations as it develops over time though. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cinephile (disambiguation)

[edit]
Cinephile (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphaned; second and third links incorporated into Cinephilia — Hugh 04:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Qudus

[edit]
Abdul Qudus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual only recognized for one event. Article is primarily general and could (and is) repeated for a number of similar individuals. Limited if any non-trivial coverage. Grsz11 15:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, 900 prisoners, 38 of them determined to be wrongfully imprisoned. Abdul Qudus was the youngest of them (I believe?) at 15 years old, and there are other third-party sources about him. Bad articles should be improved, not deleted. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On reflection, changing my vote from keep. Just not notable enough.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Dog bites man is not notable. Man bites dog is notable. During the 20th Century and early 21st Century millions of individuals were held in secret detention, without charge, under brutal conditions. If we count the 12 million the Nazis kept in concentration camps, the Soviets held in the Soviet Gulag, and in Red China's similar camps, in Cambodia's similar camps, there may have been over 100 million individuals subjected to these kinds of conditions. What makes Abdul Qudus stand out among these 100 million individuals? Simple. 99,999,221 of those individuals were held in secret detention, without charge, by brutal, totalitarian regimes, who no one expects to respect the principles of fundamental justice, and the presumption of innocence. In Guantanamo we have 779 individuals who were held in the conditions otherwise used by totalitarian regimes by the USA, a country generally characterized as the most freedom-loving, freedom-respecting nation on earth. Aldus Qudus is not just one of those 779 individuals -- he is one of the two dozen minors held under adult conditions during years of extrajudicial detention. That makes his case an instance of "man bites dog". Geo Swan (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As with several other Guantanamo detainees whose articles have come up at AfD in the past, the problem here is a lack of secondary sources with coverage of the subject. The most promising-looking secondary sources cited in this article, articles from BBC News and The Age, don't mention Qudus. Nor does the Congressional Research Service report. That leaves five sources, all published by OARDEC and/or the U.S. Department of Defense, which are all primary sources relating to Qudus's detention or its review. Of those, three of them have only a single line of data about Qudus amid a list of other detainees. One of the other sources is a broken link. According to the article No longer enemy combatant, Qudus was released and returned to Afghanistan over 4 years ago. Yet, despite the ongoing international controversy over the detentions at Guantanamo, no media sources have been found which have discussed or even mentioned Qudus as an individual. Googling for his name reveals that "Abdul Qudus" is a common name so I would have difficulty finding sources about him myself. The burden should be on the supporters of the article to find secondary sources about the subject. Finally, I note that these Guantanamo detainee articles are getting so generic that this article actually relies on a template, {{CSRT-Yes}}, to supply two and a half paragraphs of boilerplate that is apparently being dumped into numerous articles of this kind (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:CSRT-Yes). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90's exhaustive work. Much appreciated, it is, to keep me from having to do it. Redirect to a generic article about Gitmo detainees afterwords, or something. RayTalk 19:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 19:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 19:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Metropolitan90 and I have shared our views before. We have some honest disagreements about a number of issues. I believe we should use a consistent definition of "secondary source". In any other context the "summary of evidence" memos would be recognized as secondary sources. Primary sources are documents prepared by a single researcher or team of researchers -- or interrogators. Secondary sources are documents which independently collate, synthesize, summarize other documents prepared by other researchers. When the author of a document has to make judgment calls about the reliability of the information in the documents they are synthesizing, when the author of document has to make judgment calls about how to reconcile conflicting information in documents from different sources, then that document is a secondary document, by definition. This is the definition of secondary source used in the real world, and generally used for other topics here.
    • I think Metropolitan90 has implied here an idea often taken for granted, but not supported by our policies. Our policies don't say that our sources have to be newspaper reports. Our policies say that our sources should be verifiable, authoritative, and independent. I have had other correspondents who interpret "independent" to mean press sources. But what our policies actually state is that the source should be "independent from the subject". In other words documents written by Abdul Qudus, his friends, family, publicist, would not be considered "independent". But I continue to believe the OARDEC summary of evidence memos fully satisfy all the requirements our policies reguire of our references. We have something like 3 million articles now, and there are lots of perfectly satisfactory articles with perfectly satisfactory references that are not press reports. There are lots of differnt kinds of topics, which, by their nature, aren't covered by the MSM. Other kinds of topics where the perfectly satisfactory references include scientific topics and historical topics. Geo Swan (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as Metropolitan90 nicely demonstrated.--Staberinde (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete Abdul Qudus is considered as one of the youngest Guantanamo detainees. Only 13-14 years old.[85]. If we would go by Metropolitan90's strict rules than we need to delete about 670 of the about 700 BLP's of Guantanamo detainees. I think being one of the youngest children kept in Guantanamo makes him more notable than the other. Sure the article needs work. IQinn (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That other stuff exists is not a reason for keeping. I'm a great admirer of Geo Swan and others' work in putting up information about Guantanamo Bay, but he has fairly regularly run into notability issues in the past. If that means that 600 or so BLPs are of non-notable detainees, then we should delete those on a case by case basis. Let's not forget that, however legal and neutral the language, there is a very negative association in the minds of many for being profiled as a Guantanamo detainee. If the information doesn't belong and coverage is not significant, then that's what we have WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO for. RayTalk 15:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I am changing to delete. Lack of sources to write an NPOV article. I had also a closer look at the "OARDEC" sources. They look like primary sources for me. At least they are highly problematic. I found this past AfD where Brewcrewer and BWH76 gave some explanation why they are problematic. IQinn (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Alexander

[edit]
Scott Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesn't establish his notability beyond perhaps being wealthy, and a socialite.

