The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Cadet squadrons in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list echos the information at the cadet unit directory maintained by the organization itself. None of the individual units are notable themselves (or at least none that have had articles created and have been deleted through the AfD process for being non-notable sub-units of a national organization), so these will likely never be links to articles in Wikipedia. The previous AfD was not informed by the presence of this external link. Sancho 23:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (see the equivalent for sea cadets and for army cadets):

List of Sea Cadet Corps in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Army Cadet Corps in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sancho 23:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, etc, etc. Ray^Talk 23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:NOT#DIR Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. WP:NOT#DIR Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Royal Canadian Air Cadets, Royal Canadian Sea Cadets, Royal Canadian Army Cadets, respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Bull (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:NOTYELLOW, criteria 1. Cheers, I'^mperator 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. From the discussion below, it is clear that the community is divided over this, and that there is not consensus on whether or not to delete the article. Proponents of both sides make valid arguments, and both the "delete" and "don't delete" opinions enjoy wide support. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 23:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion resumed per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 1. Please add 14 hours to the discussion length. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable nor could it be established as notable based on searches for confirmation. Only one source provided discusses it, and it has very little reliability and is unprofessional (see: "bitchslap" in title). Wikipedia is not news, nor is it a collection of random poorly sourced information that speculates on possible legal events, especially from non-experts to provide reliable sources for said speculation. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this also falls under BLP provisions since this deals with a living individual who is being sued, so any sourcing needs to be completely reliable and not contain speculation. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary note - during the creation of the page, the creator also placed it in multiple projects and ranked it mid importance. This is highly inappropriate and is part of the generalized misunderstanding of guidelines and policies surrounding the creation of this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third note - Article now contains heavy use of original research. This can be found in the sections "Background" and "Conflict of international copyright law". Uses of Wikipedia as a source also goes against Wikipedia standards which state that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, plus uses of it violate our original research standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not news, as the nominator said. Furthermore, the Wikinews article is vastly more informative, this really has nothing to add. Ray^Talk 23:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please before deciding, see this, many reliable sources have covered it, including the BBC. I however initially used the Register source since it was the first one I picked that mentioned Wikimedia Commons rather than just Wikipedia. It's a stub, what'd you expect, full article? ViperSnake151  Talk  23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "reliable sources" contain the same information, which is that the NPG sued Wikipedia. That would cover one or two sentences. Thus, this falls under Content Fork regulations. The type of sources you are using would violate the POV Fork standards. A sentence or two at most could be added to either the Wikipedia or the NPG page. Anything else would be undue. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have not sued Wikipedia. However, this can be expanded. Why can't we just hold off until the article is more...filled? ViperSnake151  Talk  23:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for anyone who is taken in by the claim that there are tons of sources - most are blogs and fail reliable sourcing. Even many of the ones hosted by legitimate presses are blogs. They also regurgitate the same information with the occasional addition of original speculation. Since there is a living person involved, BLP would apply. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It is belly button gazing for the moment. At the moment all the coverage is rather transient. If this come to something it might be worth a few sentences in the history of wikipedia page. It has the potential to have a large impact but that impact is yet to materialise. Recommend creator contributes it to WikiNews. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a long Wikinews article on this. And this page was never a fork of another. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - wikipedial notability is not transient. It is not required that something show continued notability, merely that it show notability at some time. While the article may be a little premature, it most certainly is notable, as the vast number of news stories show. Yes some are blogs, but you've also got several major newspapers, the BBC, el reg, EFF, etc. BLP does in some ways apply, but nothing is being violated here - sourcing is fine, and the guy is happy for it to be common knowledge because he told us about it to begin with. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is rather clear on the matter. BLP also states that blogs -cannot- be used in discussing matters that involve living individuals. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting we do use blogs as sources, I'm just saying that they're an example of the notability - it's the very definition of notability: someone has made a note about it. The sources are the newspapers and other "real" journalism. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also, the general notability guideline is pretty much "if many reliable sources report the same thing, its notable". Even though right now its only boiling around a number of facts, the fact that according to the "accused" that someone from the Electronic Frontier Foundation has become his pro bono lawyer means that people are wanting to stand up for free culture. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is -not- what the notability guidelines say. If they report the same thing then they count only as -one- reference. That is what the guidelines state. Non reliable sources according to BLP cannot count towards notability in any form. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reference to that in the policies. Also, why must this article specifically comply with WP:BLP? It is not a biography. And WP:N says "Multiple sources are generally preferred" ViperSnake151  Talk  02:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator's claim there are no sources of a reliable sort is not an accurate claim, and the argument fails. Indeed, a minute or two's use of a search engine reveals there are a several sources on the topic that may be considered usable. The primary content of the notability guideline: "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." As such the article may stand, pending improvement using those additional sources.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I never claimed that there are "no sources". Please read the nomination. It deals with notability and this being under BLP invalidates most of those "sources" that you find in a search engine. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, the nominator indicated that the one source that referred to the topic that was originally provided was not reliable or professional, and that the nominator's search failed to find reliable sources. The claim, that there are no such sources fails. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of saying "nominator", you can refer to me directly. Saying notability cannot be established is different than saying there are no other sources. Notability requires direct and unique coverage in multiple reliable sources. BLP requires reliable sources to have the utmost reliability. Combined together, having only a dozen articles saying the same four facts over and over does not prove notability. It would only allow two or three sentences of text. This would not be even close to enough to warrant its own page, let alone meet BLP's strict requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• At this point, there are now sufficient references from sources that are considered reliable that it's fair to say the original claim is moot. Biography of Living Persons requirements are met, as only information sourced from media such as the BBC, the New York Times, or Reuters are relied upon for statements about the individual in question The article is supplemented by additional journals at this moment. Further, additional sources are able to describe links to the legal questions involved, if not actually state the doctrines advanced. By the way, no article that I encountered mentioned a law suit. At this time the article is merely in need of improvement, and not in danger of being an article amounting to zero-reliable-reference scribbling. The nominator, Ottava Rima and the "delete" commenters are invited to state the specific aspects of the article that need improving over on the article's talk page.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• By "sufficient references" you mean 70% of the page doesn't even discuss the matter and fails WP:Original Research? Not only are you abusing BLP and referencing standards, you are now coatracking. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This reference falls BLP standards. The "funny" should have tipped you off that it is a column stating opinion with the purpose of humor. Not a highly reliable source. It must be removed immediately. Artnet is not a highly reliable news source per BLP. It must be removed immediately. Amatuer photographer.com is not a highly reliable news source per BLP. It must be removed immediately. This is not a highly reliable news source per BLP. It must be removed immediately. Also, Wikipedia is not reliable per Wikipedia policy, and it cannot be used in a BLP. The uses of it also constitutes original research. This must be removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The New York Times article, entitled Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos describes the odd (some would say "funny" ) circumstance wherein qualifying licensed images of quality are less common than desirable. You're invited to describe persuasively with several reasons about how the article and the journal fails to satisfy as a source. You have failed to do so. Equally well, the Amateur Photographer is reporting on a press release or announcement of the National Portrait Gallery. Nothing especially remarkable or unreliable about that. Artnet merely confirms the information found in the BBC, NYTimes, and Reuters articles, and describes how the subject of the article--remember that?--could arise,namely how a dispute over copyright and public domain works is possible, given the differing copyright laws in the United Kingdom and the United States. It is not relied upon for biographical information, and after all, the article is about a topic, not a person.
  At this point the complaint of Ottava Rima is about the quality of the article, rather a distance from the topic of the deletion of the article. I am most interested to see Ottava Rima describe how Reuters, the New York Times and the BBC fail to be adequate sources for information about an individual, and how they should not be relied upon. More generally, the issues that the article is about has been hardly developed, and those issues are not subject to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons concerns in the least, apparently an area of some confusion for Ottava Rima .
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The New York Times article fails highly reliable source as it is opinion, provided to have a humorist take, and does not provide information not found elsewhere. This was already stated. The rest of your arguments fail to have any real basis in reliable source guidelines. A source is not reliable simply because it regurgitates facts found in reliable sources, otherwise we would allow blogs in all forms as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The statements described in that New York Times article are affirmed in the other cited sources, and indeed, the sole instance where the citation stands alone in support of a sentence is where a Gallery spokesperson is reported to confirm that the Gallery has succeeded in communicating with with the Encyclopedia staff. I'll see if an additional confirming citaton may be found in that instance.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "are affirmed in the other cited sources" Then they do not provide original information and are there for the mere appearance of more sources. It is redundant and not reliable. It is best to remove it as it is inappropriate. Furthermore, notability is on sources not simply repeating the same information over and over. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ^{[citation needed]}. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I observe that the claim fails for Ottava Rima about an "unreliable" source when that source is affirmed and corroborated by other reliable sources.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliability is not determined by statements being used in other sources too. The fact that you would suggest it does shows a severe misunderstanding of what reliability is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The thoughtful explanation and reasoning is noted and remembered. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The NYT piece is not identifies by the NYT as a humor piece. Ottama is refering to the html. But look at a physical issue of the NYT. It is one of the cover stories for the Arts section, because it is about our photographic coverage of performing artists. It is not in the opinion section - yes, the NYT distinguishes explicitly between articles on the arts, and essays expressing personal opinion, it puts them in two different sections, and this is not in the "opinion" section. The actual NYT does not identify it anywhere on the page as a humor or opinion piece. So stop frabricating things, Ottava. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Outdent - if anyone honestly believes Slrubenstein above, then you are gullible. The NYT isn't under some conspiracy and there are no people mysteriously and evilly relabeling things as "funny" when they are meant to be taken seriously. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is about how our licensing requirements are the cause of rather amateur and funny-looking photographs of celebrities at times. They got some sort of clean URL thing going on there. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the word "funny" isn't included in the article, so it would not be eligible for such a "clean up". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Yellowdesk the Gullible." It has a princely feel to it. Perhaps I can live my life with a certain kind of guile-less wonder now.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep (but possibly move out of the (article) namespace until notability is established). If Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is allowed, then this is. Could seriously affect thousands of our image uploads. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There has not been a court case, so it would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Remember, this is currently a content POV fork off of the Wikipedia page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you keep saying this is a fork? I didn't fork it from ANYWHERE. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  We already have an article on Wikipedia. This would be a fork off of that. We even have History of Wikipedia or Criticism of Wikipedia, which would be equally appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In my opinion this violates WP:NOTNEWS. The part that says "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own" sums it up pretty well. The information in this article can serve its purpose in the History of Wikipedia article or some other place. Just because something has a lot of news coverage doesn't mean it should get its own article. This is an encyclopedia; we want encyclopedic content. The AfD for Michelle Obama's arms showed that abundant sources do not prove something is encyclopedic. Killiondude (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Killion. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, per RHaworth (except that in my opinion, it meets notability already). Question for Ottava Rima (or anyone): Can you explain the claim that "Non reliable sources according to BLP cannot count towards notability in any form"? I have never thought of notability as needing to be reliably sourced -- reliable sourcing, I thought, is for claims Wikipedia makes within articles ("about" things). But notability is not a claim we make within articles, it's a prerequisite for having the article in the first place. Thus, I assumed that notability need not be established from reliable sources. Alternative position: for establishing notability, even redundant gossip blogs would be "reliable", as they are indicative of the attitudes towards "notability" taken by their editors. Thoughts? Agradman ^talk/_contribs 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Read WP:BLP. It comes up quite often. The very spirit is rather blatant in this clause: "In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if and only if: (1) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and (2) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth." As you can see, we are only -allowed- to use highly reliable sources. Not "reliable" sources. Blogs don't even match "reliable" sources, let alone "highly reliable" sources. Notability must be established -within- the article. This is done through reliable sourcing. BLP states exactly what kind of sourcing can be used in this article. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Markedly non-neutral. Examples follow. See also other policy issues, below.:
  • "[B] claims [its IP] rights ... were infringed by ... uploading the ... prints of ... works that have already fallen into the public domain." Contains definite POV-pushing. It really repeats the preceding sentence...just to make sure Ms. Reader gets the point.
  • "[B] had demanded a response by ... and also had demanded that ..." The 'defendant', C, "reports", B "states" and "demands".
  • "[B's] threat is in conflict with U.S. copyright law, where both C and F are based." Again with the POV-language "threat". This statement, is cited to BBC News article and a Computerworld magazine article. Neither are respected law academics or qualified legal commentators.
  • "The threat also claimed that" And again...
  • "[B] had contacted [D] a few months before ... over this issue, but did not receive an immediate response" Phrasing of the dependent clause comes across as B petulantly leaping into doing something just because someone hadn't answered them within a single day.
  • "In July 2009, lawyers representing [B] threatened legal action to an editor-user of the free content multimedia repository [E] (which is owned and operated by [D], also operator the free [F])" First, they took legal action—pre-court action, though stressing desire to resolve things amicably. Second, the deliberate goodguy-badguy painting of "the free content x also operator [sic] the free" is see-through.
  • Wikipedia, is not a soapbox, a news aggregator, nor is it a crystal ball. There's no court trial to cover in a Background-Arguments-Judgment format. The root of this topic is a single letter sent by one party to an individual. A single event on which not much can be written that isn't covered in the articles on cases that actually became court cases, and what was written here is far from neutral. –Whitehorse1 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perceived non-neutrality is an argument for editing it, not deleting it. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that on its own lack of neutrality invites editing not article deletion. If you re-read the opening line of my comment "See also other policy issues, below", you'll see the POV problems illustrate other underlying issues: soapbox content in form and in style right from the beginning, plus extrapolatory speculating on what might happen in a case if one arose, contrary to Policy on what Wikipedia is not. –Whitehorse1 16:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Userfy with NOINDEX. My instinct is to userfy per RHaworth, as there is useful material and >50% chance we'll need to recreate this article in a hurry depending on what happens next. At the moment keep isn't an ideal option: the context and content don't look ready for prime-time yet—as often happens with legal situations, things have gone quiet for a while and we don't want the article to attract speculative comment. - Pointillist (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, userfying means we can put notability questions on hold for the time being. Pointillist (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The news coverage at this point has made it notable. Neutrality can be dealt with by editing. AFD is not cleanup. DGG (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As posted on his talk page: Notable as what? The only "reference" information we have is that NPG sent a letter saying to remove something or they would pursue actions. The rest is impossible to determine as fact as there hasn't even been a trial. BLP makes it very clear that we cannot have innuendo or rumor. Anything not determined as fact by a court is simply not permissible. They can claim he broke whatever law they want, but that is the definition of libel. We are not to reproduce libel. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Erm, forgive me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the NPG said they sent it? Also, the article says alleged copyright infringement - it's not "Wikipedia says he broke the law", it's "Wikipiedia says the NPG says he broke the law", and that's the sort of thing we have in articles everywhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We report -facts- and only facts. We are not allowed to report allegations according to BLP. We are an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case nobody has yet been formally accused of anything, nor have any actual threat been made--not even by the shortsighted administrators at the NPG. And the article does not say that anyone has been. Copyright violation is normally a civil matter, and even NPG suggested a civil settlement. Rereading it, claims of BLP violation there with respect to C. are an absurd red herring. A really absurd red herring. DGG (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"in this case nobody has yet been formally accused of anything" Then there is no grounds for the article. There isn't even a case. There is a threat to take someone to court. You just destroyed any claims to notability according to BLP standards of notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They did not make such a threat.It may be implicit, but they did not explicitly make the threat. The person talking here about a threat is mainly you. To do so without evidence is a violation on your part of BLP. That's the relevant BLP problem here. DGG (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, if there is no threat why is there a page about a potential court case? Your understanding of the matter right now is just as faulty as your understanding of the matter as a whole. Now, for your generalized ignorance, read this. And please, DGG, you have already lost any respect you could possibly have from me. Now you are just digging your whole deeper as you continue to speak to what you clearly don't know. Your statements suggest a complete disconnect from reality or an utter abuse of the human language to read what is not there. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG. Jeni ^(talk) 01:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Clearly notable and needs covering in depth. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Further to the above, I don't favour merging, as the NPG article already has a small section of appropriate length. Putting all the detail there would seriously unbalance it. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly "needs covering in depth"? Nothing has yet happened. A letter was merely sent. Do we now contain full entries on a letter being sent with a page that should be a stubbed except for 70% of the page being devoted to original research? Did you even bother to read the page by chance? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How civil. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you see how the NPG article already having such makes this redundant? You just provided an argument to delete, not keep. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've argued exactly what I wrote: that the topic needs covering in detail but not in the NPG page. It's quite clear to anyone with a life. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not make content forks simply to give something that only has a few sources its own page. Please read WP:UNDUE. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete: Navel-gazing at its worst. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but consider merging the main points into National Portrait Gallery (with WP:Undue in mind) until we see what the long-range notability of this is. The core of notability is significant coverage in reliable sources; in other words, whether a matter is "worthy of notice." This seems to meet that. As a sample, I see:

• Eric Felten of Wall Street Journal covered it.
• Rory Cellan-Jones of BBC News covered it
• Maev Kennedy covered it for The Guardian.
• Noam Cohen in The New York Times gave it a column.

• The NYT piece is not identifies by the NYT as a humor piece. Ottama is refering to the html. But look at a physical issue of the NYT. It is one of the cover stories for the Arts section, because it is about our photographic coverage of performing artists. It is not in the opinion section - yes, the NYT distinguishes explicitly between articles on the arts, and essays expressing personal opinion, it puts them in two different sections, and this is not in the "opinion" section. The actual NYT does not identify it anywhere on the page as a humor or opinion piece. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See above for the dismissal of the conspiracy theory that Slrubenstein is promoting - the NYT doesn't mysteriously add the word "funny" to its online resources because they are meant to be taken seriously. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dana Blackenhorn covered it for ZDNet.
• It's in Metro & London Standard A search of google news shows that people are talking about this around the world. (I don't know if all of them are reliable, but some of them—such as this—certainly look official.)
• Artinfo picked it up
• (As an aside, since this is not reliable, it's even entered advertisements, which I mention here only because I was fairly gobsmacked to find it there.)

• Even if much of the coverage is in op-ed or blog, it's in op-eds or blogs by reliable sources contributed by professional journalists, and hence reliable (there are rules in WP:RS for handling op-eds, but nothing I see that excludes them as sources to establish notability). In terms of WP:BLP1E, this is not, strictly speaking, a "biography of a living person." There is a living person involved in it (as with many current incidents of interest to human beings), but the article could stand and be almost as informative if the individual's name were omitted altogether. He is a participant in the subject, but not the subject. Information regarding the specific individual needs to be impeccably sourced, but currently the article seems BLP-vio free. The individual in question has expressed that he has no concern about his real name being used, here, when queried by the nominator of this AfD. The main question for me is WP:NOTNEWS. I don't think we can predict whether this is going to be a flash in the pan or develop into something of sustained notability; I suspect it will depend on what the NPG does next. Given that, I would support merging relevant major points into the NPG article, though I think we should be careful not to give it more attention in that context than it merits. Naturally, it is of great interest to Wikipedians, but it may not loom that large to our general readership. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation covered by mostly British newspapers is that the individual broke into the BNG and stole images. Even if the name was omitted and lessened the damage, it is still rather damaging to take allegations and post them. During court cases, lawyers normally ask how much knowledge people have of a case before they are taken as jurymembers. The reason why is that allegations and unfounded claims -can- taint people and make them thing that the claims are fact. That is why it is unethical to reproduce them and why Wikipedia's BLP states that we have to be "right" and that we have to have unquestionably reliable sources and to treat them appropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the NYT is labeled "funny" and not to be taken as a news article. The WSJ is an opinion article and cannot be taken as a news article. The Dana Blackenhorn is a blog and fails RS and BLP RS standards. Artinfo is not a reliable news source. Etc. Once you remove the unreliable fluff, there are very, very few actual sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces such as that in WSJ and NYT are acceptable; I see nothing excluding them from establishing notability (which, again, is whether or not people are talking notice). BLP is meant to protect individuals from libel and to protect Wikipedia from accusations of libel. Are there other individuals about whom you are concerned? Unless I misread his response to you, here, User:Dcoetzee is not bothered. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get that crazy idea? No opinion piece is acceptable as fact. this is very clear - "but not for statements of fact". Please read these guidelines before making such statements, as they would mislead others who also failed to read the guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can try to remain civil? The entire sentence (et seq) from which you quote may clarify: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." If Op-ed pieces are being used irresponsibly to source statements of fact, that should be addressed. However, they are expressly not inherently unreliable, and I see nothing that indicates that they are excluded from establishing notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your undestanding of civil is as faulty as your understanding of the other guidelines. I have not attacked your person in any way, nor have I made anything except to point out that you are completely mistaken. "not for statements of fact" is very, very blatant. BLP demands that we only carry facts, or, if we do have opinions, we attribute them directly to the source and other important restrictions. That does not mean that we simply tack them as a reference to another article in order to fluff up how many sources there are. Regardless, opinion pieces cannot be used for notability, they can only be used to attribute an opinion when that opinion is pertinent, i.e. an expert on an issue dealing with the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not regard it as civil (as characterized by "consideration and respect") to imply that people's ideas are crazy and that they haven't done the homework. Likewise, if you think "Your understanding of civil is as faulty as your understanding of the other guidelines" is courteous, then we are coming from a wide divide. In any event, I am uninterested in bickering with you about it. The full sentence from which you selected seems pretty clear. Too, I'll note that WP:BLP policy does not forbid the use of op-eds. On the contrary, it accepts them ("Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed....") and even online blogs "so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Of the ones I linked above, the op ed writers are all professionals with clearly established journalist credibility, and they are all published in reliable sources. Do you have a source to substantiate that opinion pieces cannot be used for notability? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then your understanding of civil is completely disconnected from WP:CIVIL. Now, incorrectly throwing out accusations of incivility as you are doing is a violation of WP:CIVIL. I suggest you stop now before your bury yourself even deeper. Now, you can say whatever you want, but WP:Notability is clear that only reliable sources count to notability and WP:RS makes it very clear that opinions cannot be construed as fact, and therefore, are not reliable sources. They can be included, as non-reliable sources can be included when notability is established elsewhere. But your argument fails regardless. Ottava Rima (talk)

WP:N says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It does not say "fact-based." And, in fact, opinion pieces are specifically included under some subject-specific guidelines, such as reviews for films or books. I suspect that my understanding of "civil" is quite fine. And I also suspect that any further conversation I might have with you will prove unproductive, so I will keep any further conversation I have about this subject to individuals who understand "courteous" and "respectful" more in the sense that I do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Doesn't say fact based? Are you serious? It is really clear that fact based is the only way to establish notability. Blogs don't cut it. Further conversations with me would prove unproductive because your statements about Wikipedia are far beyond absurd that you can't even admit you are wrong when direct citations were provided that blatantly proved you as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The NYT piece is not identifies by the NYT as a humor piece. Ottama is refering to the html. But look at a physical issue of the NYT. It is one of the cover stories for the Arts section, because it is about our photographic coverage of performing artists. It is not in the opinion section - yes, the NYT distinguishes explicitly between articles on the arts, and essays expressing personal opinion, it puts them in two different sections, and this is not in the "opinion" section. The actual NYT does not identify it anywhere on the page as a humor or opinion piece. So stop frabricating things, Ottava. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is about an issue covered in the news, but so are lots of our articles. And it is an important issue. Let's keep it. OR or NPOV concerns? What article doesn't have those? I am sure we can work on them, there, like we do with other articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles have already been debunked as reliable or constituting notability per saying the same material over and over without anything new or original. Your conspiracy theory above reproduced enmasse is troubling also. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - well sourced; no basis for deletion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out, many of the sources are unreliable or sources for original research. Thus, just "looking" at the list of sources isn't enough to declare that it is well sourced. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so obsessed with this that you feel the need to challenge every one of the "keeps"? Do you have some personal stake in this? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I challenge are those that show a false understanding of BLP or RS, especially when people claim there are many reliable sources when most of the ones in the article have been debunked as reliable or usable per our policies. There is even a source from 2007, 2 years before this incident happened. My stake in this is that if this page is kept, its horrible use of sourcing plus casting of potentially libelous material as fact would make the whole encyclopedia look bad. It would affect all of our integrity, and as a content contributor that deals with high end referencing, I cannot afford to have pages I work on cast in the same light as something that breaches all encyclopedic and ethical sensibility. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What BLP issues do you allege? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page amounts to the publishing of an accusation of impropriety against a non-notable individual. They claim he broke into their servers, and they claim that he violated copyright on 3,000 images. This is a serious offense. The presentation lacks any trial, and there is no way for him to be deemed innocent. Thus, the presentation of an accusation in such an expanded state gives credence to the accusation itself. It is the equivalent of saying "we have read the accusation and have deemed it factual", thus supplainting a trial and jury with Wikipedia editors. That could open us up to reprinting libel and other major BLP related problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do the sources make that claim? Or is it based on interpretation of the sources?