References appear to be from his own site, and are possibly copyright violations. Parrot of Doom 16:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - i did a google news search only for 'scott alexander vainest man' and found
http://sofiaecho.com/2006/06/08/638873_british-millionaire-buys-village-in-bulgaria
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-400222/Britains-vainest-man.html
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-16223525_ITM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/beauty/3355650/The-secret-of-no-cellulite.html
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=64512
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1727137.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10385277
some of these are about his attempts to buy a town in bulgaria, and others are about how he was voted britain's vainest man. i believe these multiple RS's about multiple events constitute significant 3rd party coverage

Theserialcomma (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/article438161.ece "SCOTT Alexander spends £100000 a year on designer clothes and salon .."
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/215/215039_millionaire_buys_town__and_names_it_after_himself.html millionaire buys town, names it after himself
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz/s/227/227590_britains_vainest_man_wants_more_tv_exposure.html 'Britain's vainest man' wants more TV exposure
http://www.awaaznews.com/0706/July06_for_web.pdf
http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/sleep-when-youre-dead--still-no-moving-sidewalks--whistleblowers-wanted--another-victim-of-gods-sense-of-irony--lions-2-god-0--corner-of-alexander-st-and-alexander-ave--i-r/Content?oid=928220 britain's vainest man
how could anyone even argue that he's non-notable? i have only googled 'vainest' about him. he's (in)famous for other things too. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked at the article, there was nothing to suggest he was notable. No reliable sources, no assertion of notability, nothing. All I saw was a poorly-written advertisement for someone who appears to have lots of money. I hardly think that alone counts as notable. Parrot of Doom 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Grant Writers Association

[edit]
American Grant Writers Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any independent coverage of this organization that would suggest notability. Sodam Yat (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep (programming language)

[edit]
Sleep (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable programming language which is utilized by a chat client which was recently deleted for, you guessed it, a lack of encyclopedic notability. JBsupreme (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Kazakh relations

[edit]
Greek-Kazakh relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not much of a relationship, 3 state visits in 17 years, only a few minor agreements, and a complete lack of third party coverage (except for sport) [86]. LibStar (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'd just like to point out that Greece–Kazakhstan relations is a redirect to Foreign relations of Greece. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It probably was a redirect when the comment was made, but the redirect has been undone. Although we had a problem with Groubani-articles earlier this year, I'm all in favor of building an article when there is evidence of a building relationship. In addition to the visits between the leaders of the two nations, there are other factors that show the forging of ties. From the Greek source: (1) There are between 10,000 and 12,000 ethnic Greeks living in Kazakhstan and there are 17 communities identified in the former Soviet republic. (2) Greece grants scholarships totaling about 100,000 to Kazakh citizens who want to study at Greek academic institutes, and Greece funds teaching of the language at two Kazakh universities. From the Kazakh source: The two nations have a Kazakhstan-Greek Committee on the economic and technological cooperation that was established by an agreement signed in 2001. Mandsford (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A young but growing relationship. Sport coverage might provide notability. Nominator's assertion that international agreements are "minor" (the implication being that they and the relationship is not notable) betrays a POV. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
can you provide evidence of significant third party coverage of a "growing relationship? otherwise that's POV on your part. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say, we are all entitled to our own POV when it comes to making an argument in this forum. Having it in articles, of course, is a different matter entirely. But the nominator is not "betraying" a point of view, he is expressing it. And (no evidence needed) so is Cdog. And so am I. Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sona Babai

[edit]
Sona Babai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A person who briefly appeared in the news for one event, namely being very old (105) at the time of her American naturalization. She did not set any records (she was only the fourth oldest person to naturalize, despite her age) and coverage of her disappeared soon after the event (except for maybe this, it looks like this might concern her). There are several news reports that were disseminated around the Internet, so there are sources to be found in a Google search, but most are reproductions of the story, and in unreliable sources such as blogs and forums at that. Might also be a case of WP:NOTNEWS, but I'm always cautious when invoking that one. Certainly WP:BLP1E applies I would think though. Contested PROD to give more eyes a chance to look at the article. Cheers, CP 17:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WorkLenz

[edit]
WorkLenz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested proposed deletion. Promotional orphaned stub article about non-notable software, or actually about a non-notable business travelling under an article about this software product. The supplied references are not enough to establish that this business or product is a subject for the ages: the one independent looking product review would appear to be a blog, and the other two read like press releases announcing the availability of the product and its features. This article, nominally about a product, bears a template for the business making it. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Mangoe, weak, b/c I think this article is borderline G11. It's got buzzwords up to here, and little description of what the program actually does. RayTalk 19:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeskAway

[edit]
DeskAway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested proposed deletion. Non-notable web content, offering a commercial service. Promotial in tone, claiming to use "advanced" code. References offered are to online trade publications with limited readership and circulation, of a sort that don't really confer notability. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hour Propane People

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
24 Hour Propane People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources to establish notability. The first AfD was a bulk nomination and the second AfD was speedy closed because of a temporary ArbCom injunction. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Individual TV Episodes need to be judged by whether they're independently notable. There's no sign that this one is memorable or groundbreaking or water cooler talk. I think that Wikipedia is shifting away from its "WP:POKEMON" way of thinking that prevailed in the old days, where people thought that every episode of every TV show ever made was "entitled" to its own article. Now that there are entertainment Wikis (Wikia), people can contribute to those all that they want to. Certainly, there are some King of the Hill episodes that stood out above the rest, but most of them would be on the bottom of a very large hill. Merge this one to the 10th season article, if it hasn't gone there already. The detailed "I-took-notes-while-I-watched-TV" plot summary can move over to King of the Hill Wiki. Mandsford (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pier Dominguez