• Keep—seems like a perfectly notable topic, not just "news" but an important case of Internet dispute. Some sources back this up; others can doubtless be found. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 10:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Ample sourcing establish notability.--Pink Bull (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to get confused by his applications of policy here, but his attempt to use WP:BLP here as an excuse, is fundamentally flawed. It only says in the lead "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." It does not say "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages, and any other material on such pages." I am starting to think about potential crystalballery with this article even with the sourcing. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a lawsuit against a living individual. There is no way to separate any of the facts or statements away from this. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am most interested to have Ottava Rima provide a citation to aforesaid lawsuit. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, if there isn't a lawsuit what is the page about? A simple letter that made a threat? And that is acceptable how? Don't be absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate (Yes I made that one up). This article meets notability guidelines for its core subject matter, so nominially qualifies for its own article. NOTNEWS certainly speaks to the recentism argument, but my sense is a dispute of this nature, involving a respected institution asserting copyright action against a previously anonymous person who helped to make the media publically is likely to have lasting notability. The real problem here, is that Wikipedia simply isn't ready to write a proper article on this topic yet. You are taking three of the things Wikipedia does poorly - writing about recent events with an eye to lasting significance, writing about unnotable people who have been thrust into the spotlight unwillingly, and writing about itself (or at least a sister project) and combining them into one article. So, while I on balance I think this article meets inclusion policies, as an editorial matter I think it should be removed from mainspace and ((noindex)) added until a couple of high quality sources - not blogs, not opinion pieces, but genuine technology beat writers or the equivalent - treat the matter comprehensively. I rather suspect that such will appear soon, and will alleviate much of the synthesis that currently appears in the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. - Pointillist (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Although the result of a court case would be notable, all that has been reported so far is that a letter has been sent warning that there may be legal action, and people have commented on this and its possible consequences. The content may be verifiable, but it shouldn't exist as a separate article as it appears to be based on a prediction of future notability. Deletion would be a possible solution although there is useful information that could be merged to other articles. snigbrook (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others. This isn't notable, we're not news. Wikinews covers it. Let it stand there. And this is a BLP issue, as the editor is named. Lara 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:Recentism, WP:News articles and WP:NOT#NEWS. -- œ^™ 02:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It appears that the three arguments for deleting the article are a failure of the general Notability guideline, the policy on Biographies of living persons, and the policy on What Wikipedia is not with relation to being News reports.

  (a) The article seems to handily meet the nutshell description of the GNG ("[having] received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"), currently citing BBC News, Reuters UK, and The New York Times among nine others. (b) While this is not strictly a biographical article, the information that does pertain to a living person ("Derrick Coetzee") is all cited to the reliable sources referred to above (to the extent of every sentence mentioning the LP). (c) Lastly, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't offer any hard and fast criteria, but the section pertaining to this article appears to exclude "[r]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism"; reading the article, I find it neither meets those criteria nor is of 'transient notability' by judgment and as evidenced by those commenting here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, articles must have unique information and not simply regurgitate the same few details to count under notability. Furthermore, BLP has stricter notability requirements. You state the NYT as a reliable source, although it is clearly marked in the humor section. This shows a lack of appropriately analyzing the source per our requirements, which disqualifies your vote. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your requirement that the independent reliable sources all provide unique information is not supported or born out by the general Notability guideline, as such, this seems to be your own personal special requirement for this article and has no bearing on this discussion. Furthermore, this is not a Biography of a living person, it only references one, and duly cites each line of reference to said LP.

Whether The New York Times finds this situation humorous or not does not invalidate their standing as a reliable source, and arguing that it does has—again—no corroboration in the English Wikipedia's sundry guidelines, policies, and precedences. If you can find that the NYT article has been labeled or categorized by the newspaper as "something we just made up to sell papers without any of our usual fact-checking and editorial processes", then that would be a viable argument for striking its use as a reliable source.

Lastly, you have no standing whatsoever to make any determination that my input (this is not a vote) is "disqualified". I am not a single-purpose account, not have I violated any longstanding rules or practices in voicing my opinion here. You may feel that my arguments do not have merit with regards to your aforementioned special undocumented requirements for this article's allowance, but this is is a discussion between equals and you are very far from your place in judging my input or contribution here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Notability guideline before pontificating about what it says. Here is a strong statement: "Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works" or more to the point "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works,". The reason why is from it regurgitating the same few bits of information. If 100 sources all say "black is good", that does not justify having an article on it with a sentence stating "black is good" and having 100 references all linked to the same statement. Your statement is disqualified because you show an ignorance of our guidelines. Your post is insulting to anyone who bothered to read the guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, these are plainly not republications of the same source or news wire service. Secondly, I'm sorry I failed to realize that multiple reliable sources from London, New York City, Framingham, Massachusetts, Tarrytown, New York, Denver, Colorado, Oxford, England, and San Francisco, California fit your criteria of "the same geographic region". Furthermore, where in "does not always" do you draw forth the equation of "do not ever"?

My statement is not "disqualified" because you have neither a right to do so, nor the weight of consensus; if the administrator who closes this discussion chooses to disregard my input, they are welcome to do so, as that is the prerogative we have empowered them with by our consensus of their station. I'm providing my interpretation of the article, the sources, and the relevant policies and guidelines; calling me ignorant and my input insulting is far from civil, and I would ask you find some other avenue of expressing your opinions herein than shooting down the opinions and input of your equals. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"these are plainly not republications" This suggests that you failed to read the whole statement. The "and" is highly important. Also, you can list those areas but you failed to prove that the sources used are also reliable. The New York is the NYT, which is marked "funny" because it is a humor opinion column and not a reliable news source. As proven above, the guideline makes it clear that opinion pieces cannot be used as "fact". And if you think my comments saying you are ignorant of the matter are incivil, then you clearly do not understand the word "ignorant" nor have you read WP:CIVIL. Ignorant means "unknowing". It means that you are wrong. Civil makes it very clear that I have the ability to state that your comments are wrong. Your inability to understand multiple guidelines and policies even now when it was proven that they say what I am saying is disturbing, and just verifies my original claim that your "vote" is invalid. My "equals" bother to read guidelines and policies before making claims about them. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to continue to have a wikifight with an incivil contributer. My input stands. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how your understanding of WP:CIVIL is wrong and that I have not actually committed any incivility, your constant statements to the contrary are an actual breach of WP:CIVIL. The only thing that stands is that your comments show a lack of actual reading of our guidelines and policies along with you making it obvious that you deserve to be blocked for your false accusations. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The NYT piece is not identifies by the NYT as a humor piece. Ottama is refering to the html. But look at a physical issue of the NYT. It is one of the cover stories for the Arts section, because it is about our photographic coverage of performing artists. It is not in the opinion section - yes, the NYT distinguishes explicitly between articles on the arts, and essays expressing personal opinion, it puts them in two different sections, and this is not in the "opinion" section. The actual NYT does not identify it anywhere on the page as a humor or opinion piece. So stop frabricating things, Ottava. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Covered by multiple reliable sources in more than one country; sources include The New York Times. No reason to delete. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times source is marked as being humorous so it cannot be taken as a source of news. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking at the HTML. Now why don't you look at how the article is actually identified? It is in the "arts" section of a newspaper that has many sections. I guess you must come from a small town where the newspaper has only one section, Ottava, but in New York the paper has many sections divided by area of coverage. Section A covers national and international news, section B covers City news, section C covers the Arts, and that is where this article is, as it addresses our use of photographs to illustrate articles on artists and performing artists. By the way, there is a whole other section just for opinion. But this article is not in it. When interpreting sources like newspapers, Ottava, you need to understand their own classification systems. Now I have taught you, so you know. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if this case makes legal history in copyright law or otherwise achieves historic notability, then keep. Until then it's a legal dispute between two organizations and there are a thousand of those a year. We do not keep articles on every dispute, every death, or every other item that gets news coverage while it's ongoing. Any future potential is far from certain as well. Categorical WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:CRYSTAL - this is just routine news, in encyclopedia terms. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, else merge to appropriate location. I think this is more a NOTNEWS issue than anything else. Covering the group, not the event is the smart choice here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy. Wikipedia has a tendency of writing articles about itself at any given opportunity, even when it should not. This is where an article is not warranted. —harej (talk) (cool!) 17:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation is a bit confusing so here is a summary as I understand it. To comment on the situation please use this section. To add further !votes, please use the next section titled "Further !votes". Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC) I've removed the tally of !votes I created earlier—it was only to assess whether SNOW was valid, and is no longer relevant, if it ever was. - Pointillist (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

• NPG has made an allegation alleging that an upload to commons has caused damage (see letter).
• Dcoetzee and the Wikimedia Foundation have not admitted any facts about the alleged upload to commons (which is not admitted either).
• NPG and Dcoetzee have not mentioned Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
• Commentators have mentioned Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
• The EFF claims to be represnting Dcoetzee. Dcoetzee hasn't confirmed this.
• The Wikipedia Foundation has historically claimed that as their content is stored on and served from servers based in the USA, US law should apply to use of non-US :sourced content.

Is this summary correct and complete? If so, shouldn't the article be structured around it?

• Yeah, but actually the letter DOES reference Bridgeman v. Corel ("There is a common misconception that, as a result of the decision in Bridgeman v. Corel, copyright can never subsist in a photograph of a painting. That conclusion is erroneous because [blah blah blah]. And also, the nominator in good faith RE-OPENED this AFD after it was closed by an administrator because by his rule, 3 days isn't enough. Also, vote tallies are not allowed since AFD is not a vote, its a discussion. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  IIRC, Dcoetzee said he was being represented by the EFF. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viper - Why would it matter what the original letter did or did not do? It is not a reliable source per BLP. It is an accusation, and we are not supposed to take accusations as fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, usual WP:NOTNEWS case. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not news, not encyclopedic. Wikipedia's fascination with itself should not be in article space. Resolute 17:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just wanted to note that it already is, in the article on National Portrait Gallery (London). This is one of the reasons why I propose considering a merge of major points to that article pending establishment of long-term notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the notability is not the NPG alone, the notability is the NPG vs Wikipedia. Merge is inappropriate. I continue to see denying the likely long term importance of the confrontation as imperceptive.DGG (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just make that idea up? Are you certain that you can't spread information on two different subjects in two different areas, and that you instead need a POV fork for them? Did you not bother to read WP:FORK? So, if two people with pages get married, they have to have its own page for the marriage? Or anything else? Not only is that not how Wikipedia works, it is so absurd that it is strange for you to even think it would be how Wikipedia works. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying it. I suspect it will develop into long-term importance. Meanwhile, coverage at the NPG seems appropriate to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying it. I suspect it will develop into long-term importance. Meanwhile, coverage at the NPG seems appropriate to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient reliable sources. The idea that the filename chosen on the NYT web server classifies what is clearly a news story as humor and impeaches its reliability is remarkable. Genuine BLP, forking, neutrality, paucity of sources, etc. issues are equally absent. (The NotNews, recentism etc deletes are much better founded.) John Z (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, lets see, a source that is clearly marked "funny" mentioning the case in all of 5 sentences with one sentence making a direct insertion that cannot be known (i.e. it is claiming he stole works from a website) before a case is even heard is now what you are going to say is enough to see it as notable? And BLP is absent? Have you even read WP:BLP? This is about a court case against a living individual. Your comments are so absurd that your vote is disqualified. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely to be as accurate as any other story on a newspaper website, at least for the quotes that it is being used as a source for. Maybe it doesn't have the same neutrality standards and doesn't represent the views of the New York Times, but the fact that one of the URLs that can be used for accessing the page contains the word "funny" doesn't mean it was written as a joke. snigbrook (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. WP:SNOW. Legal disputes are plainly an encyclopedic subject. The sourcing for ths one clearly establishes the formal baseline criteria notability. WP:NOT#NEWS is about trivial news of the day. WP:NAVEL is, likely, something to keep us from covering trivial issues simply because they affect Wikipedia. This is a significant issue involving two of the more prominent players on opposite sides of the issue - WIkipedia and the NPG. It is pretty important to people interested in artwork and copyright. Nevertheless, after a small spate of significant coverage the matter grew quiet as a news item, and has received relatively little attention in the days that followed, which may in fact suggest it is just the news of the day. If the dispute gains ongoing coverage that would argue for keeping - an actual lawsuit would probably get a lot of coverage; if it diminishes into obscurity via uneventful resolution or lack of coverage I might change it to a weak delete. I don't see much fuss either way.So what's the fuss? Wikidemon (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC) refactored and !vote modified after further review and consideration - Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that legal disputes are an encyclopedic subject, and this one may be become important (and there is already some notability because of the amount of coverage), but if the dispute doesn't result in any legal action being taken, or if it is settled out of court, then it is unlikely to have any lasting importance (other than any effect it may have on Wikipedia) and a few lines in the relevant articles should be enough. snigbrook (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More than a majority of the statements are for deletion, so your statement of "snow" makes it seem like you might not understand how AfD works. The sources have already been stated as having many problems, with over 50% of them not reliable blatantly and only one is being defended. Others contribute only to original research, such as a 2007 source that can't possibly discuss events in 2009. As such, your statement shows a lack of anything more than just a "vote" and is discounted. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In plain point of fact, you can not discount, disqualify or render invalid a single comment on this page. You're free to disagree, although I think everyone would appreciate it if you could be a bit more gentle about it and forgo offering your opinions about those with whom you disagree. Nathan ^T 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite. Consensus is a discussion. Proving someone's premise as wrong and flawed is part of that. If you look at the original attempt to close, the closer stated that the deletes were wrong because they didn't know a certain set of information. This would be appropriate except that he was wrong (the other sources were discussed by the second statement). AfD works by balancing and judging statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few things. I appealed to WP:SNOW because there is, indeed, a "snowball's chance in hell" that this article will be deleted after discussion. I am rather familiar with the process. The point is, the article satisfies all of the technical and normative standards for why it should exist It passes WP:N, blindingly obviously so. Thus, if anyone wishes to argue that despite being a technically notable subject we should not cover it here, they have the burden of explaining why. People aren't buying it; hence, this article is unlikely to be deleted. The "sources have many problems" argument is quite bizarre. We're talking Guardian, Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. These are the most sterling mainstream sites in the world, and their coverage of the incidents is substantial, and dead center on why we listen to any news sources for any reason - per WP:V and WP:RS we cover what the sources cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)

I do not think this is a snowball keep, this will either be keep or no consensus at the rate we're going. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that people "bought" that this page is pointless, lacks sources, and is a BLP violation based on the majority of people who are not voting keep. Your vote for keep based on the above is an admittance that you didn't read this page and probably didn't even bother to read the page on AfD. As such, it is merely a "vote" and not acceptable per consensus. The fact that you say things like the WSJ is a source when it is an -opinion- column only verifies that you haven't a clue what you are even taking about. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of a civility warning on your talk page I'll reply here. Unless somebody died and appointed you closing administrator, it is none of your business whether my !vote should be discounted or not, nor is it your concern whether or not I read the materials or understand WP:RS. For the record, though, you are all wet on all accounts. I know WP:RS extremely well, I know that the WSJ piece is an opinion column, and it is my considered opinion that the careful and serious treatment of the issue via an entire column entirely about that issue in the Wall Street Journal, when taken with the many other major press articles on this subject, weighs very heavily in favor of finding the event notable. My opinion is my opinion. It is clear that you don't like it, and that's tough luck. You have argued yours extensively here, and in the process insulted, accused, and tried to browbeat a score of well respected Wikipedians with whom you disagree, to the point of making a mess of this page. I will say this once only before taking this to a notice board, please stop. Do not insult me further. You have had your say. A closing administrator will review it all and decide. Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your admittance right there that WSJ is an opinion column is proof that your post is completely invalid. Policy is very certain on the matter. Just because you disagree with it does not make it any different. This is not a discussion to change policy. This is not a !vote either. You either put proper arguments based on policy to delete, or you don't make a comment. Your comment proves that you are voting against what policy states. I have not insulted you, but your claims to such are as nonsensicle as your understanding of the AfD process or what Wikipedia is about. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I rest on existing policy and guidelines to find this subject notable, no changes necessary. Regarding civility, you can't say you weren't warned. I've filed a Wikiquette alert, here. This part of the discussion is done. Take any further concerns there. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, OR, it's spelled "nonsensical". If you're going to level insults, at least try to spell them correctly. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My spell checker didn't have a problem with it, so I don't really care. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the NPG article, per Moonriddengirl (whose comments are, as usual, completely correct and well stated in every respect.) Nathan ^T 01:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability is solidly established by multiple reliable sources. Dreadstar † 02:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Fundamentally distinct from the Wikinews article which is a well-researched report about what was going on in the matter at a single time (and includes OR). This in contrast is an article about the ongoing dispute which easily meets notability requirements. As a long-term, ongoing matter, claims of NOTNEWS are not persuasive. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which notability requirements? You do realize that there has to be a justification for a content fork, right? For something that doesn't even have a court case or a submitted legal complaint for a court case, your statement is laughable. Since when is "sending a letter" a notable event let alone something that "easily meets notability requirements", especially when most of the sources have to come from art websites, blogs, and opinion columns? Or how about that one source that is from 2007 on an event about 2009? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to point to sources already in the article. The fact is that this matter has received large-scale coverage in international news sources and continues to do so. That easily meets WP:N and makes it not a single event of the WP:NOTNEWS sort. Any other issues are irrelevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Is that what you are going to go with? Joshua, explain why instead of having it printed in the WSJ news section that it was kept only to opinion? That instead of World news, it was kept to an art column in the NYT with "funny" as part of the heading? Furthermore, the Notability standards are clear - there must be something substantial in them and not just the same reporting of "facts". They all state the allegation by the NPG. They add nothing. Why? Because there IS nothing. All we have is one allegation. That is the end of the story. There is nothing here. This is an encyclopedia. We deal with facts. We don't accept major BLP violations that are basically just pages that are 50% OR, and of the 50% not OR are just copied and paste of what the NPG alleged -without proof-. That page is nothing more than libel, and if it was cut down appropriately it would amount to, at most, 3 sentences! There is no way to think that a page of three sentences would be acceptable when we already have pages on that topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, give it a rest. You are just repeating yoursself here and have had these claims dealt with quite well above. Incidentally, the notion that there is a "major BLP violation" here is laughable as you would know if you read the reply that the individual in question actually made to you. There's nothing even resembling a BLP issue. I also think you may need to look up the definition of libel. Now, if you have something to say that you haven't already repeated above multiple times then say it. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laughable? So you think that Wikipedia is supposed to have allegations of criminal activity without any kind of proof or even a criminal case? Are you serious? Have you even read WP:BLP? Because if you did, then you are just making things up. By the way, Washington Post disagrees with your claim that the matter was news worthy. As does the Washington Times. I can go on, as I checked dozens of important news organizations before I even listed this. The simple fact that the Google search on the matter produces primarily blogs talking about it and nothing else should have tipped you off. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll save you some effort as you scramble to look - Reuters and The Associated Press didn't feel it was news worthy for even a mention. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that certain news sources didn't report on something isn't an argument that it isn't notable. Since you've got the NYT, the BBC, the Guardian and many others disccusing this the fact that others don't simply isn't relevant. I'm a bit puzzled by this chain of logic since if it followed through almost no event would ever be notable since one could always point to some sources not discussing something. The fact that you are reduced to trying to find newspapers which did not report on the matter about summarizes things. Your claims about BLP are about as far off since no one except you seems to think that anyone has made any allegation of criminal behavior. Moreover, notable allegations of criminal behavior can go in BLPs even when they don't lead to legal trials (if you think otherwise, please point to a specific sentence in BLP that supports your claim). a fortiori, that's the all the more the case when no one is making any accusation of criminal behavior except you (which incidentally might be a real BLP violation). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that other news sources not reporting on it made it not notable. I put those links to show that your claims about it receiving wide coverage were fake. I investigated. I checked. I looked in. And if you honestly think that it is within BLP to put up allegations against a person without even a court case, I would like to see you ask Jimbo on his talk page and see if he agrees that Wikipedia is supposed to do that, and that we are legally okay even though we could be reproducing libel. By the way, 1 Event would apply, and you cannot hide from the fact that 1 Event applies by trying to claim it is Wikipedia as the center of this, as the letter was sent to him and about his actions. We have 1 Event for a reason. The fact that you would try to claim that this is a notable instance of an allegation is almost disgusting. Even Ben Rothelsberger's allegation, receiving actual news coverage across the world, does not have its own content fork page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E applies to articles that are specifically about an individual, not an event. Nathan ^T 18:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:COATRACK. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should reread what I wrote. BLP1E doesn't apply. Nor does NOTNEWS since this is an ongoing controversy handled by international media. Not being covered by every single major news source doesn't make coverage not international (I don't know where you got the term "wide" from since I never used that term). (Incidentally, I don't understand at all why you think this has anything to do with Wikipedia involvement or what I ever said that makes you think that I've tried to argue that's at all relevant. It really would help if you read what people have to say and tried to have a discussion rather than just repeat the same things again and again). And you have again made claims about their being a possibility of libel which shows that you really don't understand what constitutes libel at all. I'll interpret your failure to give a specific point in the BLP policy supporting your position as a consequence of the fact that you can't. You have a general history of not understanding legal matters and this seems to be yet another example. Your mention of the Ben Roethlisberger shows once again that you seem to be unable to understand the distinction between civil and criminal issues and also to not know about basic Wikipedia issues like WP:OTHERSTUFF. So I will try to be as blunt as possible: a mention of a claim of a possible civil problem is not the same as a criminal accusation. That's aside from the fact that discussion of notable criminal accusations are acceptable even if they never went to court. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COATRACK. What is the page discussing? A court case? No. Wikipedia? No. A user's actions? Yes. A user's actions is biographical. Thus, the page under the title is a coatrack for a page on a non-notable individual that was claimed to have done something. However, this would have been obvious, so your blustering above is more of a ruse than anything else. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, what is this nonsense about? "civil and criminal issues"? Ben Roethlisberger didn't have a criminal complaint filed. He had a civil complaint. There isn't even a filed complaint against this user! You just shot yourself in the foot and verified that you don't understand what you are even talking about. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So one point is wrong. I don't see how that shoots myself in the foot since I haven't claimed that a separate article would be inherently a problem solely for a civil matter, merely that that would be one of a variety of possible issues. As has already been pointed out to you, repeatedly, most of this article doesn't deal with or focus on the individual in question so it isn't a major issue anyways. Now, if you would like to actually respond to the points various users have stated rather than focus on a single error of fact in an OTHERSTUFF article then go ahead. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to shrug off notable examples as "otherstuff", then your statement shows contempt for evidence. Furthermore, as pointed out above, the NPG page already has statements about the case, so there is a redundancy with this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. I didn't write it. The presence or absence of other articles is not an argument for the creation or deletion of other material. And people have already explained to you why they prefer a separate article from the main page. I don't see a need to belabor that point. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to say "please read", at least get the right link, as the redirect no longer goes to the -essay-. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Clearly marked as an "essay". That essay then says "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." Then, when you are done, read the next section: 'When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."' It is refering to people like you who are abusing the statement in order to hide from a valid statement. Thus, your citation of WP:OTHERSTUFF undermines your claims and makes your statements completely bogus. "Preference" is not a valid use of forking. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy you got along to actually reading the linked essay. The point which you seem to be missing is that this is precisely the sort of comparison that OTHERSTUFF was written for: the primary reason we don't have such separate articles is that no one has bothered to write one. Thus, pointing to the absence of an article which was never created really doesn't help matters much. Meanwhile, for someone so fond of accusing others of using rhetoric (and I presume next will be sarcasm and all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire), you seem to have trouble quoting other people accurately. Your use of the word "preference" in quotation marks is an attempt to dismiss the arguments that have been made: so let's be clear: Others have given explanations to you why a separate article in this context makes the most sense. You have not responded to such arguments. If you got some weaker notion than that by my saying "preference" then you are welcome to blame me. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent - As I pointed out from the quotes, the Otherstuff essay verifies my use of an example to -demonstrate- how other pages incorporate material without forking in order to show what consensus is on a policy. The policy was BLP and it was how to deal with material about an allegation. The individual used shows that many sources are used, the allegation is trimmed to nothing, and deals with a matter with heavy coverage. Just about every major newspaper ran a news article on -that- allegation plus it is a notable individual. However this has little news coverage as proven by links to many papers not mentioning it at all and others keeping it to opinion columns. This also deals with an individual not notable enough for his own page. Thus, if it was comparable in all aspects, there still wouldn't be an individual page. So, it would be impossible to claim we need a page on this. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by the above, so you may need to expand upon your logic. As I explained earlier, one major there's no separate article on the Rothelsberger allegations are that no one has bothered to do so. Now, if there had been an attempt followed by an AfD you might have an argument. Moreover, as has already been explained to you, this article is not primarily about the individual in question. Indeed, the articles on the NPG matter often mentioned his name simply in passing. So comparing this to a full on serious set of allegations is simply not a helpful comparison. Overall, this seems like almost a textbook case of OTHERSTUFF. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are a bit confused by a comparative example? What is confusing about it? I already laid out above what to draw from the example. Do I need to simplify my langauge even more? And it has to be primarily about the individual because the allegation states that he broke in and then posted the pictures. Thus, this falls under WP:COATRACK. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused because it seems like a bad comparison. So yes, use simpler words and explain in detail why it is a good comparison. In regards to the individual in question, as I've already explained, the majority of focus has been not on the editor on question but on the NPG and Wikipedia. That's one obvious contrast to an article where you already have a notable individual and the individual in question is the center of the controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, true, it is sourced, but the fact that there is no actual legal action yet started seems to justify a deletion (unlike the LICRA vs Yahoo! article, for example). Diti (talk to the penguin) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC

• Delete As said before, nothing but navel-gazing. If this comes to anything we can put up an article at that time. But as of now, its somebody threatening to sue somebody else, happens millions of times a day and is demonstrably not notable. --M^ask? 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; serious neutrality issues aside, Wikipedia is neither a news source nor a news aggregator, nor has this event even been in the news long enough to establish notability. Show me one other cease and desist letter that has garnered enough notability to warrant an article. - Chardish (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of articles in which a cease and desist letter figures significantly. Here's an arbitrary several. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Google_(verb)
• ScienTOMogy
• Synthesia
• Exodus_International#Billboard parody controversy

Thanks for finding those, but I'm talking about articles where the topic of the article is a cease and desist letter, not articles which include discussion of cease and desist letters. In other words, I'm looking for articles about cease and desist letters, such as the one in question. - Chardish (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. That would take some sorting effort. The search, for anyone who cares, via Google, -> site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki "cease and desist" - or "cease and desist letter" -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Don't censor just because it puts egg on wikipedia's face. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject of the article satisfis both the Verifiability and Notability policies. It has numerous, non-trivial, reliable third-party references. That is all that matters. It is currently factual and appears to be neutral. Even if it weren't, it could be improved. Threshold for including is WP:V and WP:N. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Multiple RS and a clear pass for WP:N. The claim that the NY Times article is a humor piece is absurd, "funny" is used here as synonymous with "odd". BLP concerns are misplaced. And oh, all the drama. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"used here as synonymous with 'odd'" - Proof? And what multiple RS? The RS guideline is very clear on the matter and most of the sources used and could be used are already not-reliable. Furthermore, all of the major groups like WSJ, NYT, Washington Post, Washington Times, AP, Reuters, etc, refuse to cover this as news in their news section. RS makes it clear that only news can be treated as fact, not opinion. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a blatant POV fork. This legal action, which hasn't even reached trial, does not even warrant a separate section in the main museum article yet, (but is does deserve a mention, per the recent poll). The current version of this fork article is just a badly written self important navel gazing essay/blogroll about copyright law and free content, coatracked on a small piece of noteworthy news, the only decent content herein just duplicates the Wikinews article which presents it as what it actaully is, a news item. It is not yet by any standard, not even NOT#PAPER, a plausible topic for an encyclopoedia article. MickMacNee (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & redirect to National Portrait Gallery (London), per Moonriddengirl. MLauba (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to NPG article and trim. I'm objecting to "news-style" fork articles like this, but the matter could, and should, be discussed in the main NPG article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to NPG. Mathsci (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plenty of reliable sources establish notability. Rlendog (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's plenty of reliable sources about a lot of things that do not meet notability requirements. Per Ottava, per MickMacNee. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia entry. Tan | 39 15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As Tan said, the existence of reliable sources does not confer notability. Navel-gazing at its worst. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Tan hit on the head. Also, I am beginning to wonder why we need all these articles on Wikipedia-related stuff, as it sounds more like we're self-advocating. Don't have to agree with me, but it doesn't seem like a good idea.Mitch/HC32 15:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV fork. This is a news story involving Wikipedia, so shouldn't we handle it like a news story not involving Wikipedia, or is that too much to ask? Cool Hand Luke 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone objected to me wanting me to call this National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts with the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia Commons copyright conflicts with the National Portrait Gallery. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn letter/navel gazing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, consider merging into NPG article. Plenty of reliable sources, the only question is whether will end up being a mountain or a molehill in the long run. Right now, I suspect molehill. However a "merge" is not a "delete", it's a "keep". --GRuban (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, a merge in this situation would be a delete, as the redirect name would most likely not be kept. It is not a technical name, so it wouldn't be a viable redirect title. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per DGG, Rlendog and John Z. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikinews covers this. There are BLP concerns. Merge anything useful to the main NPG article, and delete the rest, leaving a redirect. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I abstain as an involved party, but will say: I've reviewed the article and I don't believe it to contain any factual errors, and I am not at all concerned about the BLP impact of this article on myself. I am, after all, a Wikipedian. I've also recommended an additional source on the talk page. If it is deleted, I recommend moving it to the project namespace, as it's a good reference. Dcoetzee 23:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While only two people contributed to the discussion, a search on Yahoo turned up a grand total of 10 hits for this particular person, none of which are very good. Blueboy96 17:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable athlete. Per WP:V / WP:RS, I am unable to confirm the "professional triathlete" claim or any of the other claims for that matter. Per WP:N / WP:NSPORT, the claims made do not necessarily equate to notability. It is entirely possible that the companies listed may have at one time or another provided something in the form of equipment or travel expenses but there is nothing on their websites claiming he is a sponsored athlete. The results listed are simply a rehash of what Athlinks has on file. These indicate that he has placed well only in what are generally local events. Best results from notable events appear to be a 33rd in Boston and a 3rd in his age group at Ironman California way back in 2001. Location (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to fall on the short side of WP:ATHLETE, which is easily the loosest notability criterion we have. Certainly fails the general notability criterion. Ray^Talk 23:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found a couple of passing mentions in some newspapers, but nothing beyond trvial. Nothing to evidence that he is competing as a professional. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live Edge Furniture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is very unclear, an undefined style of furniture. "References" are to makers of furniture. An internet search did not suggest this is a viable topic. Delete. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Moderate number of Ghits, but none of them define what live edge furniture actually is. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete(I am changing my !vote below, but will allow my original comments to remain without striking through for convenience) - no question at all this was a good faith contribution, and the initial author made every attempt to follow policy and guidelines. However, as written the piece is little more than a dictionary definition, and at that it appears to be an alternate term for "wood slab furniture". I'd be very happy to see the information included in another article, but there isn't enough for it to stand alone. This is the weakest Delete I have ever given in an RfA, but I think it's the right call. Doc Tropics 15:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Doc, that was pretty much my conclusion also--and I want to assure the editor who contributed the article that I attempted to find some evidence for notability and bolster the article, but I was unable to. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible keep or merge. This is a legitimate and well established area of woodworking. Losing it from the encyclopedia would be harmful. It is included in several reliable sources here [1]. Those preferring the cheap mass produced Ikea brand should have their deletion votes severly discounted. I'm looking at you Dutch Doc 1 & 2. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've suggested this on the author's talkpage and I'll restate it here for clarity: the useful content could and should be moved into an existing article, the most obvious possibility being Furniture. Also, CoM your personal remark about other editors (including me) might have been intended as humorous, but if so it was just a bit too subtle for me, sorry. I'm sure you don't really mean to weight contributors' comments based on their inferred shopping habits  : ) Doc Tropics 17:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sourced bits. I'm sure there's a lot more, but I just used what was readily availabe on Google News. I refer to Drmies as Doc, so you have complicated matters for me. He is a known supporter of mass produced wares built in sweat shops by child laborers in hazardous conditions. But I suppose you have a point that his disdain for fair wages, craftsmanship, and environmental sustainability is not directly relevant to this AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - changed from "weak delete" above, due to significant improvements in scope, content, quality, and sourcing. This articles now merits inclusion. I'd compliment CoM, but worry about the difficulty he'll have finding hats to fit, if his head gets too big. Doc Tropics 04:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sourcing is still a bit thin, and I don't like the results of the usual searches at google, but what is there seems to be good and suggest that this is a reasonably broadly known style of furniture. Ray^Talk 23:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I rote this article because I was watching HGTV's Top Ten. In the show called Delectable Dining Rooms Episode HHTTN-110L, Three of the ten dining rooms featured tables they referred to as "Live Edge". After the show I wanted to know more about this style of furniture but could not find that much info. So I gathered as much as I could find, and hoped others would add to it. That's why wiki is here right? I will keep looking for more references. I did contact HGTV and ask them if there was somewhere I could view the Top Ten episode. Thanks for your input. MJChadwick (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability is not inherited so the notability for this institution has to come from reliable detailed third party sources. In weiging the discussion I need to measure the consensus against policy and the notability policy does not appear to be met here. Therefore the delete side have the better policy based arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Based on some web research, it seems very clear this is a diploma mill. The question is, is it a notable diploma mill. I haven't found any reliable sources that say it is, except for the reference in the article that shows a US Congressman claims to have "graduated" from here. I don't think that alone makes it notable, but I'm open to convincing on this point. All other references are to the Canbourne website iteself, or to websites that we're using because the lack of a mention shows it isn't a real University; fine, if the article is kept, but not anything we can base notability on. We aren't the Better Business Bureau; if this is truly a non-notable diploma mill (there are lots of them out there), we shouldn't keep it just to protect potential victims of a scam. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think it's notable, although weakly so. First, there's that Congressman (that's not sufficient by itself to make this outfit notable, but it's a contributing factor). Along the same lines, ghits don't indicate notability, but I get a surprisingly large number of ghits on people who list Canbourne degrees on their CVs (more than for the average diploma mill). More importantly, a 3rd party reference that used to be cited in this article got deleted because the URL died. Specifically, the article formerly included a citation to a public statement by a British Trading Standards department (London Borough of Tower Hamlets) calling it a "bogus university" and quoting an official as saying "Although the site appeared to offer UK degrees, Canbourne was not authorised to do so. The postal address given did not exist and the details on the website, including the biography of the Chancellor, were copied from an existing, registered university." Unfortunately, the link to the press statement has been dead since sometime in 2007, and the passage got deleted. My websearch found still another source: Canbourne is apparently one of the schools discussed in this journal article about higher education marketing -- but I don't have access to the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of the journal article is available here. Canbourne University is simply listed as one of the many unaccredited schools whose web pages the authors looked at. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I added four references to Canbourne University from four different state government websites and slightly more information from those sites. I think that the place is marginally notable. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (assuming it's kosher for me to do a bolded "delete" comment on my own nomination; feel free to change to a Comment if this is taboo). We've got lots of primary sources (and TallMagic added more good ones, which are useful if the article is ultimately kept), which as I understand it are OK to verify facts in an otherwise notable article. But notability is based on significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Those, I don't see. Even if the PDF of the press release from Tower Hamlets which Orlady mentions was still available, I'm not 100% sure that would be a reliable secondary source, but it doesn't matter, as I cannot find a trace of it now, even in the Wayback Machine, in any case. There are currently zero verifiable secondary sources with anything close to significant coverage of this place, and I cannot find any new ones. While it irks me that deletion would make the scammers running the place happy, I can't support keeping the article based on that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the links provided above certainly can be used for verifying information, but don't establish this particular "university" as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Um. The sources are overwhelming links to lists of degree mills. I'm not seeing the significant coverage in secondary sources here. It's a degree mill, nothing to see here, move along. The Congresscritter thing is interesting, but notability is not inherited. Ray^Talk 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep Has notable alumni which has often been seen as a claim of notability for schools and colleges. Whether the sourcing is enough to meet WP:N isn't completely clear to me but I'm inclined to be cautious for such things. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep N per Floquenbeam; content needs improvement but meets N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 龗 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Needs more inline citations but shows promising notability. --TitanOne (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only one gnews hit and it's a mention in someone's bio. It doesn't matter that some former congressman bought a degree from there. The school is a diploma mill, which really makes it a mild form of a hoax. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Diploma mills are not generally called "hoaxes", but rather are "scams" or "frauds". Regardless, can't hoaxes and scams be notable hoaxes and scams? --Orlady (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Why did I just know someone was going to try to make that argument? According to my dictionary (Random House) a hoax is a synonym for fraud or fake. And it defines a hoax as "something intended to deceive or defraud.". A fake degree from an unaccredited university that carries no actual weight is either a) a fraud to the buyer or b) a hoax on the unaware who are led to believe someone has academic credentials that they do not. In either case, hoax is an acceptable word to use. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly hoaxes, and scams can be notable; and diploma mills. For an example, there is Columbia State University I'm not convinced that this particular diploma mill is notable though. -- Whpq (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems notable and is an educational facility. Str8cash (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For the record, here are a few ghits on additional people who claim Canbourne degrees: (1) a former US government employee and law lecturer (one of the "principle [sic] architects of the Iraq Rule of Law program"), (2) the entrepreneur who founded Foot Solutions,[2][3] (3) a minister (apparently a televangelist), (4) a business consultant, (5) a martial arts and Chinese medicine specialist, and (6) a freelance specialist in ecological restoration. I did not list people who look like they might actually have degrees from the Camborne School of Mines. --Orlady (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem very notable. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Or, more precisely, no consensus on what to do with the article. There is a clear consensus not to delete. Whether or not to redirect can be dealt with in the ordinary editorial way. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music from The 3D Concert Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet the general notability guideline. Enough information already present at Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience#Soundtrack, so a delete or a redirect is most likely the best solution. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the article mentioned above by Pokerdance. it's an important part of the band's history, but not enough for outsiders to get an article.--camr ^nag 23:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This soundtrack should have its own page i can find the info just u wait —Preceding unsigned comment added by King007ofrock (talk • contribs) 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment directed to King007ofrock: no, it really shouldn't. The album may meet notability requirements per WP:NALBUMS, but it does not meet the general notability guideline, as I have already stated. There might be reliable information independent of the source that I have somehow missed, but if you weren't willing to cite the references from the start, then you were pretty much asking for this article to be nominated for deletion. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. King007ofrock, maybe you are confused. the reason the article needs to deleted is notability, not lack of information.--camr ^nag 19:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How does it not meet notability? Rlendog (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Camr. Ray^Talk 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was originally inclined to 1vote redirect. But the subject meets WP:NSONGS, since it charted, making top 10 in at least two countries, and was #1 on the US soundtrack chart.[4]. Allmusic even has a article about the soundtrack,[5] which I am surprised wasn't uncovered during WP:BEFORE and which could be used as one source to expand the article. And if I found that source in a few seconds, it seems likely that there are even more. So I don't see any valid deletion reason here. Rlendog (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here is a review in Entertainment Weekly,[6] so there are now multiple sources with significant coverage, meeting WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And another review:[7]. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not another review - it's just a copy of the allmusic.com review. --Zundark (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, I did not notice that. But that still leaves two independent reviews and several top 10 charts to demonstrate notability. Rlendog (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the article. Does not meet the general notability guideline. Enough information already present at Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience. Dennissell (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How does it not meet the general notability guideline when there is significant coverage in several independent reliable sources? Not to mention its chart position. Rlendog (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And what do you mean by "Enough information already present at Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience", and what does that have to do with the notability of this article? The only information about the soundtrack at Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience is an inforbox (that better belongs in the soundtrack article), a track listing, release date and a partial chart listing. How does that qualify as "enough", when there are multiple reliabile sources that provide additional information? Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it looks like this !vote was just copied from the original nom, without regard for the intervening discussion. Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The album was clearly notable so it deserves its own Wikipedia article.--Pink Bull (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to passing WP:NSONGS, there are multiple reliable sources (provided by Rlendog) that discuss this album. WP:GNG and WP:V are easily met. Cunard (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calder Walton END (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Calder walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dr Calder Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