[edit]
Pier Dominguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although there was coverage back in 2003, it was minor. The NY Times article of 7 September 2003 makes it clear that his first book was with a vanity press ("It was published in 2001 by the Writer's Club Press, a house that typically charges writers a fee to be published and sells the books per order.") - I found 2 Google News hits in April 1999 - one a copy of the other. The second book ("Christina Aguilera: A Star Is Made") was published by Collossus books, and cause a bit of press coverage in 2003, but all the press stories are basically from Jan-Sep 2003 (5 Google News hits - 2 of which are just the book name in a list of published books, 1 is the NYT piece mentioned above, 1 is the excerpt in the NY Post (as mentioned in the article), and the other is a review in the NY Post (but they had to review it if they were printing an excerpt). Since 2003? Nothing. Basically, this is a BLP1E article. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability does not expire, and if the subject was notable in 2003, then he or she is notable now. The NYT article is not sufficient to prove notability, but mixed with this and one or two other sources, there is a case to be made for the article remaining. I am not sure that notability is met at this point, but I am willing to see if other sources can be provided - 22:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC) User:Mrathel (Talk)
    • Comment I am very vague on this, as I prefer to spend more of my time constructing articles than deleting them, but I was under the impression that it was deleted in 2003 for not being notable. It was essentially, as I understand it, regurgitated and I am inclined to suggest WP:PROMO but have no good evidence to prove it other than I chanced on it when splitting the disambig at Page 6 and Page Six, and I believe that Page Six is a column and magazine in the New York Post that, some may think, guarantees notoriety, which is not to say it guarantees notability. I might have a vague waft at WP:PROMO, but would not get far since it is wrestling treacle.
The point of notability still stands open, as far as I can tell, because it is for those who wish an article or section thereof to be kept to establish the grounds for it, not those who wish it to be deleted. And I am an inclusionist. I checked the histories before posting it here, and found no mention of notability. It is difficult to prove a negative, hence the burden of proof on proving notability, can you find where it was established before, please? Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep One of the references is a full-length profile in the New York Times. That qualifies, if barely, as "significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject." Other book reviews, etc., are just icing on the cake. That said, it was a local interest profile. RayTalk 19:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two points I would like to make. Firstly, the coverage appears to be local coverage (even if it was in a sub-section of the NYT). Secondly, while it is true that "Notability does not expire", I do not think that the coverage would count as the subject being notable even back in 2003. Personally, I feel that if this author had done all their work in 2009 instead of in 2003, they would not be counted as notable with the evidence provided. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. overtaken by events. If renaming is desired, it may be discussed on the talk page (or someone may boldly do it.) (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2009

[edit]
Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note to closer: This AfD was about an election which did not happen on 25 November 2009. Subsequently, an election did happen on 1 December, so the article was rewritten completely to be about the new, actual one. Sorry for the confusion :) Orderinchaos 00:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is based on a misunderstanding of events. The leadership election never happened. It was the ballot to have such a contest (aka the "spill motion") that failed 48-35. [87] The event ought to be documented in the Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Andrews articles. Digestible (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. See below. Digestible (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - it was a technical motion, not a leadership ballot, and it failed meaning the leadership ballot never went ahead. Orderinchaos 03:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Circumstances overtook. Orderinchaos 00:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the article as is would need to be wiped and recreated if there is such an election tomorrow. This may not require deletion as an outcome. Orderinchaos 00:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 1 December 2009

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosvinsky Mountain

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kosvinsky Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable mountain. WP:GNG states, if a subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is notable. However, all I see here is a single newspaper source(not significant by far), and a bunch of cites to a single dictionary. — Dædαlus Contribs 02:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, of course; quite notable as one of the two super-hardened facilities constructed in the Urals by Russia after the Cold War. There are plenty more references if you dig, and the Russian language references are also valid. Here is one from the Washington Post from 2003, for example. By the way, we have plenty of articles on similarly topographically distinct mountain peaks in the U.S. that have no bunkers inside. Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, but reading your reply gives me the impression you did not read my rationale. I clearly noted the newspaper cite.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read your rationale, and I found a second newspaper cite. The one in the article was the Washington Times; I found one from the Post. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not slander me by saying I am trying to delete this article for such a reason. My reasons are quite clearly stated above. I only know of this article, not others, as this article was used as a part of a hoax; it was used in a hoax that was basically viral marketing for some alternate reality game. The game article cited several sources, trying to appear to be real(not 'in game), but none of the cited sources had anything to do with what was cited, and in fact, some of the cited materials didn't even exist. That aside, although normally, I might withdraw this AfD based upon the sources found above, I would rather a clear consensus be formed. I am not saying that I still wish the article deleted, I just want consensus to be abundantly clear.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, the nominator no longer wants the article deleted? Then just close it instead of using people's times for your benefit. People have an encyclopedia to write. AfD requires a nomination, if it's not been nominated, because nominator doesn't want it deleted please don't waste my time. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wasting anyone's time. It's their time to waste if they want to. I'm not forcing them, or you, to comment here. I didn't waste your time, you did. Get your facts straight.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are. This is AfD, and you say you are just leaving this for "a clear consensus to be formed." One already has been formed: the article should be edited, rather than people wasting their time, courtesy of you, discussing it. Let me know when it's been kept, and I'll be glad to edit it rather than wasting time at this AfD. I want to write a good encyclopedia. The way to do that is through improving articles, not through discussing things that are going nowhere. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not. Again, get your facts straight. People are not obligated to comment here, it is their decision, just as it was yours, to comment here. If I had wasted their time, it would have been me forcing them to do something pointless. There is no forcing of any kind going on here. The AfD page displays the comments that have occurred at a specific AfD, and even if they had not seen such comments, when they got here they would have. I have done nothing, learn to take responsibility for your own actions. You chose to comment here, I didn't force you, you could have easily decided not to. Nothing is mandatory here.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course no one has to discuss this. But, because the topic is of value to the encyclopedia, and because it has been nominated for deletion by a nominator who no longer considers it deletable, if the encyclopedic topic is to be kept, editors who want it kept must waste their time discussing it here instead of editing the article, because it would take more time to get the article back, instead of keeping it.
I have offered to edit it if you simply withdraw the AfD. That's your decision: to nominate an article for deletion, decide it no longer needs deletion, but insist the debate keep going to "build consensus" instead of allowing willing editors to simply move forward and edit the article as has been offered. Edit and improve an encyclopedic topic or sit and chat about it, your choice is to chat. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never insisted that the debate continue, what I insisted on is that the AfD run the default amount of days before being kept. No one must waste their time in order to have the article kept as you wrongly construe. The rough consensus at this AfD so far is that it should be kept, however, I am leaving it open in case anyone else wishes to say something. Indeed, the article won't be deleted simply because you choose to not share your opinion, when such a rough consensus already exists on the matter. Unless of course you are making the allegation that all admins are stupid, and therefore won't be able to see what has taken place here, and close the AfD with the appropriate decision. Lastly, nothing is preventing you from editing and improving the article. You talk so much about wanting to do so, well, go ahead and do it.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the laugh-you never insisted that the AfD continue just that the debate continue or vice versa. No one agrees with you on the AfD, not even you. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never insisted the debate continue. I never said those words. What I said was, I just want consensus to be abundantly clear.. That does not mean letting or forcing the debate continue, what it means is letting the AfD run it's course, how it usually would, rather than stop it before it's time is up. If people still want to say why such an article should be deleted, I want to give them that chance.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about you both stop arguing over the most unecessary subject I've seen, and rather use this page as it is intended for, instead of wasting everybody's time? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC) please do not delete. They do so much good for so many nebraska charities. they do get significant local media coverage around the event. these are sometime, but not always archived on news sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.119.75.85 (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VinNEBRASKA Foundation

[edit]
VinNEBRASKA Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local nonprofit. Does not meet WP:ORG requirements. Warrah (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ariston Anderson

[edit]
Ariston Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I removed the {{db-bio}} tag because notability is asserted by "Her work has appeared in the Village Voice, the Huffington Post, USA Today, AOL, and Coolhunting."

However, I have been unable to find reliable sources about this individual. A Google News Archive search returns eight results, all of which are news articles written by the subject. Ariston Anderson appears to fail Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • Delete does not meet WP:CREATIVE, or any other parts of WP:N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SquidSK (talk • contribs) 01:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A google search returns numerous hits about this person, but the only hits are generally articles written by Ariston Anderson. For notability to be established, we would need to find some independent articles written about Anderson by an unaffiliated publication. SnottyWong talk 02:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as speedy tagger. When the above-mentioned references were added, I pondered removing my own speedy tag, but in the end I decided that the notability assertion they provide was just too vague and mention nothing about her being a regular contributor to these media outlets. Also, even though Google News returns a lot of stuff related to Ariston Anderson, these are just works by Anderson, and not about Anderson. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sufficient notability not established by reliable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  07:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabon at the 2010 Winter Olympics

[edit]
Gabon at the 2010 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no references that support the claim that Gabon will send 1 or more competitors to the Winter Olympics for the first time in 2010. I have checked the qualification quotas from the FIS (for skiing) and ISU (for skating) and there is no mention of Gabon. Article can be re-created if necessary later (about January 25 2010 is when entrants will be finalized), but for now this Wikipedia article is being picked up by Google searches to state this "fact". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per nom. No sources found whatsoever (reliable or otherwise). Article can be re-made if an official announcement is made. SnottyWong talk 01:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I managed to find a source: [89] (very bottom of the page). That doesn't give much info, and it's possible that the Gabon committee changes their minds later, but the article is not a hoax. Zagalejo^^^ 05:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good find, thanks. I don't believe this article is a hoax either, but I'm still looking for something verifiable. I have also found comments on blogs about Bahamas, Gabon, Ghana, Malta, and the Cayman Islands, but they all seem to refer to each other—and to Wikipedia. I cannot find anything definitive for Gabon and Malta. The Maltese NOC, especially, has a good website and you think they'd mention their first ever Winter Games athlete if they had a qualifier. For Bahamas, this article claims Kory Wright has qualified, but the Bahamas is not listed in the current FIS quota list. Ghana (Kwame Nkrumah-Acheampong) is on the list, as is the Cayman Islands (Dow Travers). But I cannot find anything really concrete for Gabon and Malta. There are no skiers from GAB in the FIS database, and the only MLT skier is a woman with no results (and therefore, unlikely to qualify by January). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I haven't found anything else. We should probably wait until the games actually take place; maybe someone will end up pulling a Brunei. Zagalejo^^^ 06:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. I just want to avoid a repeat of what happened four years ago. In the rush to create all these articles before the Games, we ended up with articles for 7 different NOCs that didn't actually compete. Several were taken to AfD, and the end result was the less-than-useful Nations not competing at the 2006 Winter Olympics article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment CTV is the official media broadcaster and has a list of all the participating countries. This could possible be the basis for determining which countries are participating or not. I created this article and 53 others from the list found on 2010 Winter Olympics. The list appears to have been compiled from many months ago and from a variety of sources. It's like Malta might have been a mistake in that process. Mkdwtalk 05:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That website is clearly under construction. It has a big disclaimer at the top that says NOTE: the nations featured in this section were the competing nations from the Turin 2006 Olympic Winter Games, and may not qualify athletes for the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games, so it can't really be used as any kind of reliable source for 2010 at this time. It also does not include Malta or Gabon. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gabon can compete if they want to. Jamaica, Kenya, Senegal, Cameroon, Ethiopia, etc have all competed in the Winter Olympics. 03:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagalejo (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta at the 2010 Winter Olympics

[edit]
Malta at the 2010 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no references that support the claim that Malta will send 1 or more competitors to the Winter Olympics for the first time in 2010. I have checked the qualification quotas from the FIS (for skiing) and ISU (for skating) and there is no mention of Malta. Article can be re-created if necessary later (about January 25 2010 is when entrants will be finalized), but for now this Wikipedia article is being picked up by Google searches to state this "fact". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like Gabon, even if we counted that Vancouver Sun article as a reliable source (and I don't think that a single sentence at the bottom of the page under "Did you know?" really qualifies), then the only thing we could say in this article is that "Malta will participate in the 2010 Winter Olympics." That is the full extent to which we could expand this article. We can't say who the athletes will be, or in which events they will be participating. The article is premature and should be re-created once real evidence presents itself. SnottyWong talk 13:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 kept as withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) by Intelligentsium 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SEIU Local 1 Canada