I don't think this individual passes WP:PROF. Most of the information in this article seems to be from here, and there are barely any other Google hits that do more than simply mention his name in passing. Moreover, almost all his supposed published works violate WP:CRYSTAL (and if they haven't even been released yet, how are they published works?). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Another thing: the creator (User:Intelligence history) appears to have a conflict of interest, given that the person appears to be in the intelligence history field. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I speedy deleted Calder Walton END per G7, moved Calder walton to Calder Walton, and redirected Dr Calder Walton to Calder Walton as it was a duplicate of Calder walton. Hopfully this doesn't cause too much confusion. Plastikspork (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But I still stand by my nomination. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My edits were just housekeeping and in no way a comment on notability or lack-there-of. As far as I can tell the AFD should still run as planned. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This individual does definitely pass WP:PROF. There is a full list of his published works, and forthcoming works, in the peer reviewed internationally renowed journal 'Intelligence and National Security', vol. 23 no. 4 (August 2008), pp. 435-462 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelligence history (talk • contribs) 07:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is true that most of the citations come from here here, but seeing that this is an official website of Cambridge Univerity, one of the world's most renowned universities, they are reliable. Moreover, I have checked in the journal journal 'Intelligence and National Security', vol. 23 no. 4 (August 2008), pp. 435-462 and this does indeed give a full printed description of the individual's career and publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymalchio (talk • contribs) 07:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC) — Trymalchio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Information: I have checked the journal 'Intelligence and National Security', vol. 23 no. 4 (August 2008), pp. 435-462 [8] and (contrary to Trymalchio's assertions above), it does not give a full printed description of the individual's career and publications. The only other work of his mentioned is his PhD dissertation. However, there is one paragraph about him in the section "About the Contributors" at the front of the issue [9], which I quote below in its entirety:

  "Dr Calder Walton completed his PhD in 2007 at Trinity College, Cambridge, with a dissertation studying British intelligence in the early Cold War. Dr Walton is a Research Fellow at Darwin College, Cambridge; his current research explores the involvement of the British intelligence community in British decolonization movements after 1945. Dr Walton lectures and supervises at Cambridge University, and also helps to coordinate the Cambridge University intelligence seminar."