[edit]
SEIU Local 1 Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An IP address has been complaining for some time now that this article misrepresents the subject in a negative POV. The IP claims to work in some capacity for the organization that this article pertains to, and so has been hesitant to edit article directly. They claim, "This article remains an attack page with a lot of untrue and negative information on SEIU." My own past involvement has been to remove additions like,"The union president can be found on the golf course most afternoons..." Things like that. It is a poorly sourced article in its current version. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - This article needs help, but I don't think AfD is the place for it. If the intro sentence is accurate, and this organization is the largest local trade union in Canada with 40,000 members, then I think that the notability of the subject is clearly established. Therefore, the article should be kept and cleaned up. If you're having problems with vandals or with IP's repeatedly inserting original research and unsourced claims, then WP:RFP would be the place to go to request semi-protection of the article, to prevent IP's and new users from editing it while it is being cleaned up. SnottyWong talk 02:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not think that this is a matter of semi-protection. I do however agree that SEIU Local 1 Canada needs to be radically changed to survive as an article. Thus I posted the debate here. The sources that are listed just don't support the article as it stands. No secondary sources are forthcoming, and the IP that asked for the articles deletion claims to be to close to the issue to edit. I presume this to mean that they won't even supply secondary sources. My main problem are the sources listed, and the lack of verified sources for a preponderance of the material presented there. - Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand your points, but deletion is not the solution to such problems. Per WP:ATD, If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. I'd suggest putting a few tags at the top of the article so that readers know that the article might not be NPOV, and then start cleaning it up. If you run into resistance from anonymous editors, seek semi-protection. Also, I don't think that it's wrong for someone who is close to the subject to provide secondary sources which prove that parts of the article are false. SnottyWong talk 13:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to see your point, and I hadn't fully considered the point that Ray makes below about merging, although,on the other hand, it is a union with 40 000 Canadian members. I'll let this ride one more day, see what happens, and then gut the damn thing to a stub, using the union homepage as the only ref. Terrible. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A trade union with 40,000 members? Not really an issue. Yes, the article needs fixing. No, that's not AFD's job. At worst, if sources aren't forthcoming, we might merge to the main SEIU article - in any case, this is not a deletion matter. RayTalk 19:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I recently merged&redir'd local 1000 into the main SEIU article, and I think the same should be done here, trimming the fat along the way. It would be helpful to know exactly what is considered the attack part from the IP that claims to work in some capacity for the organization. Although the IP should bear in mind, the Wiki is not censored. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm linking to the note that the IP left on my talk page [90]and more recently, this [91] one. You have to enter the last entry on that history. I had received something similar in the past few months from them, and at that time I attempted to "parse" down a lot of unsourced and questionable material. The IP complaint goes to the heart of thing, so please read it. Also, Erwin's excellent bot is going around notifying the principal editors on the SEIU article. I have a feeling this will be resolved sooner, rather than later. Thanks - Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of what is on that article, may be the darkest of the locals history, but it is still encyclopedic. The best warning that I feel the IP can heed is Be prepared to meet halfway. If merged, there will be a lot more Eyes on the Article, so I think crudcreep would best be minimized via that route. I affirm my Merge & redir Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wynott

[edit]
Ryan Wynott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:ACTOR. almost no coverage of this 9 year old. [92]. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Collins

[edit]
Lily Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as non-notable. Notability is not conferred upon the relatives of noteworthy people, nor does merely being a graduate of Harvard. The only possible claim to notability is a Reuters article stating that she was tapped last year for hosting interstitial TV spots. Nightscream (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen the name Lily Collins mentioned in several places: in newspapers/magazines American, French and British, so I became curious and wanted to know who she was. She is fairly well known in L.A. Therefore I figured I wasn't the only one who would look her up, and created the article. She is not just a "relative of noteworthy people" nor did she graduate from "Harvard" but from Harvard-Westlake, a school in L.A.; but she is a TV host, writer, and apparently socialite.
I believe that Wikipedia should go in the direction of more information, not less information, so I don't see any reason why an article about a minor celebrity should be deleted.
I don't know her or have any relation to her. Evangeline (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My apologies for misunderstanding what Harvard-Westlake is, but Wikipedia does not include information, nor maintain articles, because it "goes in the direction of more information". It's an encyclopedia, and as such, it has certain policies and guidelines to ensure its credibility, and some of those pertain to the criteria by which it distinguishes between subjects that do and do not merit articles. To this end, BLP articles must include verifiable, reliable sources that establish notability. None of the sources establish her as a "writer" of any notability (the Reuters article mentions she "designed a page" at ElleGirlUK), and none of them mention her as a "socialite". The only two things for which she is mentioned in any of the sources in the article (none of which are formatted into inline citations to make it clear what information each source supports) that has attracted any sort of attention is being Phil Collins' daughter and being tapped to host interstitial spots on Nickelodeon. And if this recent edit is true (I reverted it because it was unsourced), then she's not even doing that any more. If you have sources that establish the things for which you indicate she is noteworthy, then please include them as inline citations in the article. Nightscream (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you're a man. Any woman would think that articles in Vogue and the U.K. Daily Mail, being picked to represent Chanel and wear their clothes for free, appearing in movies and television, and being regularly featured in style blogs and magazines as a very stylish "actress" and "model" ... was enough to at least rate a mention in wikipedia. The bottom line is, the wikipedia article has already been quoted several times in the blogosphere, and there are lots of photos of her and 45,000 mentions of "lily collins" "2009". Why would you want to delete her?
By the way, the article does not say she is a writer, and *does include sources*. I don't know how to do inline citations. Evangeline (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My gender is not an issue here, nor is the gender of anyone who advocates for or against this article, so I'd suggest you refrain from irrelevant personal or ad hominem arguments.
Articles in Vogue and the Daily Mail, in and of themselves, do not merit a Wikipedia article, unless those sources establish the reason for which the person is notable. Those articles mention mostly that she's Phil Collins' daughter, was picked by Chanel to wear one of their dresses at an event, and did some Nickelodeon hosting work, none of which establishes notability for a WP article.
The article does not indicate that she is "regularly featured in style blogs and magazines". No source is provided in the article for her acting. Even the Blind Side article doesn't mention her, nor contain a source indicating that she has any part in the film, let alone an important one. The only link in the article to this effect is imdb, which Wikipedia does not consider a reliable source.
That this article has been quoted in the blogosphere is not the "bottom line". Blogs, in and of themselves, are not reliable sources, because their content is user-generated, and have no editorial controls. The prevalence of photos of someone is similarly not pertinent with respect to notability. Anyone can take thousands of photos of themselves or some other person or thing and post them on the Net. That does not make the subject of those photos notable. As for being quoted, an article cannot be justified on the basis that it has been quoted or cited elsewhere, since that is circular. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for establishing notability, and if you wish this article to remain, then it must meet those standards, and not the arbitrary ones made up by those who do not wish to learn and follow those guidelines. That is the only "bottom line" upon which the article's inclusion or exclusion will be decided, and my only interest in this discussion, as I do not have any personal stake in the deletion or inclusion of her article. If sources can be provided that establish her notability in line with policy, then the article should remain. If not, it should be deleted.
I didn't say that the article said she was a writer, nor that the article does not include sources. To the first point, my statement was made in response to your assertion that she was a writer in your 22:46, 18 November 2009 post above. ("...but she is a TV host, writer, and apparently socialite.") To the second point, I have only stated that none of the sources in the article establish notability.
As for inline citations, you can learn how to do it at WP:Citing sources. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although I can appreciate being labeled stylish by Vogue or some other fashion publication or blog, that doesn't amount to much in this context. Sames goes with being picked by Chanel to wear a dress to an event. I'm sure it's terribly exciting but that's not a notable. As it stands right now, Collins fails WP:ENTERTAINER (one television show appearance, one film role currently completed). I think she'd definitely warrant an article in a year or two if she keeps acting though. Out of curiosity, what exactly is quoted from this article in the blogsphere? The entire article consists of a whopping five sentences. Pinkadelica♣ 01:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a Wikipedia expert, but Lily Collin is in the news as an up-and-coming actress with lots of mentions mostly in women's magazines (which, excuse me, does make your gender relevant as you are far less likely to have seen her), in newspapers, and on websites (I added only a few major ones, but there are many mentions). She is now in a major movie and has been chosen by a Chanel as one of their style figures (they give free clothes only to people they think will gain them free publicity, as at the Oscars, so it's quite a compliment). I am not familiar with Wikipedia's criteria for notability but I can't imagine why you would want to delete someone who has 45,000 mentions in the blogosphere this year alone and whom people will be looking up this year trying to find information about. Your deletion discussion is discouraging for someone who is not related in any way to Lily Collins, saw her more and more often in the media in the past year, and thought an article on her would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangeline (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream, thanks for the reference and I have put in inline refs. In the process I saw more media articles about Lily and became even more convinced that she merits an article. Evangeline (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I've seen her is irrelevant, because that is not the basis upon which an article subject is determined to be noteworthy. The basis upon which an subject is determined to be notable is whether sources can be provided to establish it, as I've explained to you quite clearly in this discussion, and not personal knowledge of the subject, which is subjective, and therefore, neither relevant, nor an appropriate line of reasoning in an AfD discussion. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you've never seen a giant squid, Imhotep, or the Great Attractor, nor read a magazine article on them. Does that mean that those things are not notable enough to qualify for articles? Obviously, no, because Wikipedia does not consider personal knowledge to be a valid basis for edits, or for notability. And because my personal knowledge of Collins is irrelevant, as is whether I've seen articles on her, so, therefore is my gender. Stop employing personal or ad hominem arguments. They're irrelevant, and not considered to be within the best spirit of WP:Civility or WP:No personal attacks. Focus instead on the issue of whether sources can be provided to establish notability.

As a newcomer to Wikipedia, Evangeline, I say, Welcome! If you do not know Wikipedia's criteria for notability, I would humbly suggest that you learn them, as they're fairly simple and straightforward (even if we have disagreements over notability like this one). The notability criteria for entertainers is right here. And if you ever have any further questions about editing, Evangeline, do not hesitate to ask me. As for the inline refs, you're very welcome. :-)

You don't understand why I would want to delete an article on a subject who has 45,000 mentions in the blogosphere? Well, maybe the reason you don't understand this is because when I flat-out explained it to you in my last post, you decided to ignore it? Perhaps it's because you don't want to understand it? In any event, when you've decided that you do wish to understand it, it's right there, just three posts above this one. If you want to discuss it, and offer counterarguments explaining why the rationale I provide is wrong, feel free to do so.

As for your assertion that people will be looking up this year trying to find information about her, this addressed by two other sections on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Specifically, the "will be" portion of that statement is addressed by this section, and the "looking up information her" is addressed by this one. I'm sorry that you are discouraged by this. I understand if you're a fan of hers. But I think you would agree that having standards for inclusion in general makes a better encyclopedia, and that without them, the site would be unmanageable. Nightscream (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I honestly think she has enough citation in published media to be considered of sufficient merit to have a wikipedia page. What Nightscream or any of us think of her is, indeed, irrelevant, but I think the point evanegline trying to bring is that she is sufficiently popular in a subculture of "woman", shown through the reference and citation, that she is worthy of merit to be incuded in wikipedia as a minor artist09:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)09:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)09:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArielGenesis (talk • contribs)
  • Comment most of those merely reference her as being the daughter of someone famous, being in some small movie roles or doing that hosting job for Nickelodeon. One isn't even of her, but a 79-year-old Lily Collins. Nightscream (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 00:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nightscream, I think it's funny that you accuse me of using "ad hominem" arguments by merely saying that you must be a man, which is in no way negative; and then yourself say things like this to me: "maybe the reason you don't understand this is because when I flat-out explained it to you in my last post, you decided to ignore it? Perhaps it's because you don't want to understand it? In any event, when you've decided that you do wish to understand it...."
I agree with you-- let's keep this discussion civil. I put up the article because I thought it would add to Wikipedia, not because I have any personal knowledge of its subject. Let the article stand or die on its merits, there's no need to scold contributors who are trying to help Wikipedia. And incidentally, I did read everything you linked to. I just don't happen to agree with you. No more from me on this.Evangeline (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you know what an ad hominem argument is, then you know that reacting to my statements by asserting that they are derived from gender is indeed an ad hominem argument. If you can refute this, and explain how this is not an ad hominem argument, then by all means, feel free to do so. As it stands, merely saying, "it's not negative" does not accomplish this, since that's not what an ad hominem argument is.

By contrast, the statement by me that quoted was a direct reaction to your behavior here, and not any perceptions of superficial irrelevant things like gender, race, religion, etc. Specifically, you asserted that Collins is known in the blogsphere in your November 19 post. In my post the next day, I explained to you why presence in the blogosphere does not establish notability, and provided a link to the policy page where this is detailed. In your next post the day after that on November 21, however, instead of responding to directly to that explanation, refuting it, disproving it, showing how my interpretation of it is wrong, etc., you instead just repeated the original point, saying you didn't understand why someone would want to delete an article on a person with ubiquity in the blogosphere, not responding in any way to what I explained about the related policies. So what was I to make of this? Well, it seemed to me that you either didn't care what I had to say in my post, or just don't care to learn and understand Wikipedia's policies one way or the other, or just compartmentalized the truth of what I said because you couldn't refute it. I don't know which of these it was, or if it was something else entirely, but I've encountered this quite a bit when trying to explain the site's guidelines to newcomers, who seem disinterested in learning them, even when others here try to help them do so. Wouldn't you agree that it at least appeared that you completely ignored what I had said? This isn't "negative". It's an observation of your participation in this discussion. So unlike your attempts to guess aspects of my personhood (which you never refuted as somehow not being ad hominem comments), all I did was respond to your arguments regarding Collins, and never made any comments about you personally. Thus, you see a contradiction where there is none, and call for civility when the only one who hasn't exhibited full civility has been you. If you want to keep this civil, then please dispense with the logical fallacies, the distortions, and the attempt to accuse me of hypocrisy by employing false analogies, okay? Peace, and Happy Thanksgiving. :-) Nightscream (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see in depth coverage in reliable sources, I see an award, and I think notability has clearly been established. AniMate 20:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. Click23 (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per award won, journalistic credits, film role, extended period as tv hostess. As an aside, I don't think it was out of line for Evangeline to express her impression that the definitions of notability were being applied by a man. Since 95% of the editors on Wikipedia are male, the perception that these guidelines are not constructed to recognize characteristics of a subject that are "notable" according to female culture and values is probably correct. Expressing frustration about that is a reasonable thing to do. The best place to do it, however, is on the discussion page for those notability guidelines, with clear suggestions about how they should change to accomodate female value systems. Netmouse (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ling Hsueh-Tang