  --Qwfp (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Notability is not sufficiently established by independent secondary sources. Plastikspork (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Unless there was a quick change of usernames, Intelligence history and Trymalchio are the same user. Click on IH's "talk" wikilink earlier in the thread and see for yourself. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. GS shows no cites. Notability not yet achieved for that and other reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Recently graduated PhD, scholarly work so far not terribly significant. Ray^Talk 23:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some published papers and a forthcoming book aren't enough to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People TV (Atlanta) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested Prod. Non-notable local television station. No reliable sources support notability. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Gnews search shows plenty of hits and substantial coverage in local newspapers. Granted, that coverage seems mostly to talk about how little it's doing, but even a sinkhole of public funds is notable as a sinkhole. Ray^Talk 23:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup -- article was started by someone with an apparent axe to grind in relation to the management of the channel; I've tried to clean the article up a bit, but there is still more that can be done. --mhking (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- PeopleTV is Atlanta's only non-profit public access station. The station broadcasted Brainstorms (show) with Jack Jersawitz as seen in this clip of Brainstorms with Jack Jersawitz --bonkeykong —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I think the only issue that is clear here is that nonone wants to delete the content from wikipedia. whether it should be s astandlone article or merged is an editing decision thatd oes not require an admin to enforce and I'm not seeing any clear outcome from this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The useful content of this article can be easily merged into the main article. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not "A complete exposition of all possible details." and not for News reports - saying who else was at a press conference and quoting everyone's opinions (Iowa Congressman Steve King?) is unencyclopedic. The coverage is not in proportion - she announced her resignation, gave her reasons and did it. That can be summarized well in the main article. Hekerui (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The event should of course be in WP, but in her article, not its own. Para 4 of WP:NOTNEWS applies --Saalstin (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect to Sarah Palin Doesn't merit an article of its own. Ray^Talk 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Sarah Palin, selectively. TerriersFan (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't need an article of its own. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Her resignation is a significant political moment with an extraordinary amount of coverage. The content has also become too large to fit into the Sarah Palin resignation section.--The lorax (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's the latest chapter in her life. Even "Resignation of Richard Nixon" doesn't have its own article on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's because it's explained in Watergate scandal.--The lorax (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which demonstrates that it's preferable to describe events within the context of an existing article, rather than to spin them out. Wikipedia is not the news, although I'll concede that trying to find Wikinews is like trying to spot a newspaper machine on the side of a highway. Part of the problem is the design of the site. Wikinews, like Wiktionary, is not directly accessible from the side bar; to get to it from this page, one clicks on "Main Page", then scrolls down to "sister projects", then clicks on there and logs in. As such, there is a tendency to add days worth of news into an encyclopedia article and then to create a new encyclopedia article because the existing one is now "too long". But that's an editing problem, not an excuse for making a separate article. Six weeks from now, the resignation will rate nothing more than a few sentences in the article about Sarah Palin. Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree if this was some other mundane resignation, however, this is a highly scrutinized, unusual maybe even unprecedented event.--The lorax (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not too relevant to AfD, but it's not unprecedented. Palin is the second sitting Governor in Alaska's short history as a state to resign while in office. A lot of our politicians up here like to pull slippery moves where they quit to move on to something else, and get to had-pick who fills their job, so that in the next election they run as an incumbent. (i.e. Palin's predecessor Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter to his vacant seat in the Senate when he became governor) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Remerging would defeat the purpose of splitting it out of the main article: the latter is already too long. Having a separate article allows us to avoid the morton's fork between overburdening the main article and throwing out worthwhile content. I'm baffled as to which policy user:Hekerui has in mind as prohibiting a standalone article. His content issues (which includes the WP:UNDUE concern) can be resolved through WP:SOFIXIT. If we're talking notability, WP:GNG seems capacious enough to include a standalone article for Palin's resignation, and WP:EVENT failed to attract support. So what's the problem here?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (what exactly does the merger do, every day?)with Sarah Palin per nom and Mandsford. Main article is appropriately sized, and about 1/3 references, which is really good, and the resignation information fits into the article as a biography of the person. side articles should be about things like her list of elected positions, or maybe media appearences (lists). im not sure what events in her life would qualify for their own article, but this doesnt. if she wrote a book, yes. starting a new political party, yes. running for president, maybe, if she got selected as the nominee of her party. election to presidency, then the party starts. articles galore. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge isn't really an option here. The main article covers the resignation already, and none of the additional content in the subarticle really belongs in the main article. Quite frankly, I put a lot of this material into the subarticle; I wouldn't have added it to the main article, and if it's put into the article, I will propose its removal. Merge just isn't a good fit. The choice is really between deletion or not.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong forum, move for speedy close Nominator clearly states that their desired outcome is a merger, which should be discussed at the article talk page, not at AFD. This isn't mergers for discussion. Suggest nominator withdraw and tag article with ((mergeto|Sarah Palin)). Beeblebrox (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• hmm, maybe it's too late for that Even though I still think this is not an appropriate forum, we've got several users now saying "delete" so I guess it has become an AfD, even if it didn't begin as one. I scanned the archives of Talk:Sarah Palin, and it seems this article was spun off without seeking consensus for such a move there. As the resignation has taken place, and the world didn't end as a result, there is little that more to say, the event is over. Therefore, I'm going with merge back where it came from, with a reminder to the "splitter" that Palin related articles are on probation and such a large split should have been thoroughly discussed before the new page was created. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the content on her quitting, and the events surrounding her quitting (ie the ethical challenges) can be split up and moved into the main Sarah Palin article and to the governorship article. No need for a separate article on just the motivation for the quitting, the quitting speeches, and the reaction to the quitting. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Merge with Para Salin' or Sexy Sorceress of Evil Sarah Palin. --TitanOne (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and bung into Sarah Palin one way or another per nom and other distinguished eds above, namely Saalstin, Ray, TerriersFan, NeutralHomer, Mandsford, Mercurywoodrose, Beeblebrox, TharsHammer, TitanOne (who means delete (the separate article) and merge, no?). Writegeist (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain I abstain -68.185.89.209 (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Simon Dodd's reasoning, although Simon should have cited Wikipedia:Summary style, which calls for the use of such daughter articles to present more detail than is appropriate for the main article. JamesMLane t c 08:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has good information but inadequate as an encyclopedic entry. With very little exception, it is her reasons for resignation and not the context of the resignation. I, for one, believe that the article can be rescued; I shall offer what I can.--Dstern1 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge to Sarah Palin. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The soap opera continues. Not worthy of a separate article. Radiopathy •talk• 18:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Not really sure what there is even to say about the resignation. She resigned. Aprock (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The delete arguments make much more sense to me than the keeps. News of the resignation of a local politician whose greatest moment was losing out on being Vice-President of her nation would not receive an article in any other country in the world and what actually happened belongs in Sarah Palin. Please approach this logically in the context of what has happened. --candle•wicke 22:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think that we're heading to "no consensus", and I won't lose sleep if this is kept up for another month or two. Logically, people who want to keep up with the latest about this story will check this article. Once its no longer news, once Rush stops talking about it, the interest will fade. Will support fade for this newsy article the next time its nominated? You betcha! Mandsford (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yebbut WP:NOTNEWS. Either way, I'm all for comedy in encyclopedias. Writegeist (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the decision to be made here is not whether to delete or keep the page but whether it is more appropriate to present the information it contains in a stand alone article or as part of a parent article. This is a purely editorial decision that should not be made at AfD. Guest9999 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to the main page per WP:NOT#NEWS. This is not an individually notable subject. If it's too long to fit into the parent page, it should be trimmed down, not given a standalone article. The Reaction section, for example, is largely trivial and non-encyclopedic. — Rankiri (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Too much valid content to fit in the main article, so best to have a side article here. Dream Focus 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As an Alaskan, I think this is inherently notable and too large an issue to be merged into the Sarah Palin article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment This isn't an Alaskan edition of WP. Writegeist (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  But you can feel free to add this article there, so long as you attribute Wikipedia! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and that's a more accessible place for it than the one I had in mind. ;~) Writegeist (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, deleting much of the content as speculative and/or triva. This isn't Palinopedia, where every single step in her life gets a seperate article.
• Delete/merge per Radiopathy and shorten "material" to 3 sentences :). --Tom (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to her article and make it short. --L I C 04:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Surely one of the most unusual events of her career, and one of the most unusual moments in American gubernatorial history. Шизомби (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and summarize in main Palin article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we shouldn't be echoing a whole bunch of commentators or the most obscure, "who cares" details of Palin's speech. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not Fox News. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Sarah Palin TomCat4680 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The nomination wants a merger and so has come to the wrong place. The topic has great notability and so should not be deleted per our deletion policy, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Colonel Warden (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge per WP:ONEEVENT. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI- per the GFDL, we can't merge and delete, if we merge, we can't delete, because we have to keep the history.Umbralcorax (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge anything of use to the appropriate Sarah Palin article. Umbralcorax (talk)
• Delete Frankly, this article goes into needless detail that would be culled out of the main article if a merger occurred. The resignation of a governor is not that big of a deal, especially when the article doesn't have much of anything to say about it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is of a piece with Early political career of Sarah Palin, Electoral history of Sarah Palin, Governorship of Sarah Palin, Political positions of Sarah Palin, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would argue that most of those articles are excessive and ought to be merged into the main article where appropriate. Talk about recentism and the culture of celebrity. We do not need articles detailing every phase of Sarah Palin's life; in particular, the article on her career in city politics and the redundant article on her electoral history are unnecessary. Let's take a step back here and look at the bigger picture. Sarah Palin is not a very important figure in United States history. If she gets elected President or Vice President someday, maybe some of these articles would be appropriate. But for God's sake, she lost. And not only that, but the guy she lost to for the Vice Presidency (Joe Biden) doesn't have these types of sub-articles about him. And neither do the other 49 governors in the United States (I should say fifty, since Sean Parnell has now succeeded Palin). I encourage those of you voting "keep" to re-examine this article through a broader lens. (And don't forget WP:NOTNEWS.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, Category:Electoral history of American politicians has many articles, some going back half a century, and Category:Political positions of American politicians has many too (and both exist for Biden). Including either of these reference-y kinds of subarticles in main BLPs tends to drive up article size without illuminating the subject much. The straight biographical subarticles ("Early life of ...", "Some officeship of ...") I tend to avoid (that's why you don't see them for Biden) because of very low readership and duplicate content maintenance problems. But the Palin editors have already made the decision to go down that road. As for recentism, sure, yes. But WP is rife with recentism everywhere in every subject domain; like it or not, it comes with the territory and it ain't gonna go away. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't know Wikipedia had been around for half a century... Anyway, as I mentioned above, there was not any consensus to split this particular content off the main article in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I still feel that far too much emphasis is being placed on Sarah Palin. Just because recentism is rampant doesn't make it correct. At the very least Early political career of Sarah Palin and Resignation of Sarah Palin ought to be deleted. Let's not overinflate Sarah Palin's importance in U.S. history. That said, I respect your arguments in favor of keeping the political positions and electoral history articles. But for the others, I still point to WP:NOTNEWS. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Sarah Palin: the WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS arguments say it all. This is just a passing news event of temporary interest, but of little long-term significance, and should rightly be covered as a subsection of the Sarah Palin article rather than having this kind of in-depth coverage. We're not exactly talking Death of Michael Jackson here. Robofish (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Having seen the Early political career of Sarah Palin, I'd say that one is even worse than this one in terms of containing truly excessive amounts of detail, and think it should be brought to AFD as well. Robofish (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh, that is pretty bad, and it sets a terrible precedent. Before Palin became McCain's running mate, there weren't any in-depth articles on mayors of Wasilla, and that was not a bad thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Event is important enough to merit it's own article. A merge would delete much, if not all, pertinent information.Tlatseg (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The abundance of media coverage satisfies the notability requirements for a separate article.--Pink Bull (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Sarah Palin. Encyclopedias are supposed to summarize, not serve as a dumping ground for every detail. 96.10.153.29 (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This encyclopedia is unlike any encyclopedia you could possibly imagine. This encyclopedia has a featured article on a fictional character that appeared in a few episodes of one season of a TV series. Given that, in-depth coverage of the surprising and inscrutable resignation of a major current American political figure seems quite worthy. 04:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested Prod. Non-notable local television program. No reliable sources support notability. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. --mhking (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Borderline -- Gnews produces some hits from RS, but the coverage isn't what would strike me as substantial. Ray^Talk 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Add External Links --- This article needs external links to clips of the show's host, Jack Jersawitz being bombarded with prank phone calls as this is notable in the show's history on PeopleTV. Brainstorms -- bonkeykong —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep -- This article needs first hand references to back it up--perhaps video footage of the program? Otherwise the show seems to be noteworthy in the Atlanta community as a free speech forum and for it's notable host who is a mainstay in the local revolutionary movement. --Freezeraypenguin (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The burden is on those saying keep to provide sources; however, this has not been done in this discussion. I have searched for sources and have been unable to find anything substantial to prove this show's notability. Cunard (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. I am in pure shock. How on earth did such a trivial article get to grow on Wikipedia for so long? It's hard to pinpoint exactly what is wrong with the article, simply because nothing is right with it. I see there are a few reliable sources with non-trivial mentions of the issue, but I seriously doubt that if a few journalists wrote some articles on the Heights of Blue Peter presenters that it would be included. It's clear that we need to apply some WP:COMMONSENSE. DJ 22:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge part of it to Heightism#Heightism in politics. Definitely a notable issue that people have written about. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, if only because it does seem to come up every presidential cycle. I agree it's a silly topic, but it's one that keeps getting mentioned by lots of people. That makes it notable, trivial, and silly. Ray^Talk 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I strongly deny that this article is trivia. Firstly, it is part of the general category on lists relating to the United States presidency, which includes many aspects of the Presidents' lives, including their nicknames, pets and whether they're left-handed or right-handed. If their height is trivial, then so are these other aspects. United States Presidents occupy a significant part of US history and society, so it is reasonable to document more aspects of their lives than other people. Secondly, as this article highlights, the height of US presidential candidates is a particularly topical issue in presidential politics, as it has been suggested on a number of occasions that it plays a role in which candidate voters prefer. That this is a particularly noteworthy phenomenon is verified by seven different sources in the article. Furthermore, it fits in well with the topic of Heightism in general, which is linked at the bottom of the article and which also notes the issue of whether height plays a role in US politics. This article has been nominated twice before for deletion - on 2007-02-08 [10] and on 2008-11-27 [11] - and each time it failed. Wcp07 (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I smell WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. DJ 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible keep. This is an enormously notably aspect of every election cycle with 7 different sources and four pieces of additional reading attesting to its recurrence as a staple in American politics. Not WP:TRIVIA ("Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information.") because the information is not "miscellaneous". Meets WP:N because (1) it has had significant coverage as mentioned above in (2) reliable secondary sources, (3) independent of the subject--Loodog (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Long before there was a Wikipedia, there were political observers who believed that height provided an edge in a presidential election (i.e., that the taller candidate was more likely to win). Like the "Curse of Tecumseh" or "zero year curse", it's one of those oddities that people would turn to an encyclopedia to find out whether it was true, or at least what the origin was. Were it not for that context, then there would be nothing upon which to build an article. As such, if someone wanted to compare which candidate had the bigger waistline, or the lighter hair color, or the darker eye color, there's not a popular belief that goes with that. Mandsford (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepHeights_of_United_States_Presidents_and_presidential_candidates has been viewed 11920 times in 200907. Looks needed!93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPULARPAGE tells us that that is no reason to keep the page. DJ 07:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This is a real aspect to how the electorate views presidential candidates, that I've been reading about for decades. Completely deserving of an article. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThis is actually VERY informative and factual on an issue of widespread general interest (if not earth shattering importance). Bdrasin (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. from the 'Blue Peter' reference, I'm guessing that DJ is British and may be unaware at how frequently this topic comes up each presidential cycle.12.177.23.62 (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This is actually the third nomination for this subject and it was speedy kept last time. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I think this is of interest to people from time to time. I wanted to know Thomas Jefferson's height which led me to see this "delete" suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.225.142 (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Apprentice (UK TV series). There are two possible outcomes here: delete or redirect. Seeing as it's likely to happen in another year, this page will be a likely search target, and can be recreated once it's confirmed. (X! · talk)  · @922  ·  21:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice (UK series six) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This programme won't be airing, if at all, for another year and no infomation will come out about the programme until just before transmission. The article is based upon pure speculation and this is unlikely to change. Precedent has been that such articles are not created until a start date is announced. A simple sentence or 2 in The Apprentice (UK) will suffice until then. DJ 22:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons given in the nomination, with which I concur (aka "delete per nom"). Ray^Talk 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the parent series article, although it was announced by its television channel. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Redirect If it was announced that it would happen by the BBC then its worth keeping as an upcoming event rather than go through the whole kerfuffle of creating it all over again. The C of E (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. When a full schedule is announced and participants known that will be time enough. As a new series may breach broadcasting guidelines before a General Election, it may not happen until late in 2010. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Apprentice (UK TV series) - this will become notable, and can be resurrected next year. Bazonka (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it is happening, the BBC have annouced it's delay, which implies it has something to delay.--aliw136 21:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @923  ·  21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Godfather Of The Ghetto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not cite any source, the Tony Yayo article claims it is yet untitled, there is no confirmed release date or a track listing. To my mind, there is to less information available, so it's best to delete the article. Fails WP:NAlbum DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Write about albums after they come out, not before. Especially if there's no significant coverage in secondary sources. Ray^Talk 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons listed (and others, which are a secret). JBsupreme (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Emacs. (X! · talk)  · @923  ·  21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Emacs. Fails WP:N, as the nominator says, but it is an extension of a quite notable program. Ray^Talk 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. --Gwern (contribs) 14:31 2 August 2009 (GMT)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Open Meeting Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is not an accurate description of the state title; it appears that the writer is using this to advance his own agenda in violation of WP:POINT mhking (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Speedy A3 Article consists entirely of "chat-like comments," used to push an agenda and disrupt Wikipedia, to boot. It is probably possible to write a real article on the law, but this definitely isn't it. Ray^Talk 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No matter how neutral you write this story, it's still a non-notable act and probably falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @923  ·  21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Neologism. All of the described technologies exist but they are not referred to collectively as "Desktop Bots". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Usual searches turned up basically squat. Ray^Talk 00:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this title could possibly be a redirect to Desktop search. Nobody refers to a desktop search engine as a desktop bot. --B (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tom and Jerry. JForget 23:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-sourced; violates WP:CRYSTAL mhking (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tom and Jerry and protect. DJ 22:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and allow seperate article if/when is is actually filmed. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Michael. Though lacking WP:NFF. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm going to skip the redirect. It's clearly a case of WP:NFF and lacking reliable sources, shouldn't be in the Tom and Jerry article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tom and Jerry. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind, SummerPhD is right so yeah delete it. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources whatsoever. A redirect essentially says the film exists, we can't even prove that. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL. --Pedro thy master (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; redirecting from an unlikely search term is pointless. Consider Salting if the article is recreated without sufficient sources. Powers ^T 15:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:CORP. I and other editors have tagged this article multiple times, but Jmiles1107 (talk · contribs) keeps removing the tags without addressing the issues, so I'm bringing it to a much larger audience. You can see a review I did of the sources used in the article here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that if the article is deleted, the logo must be deleted as well, so I'm listing it here to be thorough. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, article about a non-consumer internet related business, referenced to trade papers you've never heard of, a Global Trade Management and Compliance Software Provider. The capital letters also give away that this is obvious advertising, amd the rest of the text bears this out: Integration Point develops modular trade compliance applications on a single core platform, allowing customers to start with any one of the trade management solutions and continue to add solutions as their needs grow. The integrated solutions allow customers to simultaneously address numerous compliance issues, regardless of the customer's individual internal system. ... In the current global economy there are two main concerns facing importers, exporters, and the vendors who support them. As noted in the Journal of Commerce, Tom Barnes, CEO of Integration Point, explains: "The first is managing cost. The second is remaining competitive." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The nature of the business is such that it's unlikely to get much coverage in mainstream press, but that does not remove the requirement that there be third party references to establish notability. The references provided are weak - there's a passing mention, articles by members of the company or sponsored by the company and one substantial article - which appears to be a blog. The fact that the article is written from with an obvious WP:POV raises further questions about notability. I42 (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant external coverage from notable sources, no proof of notability. Furthermore, reads suspiciously like company propaganda. LK (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: No work has been done to improve the article at this point, so I'm still thinking it should be deleted. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Insufficiently notable subject. City council member that does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO#Basic criteria or WP:BIO#Politicians. PROD contested, so comes here for deletion. — Satori Son 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Fails WP:Notability. Artemis84 (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Simply not notable Tarheel95 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nowhere near WP:POLITICIAN --Saalstin (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being on the Indianapolis city council alone is not enough to merit inclusion. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Niteshift36 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @923  ·  21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Dish (application) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