[edit]
Ling-Hsueh Tang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO, very little coverage [93]. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've added a bit more information and couple of sources. She is redlinked on several pages because of the hyphen in her name has been misplaced. I believe it should be Ling-Hsueh Tang? H0n0r (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the different spelling doesn't affect the google news search. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, for Chinese names, spelling does affect a search. Under the traditional "TANG Ling-Hsueh" I find more sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've moved the article to Ling-Hsueh Tang. --Canley (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:41, 17 November 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 00:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's pretty clear that there's no consensus to delete any of the listed articles. There seems to be a general agreement that merging is a reasonable option, but this shoudl be worked out by the editorial community. I note that mass-nominations are rarely useful, as they make it difficult to accurately assess the debated pages, so this is just as much a procedural close as it is one based off the relevant discussion. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pirena

[edit]
Pirena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even though the article is a notable character in Philippine television, it's notability is on geographical context only. There is no references with the claims on the article hence fails WP:V. The article is also suspected of WP:NOR. JL 09 q?c 03:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (Pirena only) - "Notability in a geographical context only" isn't problematic; WP:ORG (while not directly relevant here) notes the general proposition that regional or national interest is usually sufficient to found encyclopaedic notability. The bigger problem is that the article contains no reliable sources (or sources of any sort at all) that would enable it to establish any notability whatsoever under WP:N, either as content in another article or as a stand-alone article. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the necessary searches for each of the many other articles nominated below and feel they should have been nominated separately. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionals

[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason (is that these are the list of characters in Encantadia and Etheria that are problematic because these do not cite any sources, and I guess this is like those I nominated before, the Humanx Commonwealth AFDs.)--JL 09 q?c 04:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there are more individual articles in Wikipedia about the Encantadia and Etheria that doesn't need to be spin-out. I suggest inserting some summaries of these articles in Encantadia or Etheria because they were part of the show, like what happened in Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender.--JL 09 q?c 04:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't add additional nominations to an existing nomination. Sources for independent notability are likely to be different for each article, it confuses the discussion, and it assigns the views of those who've already expressed a viewpoint to articles they weren't considering when they made that argument. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this does not to confuse those who already expressed their views. I'm following this and it happened that somebody already posted their view.--JL 09 q?c 04:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and Thank you for adding additional nominations to the existing nomination. From what I understand, these are all characters on the Philippine TV show Encantadia and Etheria. The days of all TV characters on all TV shows being "entitled" to their own article on Wikipedia are over. Where there's a common thread, a mass nomination is appropriate. Otherwise, I'd have to paste this damn comment thirty times. Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you can be bothered to carefully read 30 articles to check that each one doesn't manage to assert individual notability then you can be bothered to paste the comment 30 times. Short of that, mass nominations are just a way for people to delete articles they've never read because they assume it to be like one they have. Take for example a nomination of Wiseguy (Simpsons character) - unarguably not worthy of his own article, and then a "by the way" listing of another 30 Simpsons characters including Homer Simpson, Bart Simpson and Lisa Simpson on the basis of "being similar articles". A reader totally unfamiliar with The Simpsons might read the Wiseguy article - and maybe one or two more - and then accept the nominator's assertion that the articles are all basically similar, with the result of a Delete argument being made for incredibly individually notable characters. Either you're going to read every article - in which case they can be listed separately - or you're not, in which case there's a miscarriage of process ocurring. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair objection. I'll run down the list: Pirena, Amihan, Alena and Danaya are the four elemental Sang'gres and are all described as the main characters. Lira is called a major character. Ybrahim, Mine-a, Raquim, Hagorn, Asval, Cassiopea, Gurna, Aquil, Evades, Mira, Kahlil, Cassandra, Armea, Arman, Avria, Odessa, Andora, Juvila, Animus, Barkus, Memen, Hitano, Muyak, Armeo, Anthony, Bathalumang Ether, Emre, Cilatus, Agane, Muros, and Amarro are collateral characters. There is no showing in any of the articles of independent notability for any individual character, although arguably the five persons listed above might have been part of popular culture (I'd merge them all into the Sang'gres article). But most importantly, there is an Encantadia wiki that covers Books 1, 2 and 3 of the Encantadia series. Although Wikipedia thrived on fan articles back in 2005, entertainment Wikis have developed since then for fans. Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good faith you've shown in independently checking the articles. On the Wiki point, though - I'm not aware of anything saying that Wikipedia should not include content simply because it's more thoroughly covered at some other location. Either the articles are notable and reliably sourced (which they're mostly not), or they aren't. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete all if appropriate to say that here. my understanding of detailed articles on fictional characters is they can have articles if they have independent coverage from nonfansites, or at least something other than the book/tv/movie itself. a list of characters from this series would be a possible article, but the details are utterly nonnotable. i would love to see even one notable mention for any of these characters referenced here. are there any? how does this happen? do the articles start as innocent stubs, pass that stage, then get expanded this way?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into an appropriate list of characters. There seems no need for individual articles-- a merge should be the default solution. No argument whatsoever given for why a merge is unsuitable. Certainly none for why at least a redirect would not be appropriate. WP:Deletion Policy is the rule, that a redirect should be made instead of a deletion when possible. DGG ( talk )
  • Weak Keep of Danaya - the fan site sourced in the article gives me good reason to suspect the existence of Filipino-language sources testifying to her notability, which brings her into the realm of WP:FAILN - articles should not be deleted for lack of notability where sources are reasonably believed to exist until an active attempt has been made to find those sources. Which, by the way, demonstrates the issue with the group nomination. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I am not mistaken of interpreting DustFormsWords's weak keep suggestion for Danaya, the fansite mentioned in the external links section is not existing.--JL 09 q?c 22:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Danaya. Yes, that fansite appears to have vanished, and Google searches turn up plenty of Encantadia fansites but none that I can see specifically dedicated to this character (or the actress who plays her). There might be a language issue but it's enough to say that there's no longer strong grounds to expect non-English sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 00:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marina 106

[edit]
Marina 106 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:CRYSTAL. This building is apparently under construction but this forum shows that construction never even started. Google news doesn't have anything on it, so I don't think it meets WP:N either. Smartse (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that it should be deleted, i have listed the following sources ...


are they not enough to proof its presence ??? i know that its status is currently Approves as stated in Emporis, so i will change its status from under construction to Approved. There are alot of articles of skyscrapers on wikipedia, in which there status is written as under construction but they are really not so !

it is reasonabale that Marina 106 will be constructed in future, but it doesnt mean that it will not be built at all, or you delete its article.....

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those websites are not reliable; they allow developers to make claims. 208.59.120.194 (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not disputing the fact that it has been planned, however reading the article as it stands makes it seem as though the building is at least being built but as the photos show it doesn't appear to be the case. I read a news article just today which said that there are many half completed skyscrapers in Dubai, even if conditions improve then it is likely that these would be completed before construction of this ever starts. Until we have evidence to show that this is actually being built rather than just being a plan it shouldn't be mentioned here. Smartse (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the sources are enough to pass.....

Arabbuilder.com Ggicouae.com Emporis.com Skyscraperpage.com Skyscrapercity.com

just visit these sources, there is no question of deleting this article. Have a look at the following skyscrapers,

these four towers are also currently approved or proposed but these towers got popularity just because of freedom tower, which is the only building which is currently under construciton there thats why they have alot of sources and external links. afew months before there was news that these all towers were under construciton. but there construciton has been halted.As you can see the delays in the construcrion of freedom tower, so who can say that these four towers will be built or not ????? So they also do not pass WP:V.so delete all these articles because USA is more badly affected by global downturn than Dubai.If you know the construction of Chicago spire has already been halted. So we may also consider it in the above mentioned four towers.may be they will be built in 2015 or may not be built at all !!! Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I look for is sources. The Chicago Spire gets in the news [97] for being cancelled. But Marina 106 didn't get in the news for being cancelled or for anything else. 208.59.120.194 (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a rule, other articles which do or do not exist are not used as arguments for the deletion or keeping of an article. This discussion is about this article. Whether other articles should exist is not relevant to this discussion - if you think that those articles should be deleted, you would either have to discuss them on the relevant article's talk page, or take them to AfD themselves. (Incidently, you might want to read the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, as that discusses this issue) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am just giving an example, if they wanna delete this article then they must tag the above mentioned articles too. Marina 106, is currently exist ok and there is nothing like that i have invented this building and craete an article here, Emporis is considered as primary source and it has an entry of MArina 106.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In that case, may I refer you to the conflict of interest guidelines? You said that it exists, but earlier in this conversation, you said that it hasn't been built, but has been approved.
Looking at your 4 sources above in detail:
  1. Arab Builder (dated 19th November this year) - clearly shows that this is a future project (Estimated completion : 2012)
  2. Emporis: Current status planned [proposed]
  3. Skyscraper Page: I think the link you meant to put up was here. However, that clearly shows this as a future, potential project (Finished 2012)
  4. Skyscraper City: Firstly, this is a forum, so not counted as a reliable source. Also, the latest entry on there was 15th October - and then, the final two comments were "So sad it's on hold" and (from the forum moderator) "Considering the recent redesign of the tower, I doubt they have even got the Municipality's build permission yet."
All in all, these clearly show that this is a future, proposed building. There is no evidence that it will definitely will be built. If it is built, then perhaps it will warrant an entry on Wikipedia, but it is not Wikipedia's job to have articles about "possible" buildings, or even "probable" buildings. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No i have only told you about the existence of marina 106, i doesnt mean that its existence (as a under construciton structure), but its existence as a supertall skyscraper to be built in future. So what about the articles of other proposed skyscrapers in wikipedia ??? so wht do you think about the following proposed skyscrapers ? e.g:

(it is only the list of those skyscrapers which are taller than 360 meters, and there are tons of proposed skyscrapers below 350 meters). what about these supertall skyscrapers ? these are proposed skyscrapers and no body knows they will be built or not and "it is not Wikipedia's job to have articles about "possible" buildings, or even "probable" buildings" as you said !!! please explain yourself, Marina 106 is not only building in wikipedia which is proposed or "a possible building"..there are a tons of articles of proposed buildings in wikipedia as i mentioned above, and wikipedia doesnt restrict to create such articles, as far i know.


Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Planned and unapproved buildings" do not fail WP:CRYSTAL simply because they have not yet begun construction. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans National Place - provided that a building proposal receives significant coverage from reliable third-party sources, it does not need to be under construction to warrant its own article. The problem here isn't that the building isn't under construction, it's that it doesn't seem to meet the general notability guidelines. Emporis is a building database, so it isn't a good measure of a building's notability. Unlike the proposed towers listed above, which from what I can tell meet the general notability guidelines set forth in WP:NOTE, this tower seems to lack reliable third-party sources. Cheers, Rai•me 05:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Raime, you are quite correct - I stand corrected! Marina 106 does not appear to have any information for reliable sources (reliable as Wikipedia defines it here) that show that it is notable. As mentioned, the others listed above appear to have received coverage from reliable sources, whereas this one hasn't. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about notability then let me tell you thet Marina 106 is going to be one of the tallest residential buildings in the world once completed. And it will be 425 meters tall, and it will make it 2nd tallest residential building in dubai and 4th tallest building in dubai.So arent it is notable ??? I know that there are not many sources on net currently because its construciton has not yet started, we shall have to wait for some reliable sources to come !

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, we will have to wait for the reliable sources. And when it does meet those guidelines we can revisit. Until then, it really should be deleted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_November_25&oldid=1142643483"