detele nn application Amocool (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete INsufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable Facebook app with only primary sources. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

José Antonio Gali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Footballer who has yet to make a professional debut, fails WP:ATHLETE Jezhotwells (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. GiantSnowman 08:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE due to him not competing at a fully professional level, fails WP:N due to a lack of substantial third-party sources available for him (searching on Google.es brings up very little). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can be made when he makes his debut. Spiderone (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Electricity on Shabbat. Once we strip away the original research its clear that there are not the sources for a substantial article and a section elsewhere would be better Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A Shabbat Clock is nothing more than a timer that's plugged into an outlet. (See these images) It just so happens that these timers are used for the purposes described in the article, and in fact may be colloquially referred to as "Shabbat Clocks," but there is no evidence that such a product exists per se. Neologism perhaps? -shirulashem^(talk) 20:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Electricity on Shabbat. I get the concept, that a timer can be set in advance of the Jewish Sabbath, since electricity is not to be turned on or off in some observations of the Sabbath. That doesn't mean the timer is unique, only that a person can set it to fit their preference. It's not much different from someone setting an alarm on one's watch to alert him to a scheduled prayer time, or to wake someone up in time to get ready to go to a worship service. I recommend merging this and Shabbat lamp to the parent article as well . Mandsford (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, but such clocks do exist: they're built into every modern electronic range, and aren't simple timers: they can only be used to switch off a range and keep it from switching on for 24 hours once a week. (Mine does this, and can't be gamed to work any other day than Friday/Saturday, unless you want to constantly change the date and mess up your daylight savings time.) I do think that information would be better placed in Electricity on Shabbat, however. --NellieBly (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NellieBly, I think you are talking about the Sabbath mode feature on some ovens. The Shabbat clock article is about timing devices that plug into an outlet and then you can plug something like a lamp into the device. See these images for what the article is discussing. -shirulashem^(talk) 11:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • My old range had a sabbath mode so I think you're right and I apologize for the confusion, but this new range I've just bought seems to have a separate little processor - you put in your location and time zone and it automatically shuts off ten minutes before Shabbat begins. It is different than the clock mentioned in the article, though, so maybe I am talking apples and oranges. (My kitchen range has a more powerful processor than my first personal computer. How strange is that?) --NellieBly (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not merge This article is long enough that it warrants a separate article. The use of Shabbat clocks under that name and phenomenon has been discussed in several books dating back several decades, even discussing whether or not the practice of their use has been allowed or not. These devices are often marketed as Shabbat clocks rather than timers. Xyz7890 (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xyz7890, do you have any reliable sources showing there is such a thing as a Shabbat clock? -shirulashem^(talk) 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any of the books in front of me right now. But I think I can recall reading about it in the book To Be a Jew, A Guide to Jewish Observance in Contemporary Life by Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin, 1972, 1991 Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-0863-2, among others. I do not remember the specific page numbers, otherwise I would provide them here. Xyz7890 (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herein lies the problem. If content on Wikipedia does not have reliable sources, the burden of proof lies on the editor who wants to keep the content to produce the sources. -shirulashem^(talk) 13:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of Google Books references to this. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty? There are only 9, and 3 of them can't even be viewed. -shirulashem^(talk) 01:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge without prejudice At this time it seem that Electricity on Shabbat in Jewish law or Time switch may be better suited to deal this this information, but it is possible that this could be expanded to warrant a full article. The fact that there is a Hebrew version of the article is a strong indication that is is notable (The hebrew wikipedia is exceptionally deletionist). Jon513 (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As pointed out by user:jclemens, the concept is notable.--Pink Bull (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Electricity on Shabbat. 96.10.153.29 (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Air Gear. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Gear media and materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This just contains two track listings, which are not generally kept or merged into anime articles, so it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Completeness requires soundtracks to be mentioned in the media section of the main article not in this too detailed form but in real proses. --KrebMarkt 13:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although they should be mentioned in prose in the main article, theres nothing against a separate discography/album list that leads out from the main article. For two releases, it's probably not worth it though, you would really need 5 or more items. The article name is certainly wrong for the information there though. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge done see Air_Gear#Anime last paragraph.
• @Dandy Sephy Here 3 experimentations on how to cover anime soundtracks/discography properly: One Piece discography | List of Aria (manga) soundtracks | List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle albums. --KrebMarkt 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Category:Anime soundtracks - obviously, we need to talk about how soundtrack/album lists should be named, and most of the stuff in there needs lots of work (and the category itself needs to be renamed as well). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - soundtracks actually are noted, but they're almost never an integral part of a franchise. Since there don't seem to be very many soundtracks for Air Gear, though, a separate list isn't needed for them. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Given that there are only two soundtrack albums, this can be easily incorporated into the main article. --Farix (Talk) 20:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the already performed merge to Air_Gear#Anime. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nominator Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested prod. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. All but 1 reference is a primary source (published by the university). RadioFan (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. There are no copyright violations nor any nonsense or gibberish, and all of the content has been attributed to reliable sources, some of which is university based, but most of which is not. I find it to be suitable for an encyclopedia article. Streltzer (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hardy Memorial Tower is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing property to the San Diego State College Historic District; see this reference. Being listed on the National Register should be more than enough for notability in Wikipedia. In addition, the preservation awards for preserving the murals should count as secondary coverage. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn we have a well referenced, notable article now. Thanks for establishing the notability of this topic. A National Register of Historic Places listed building is certainly notable.--RadioFan (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job to Elkman for discovering the National Register reference, and for RadioFan keeping us all legitimate. :-) Streltzer (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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