< June 19	June 21 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 don't find even a rough consensus for keeping, or deleting the article. I have assigned little weight to the IP comment regarding sourcing, since no actual examples were provided, however, the follow on arguments of the same "no applicable citation" that were from account holders got equal weight. If I gave comment equal weight, the result would be the same here, still no consensus for deletion. My best recommendation here would be to wait awhile before relisting this debate, and in the mean time, discuss notability and sourcing issue on the talk page. I see some argument for a possible merge, that can also be discussed on talk. There is no consensus to merge here either. I'm not an administrator, I was one in the past however. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Davis for Freedom campaign[edit]

I'm not sure this subject is notable enough to have a page in its own right and it's in danger of being one-sided. Does anyone think six months after the by-election this article will still be not worthy? I subject merging to Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Philip Stevens (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger which is not deletion and so AFD is not the correct process. Other aspects of the nomination are obviously flawed too since the article has copious citations of sources such as the BBC which demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably speedily. Whilst it might have been possible to merge this with the by-election article, I think it probably does have sufficient independent notability (based on third-party refs) to justify a separate article. DWaterson (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The article is an appropriate fork of content that would otherwise unbalance David Davis (British politician), Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008, plus a few other related pages. Being 'in danger' of bias, or not being notable in the future, are invalid reasons for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Re-voted on relisting. MickMacNee (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has a context of its own within the history of this unusual by-election doktorb _words^deeds 12:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not one of the cited references mentions the David Davis for Freedom Campaign. This page should be a subsection on the David Davis page or the by-election page. At most.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.240.54 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's 9th edit (4 of them about this page) MickMacNee (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a remarkable episode in British political history which has garnered huge coverage. Of course the campaign is notable. Nick mallory (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue of it being notable in 6 months is not really relevant to this discussion. The question should be "is it notable now?" Problems with notability in the future should be resolved as they appear. The one-sided argument issue is a little more concerning though as there is a strong likelihood that this article may become a soap box if editors are not careful. If this discussion resolves to keep the article then Philip Stevens may wish to start a merge discussion on the article talk page in line with WP:MERGE. Road Wizard (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "David Davis for Freedom" is the name of his website, but not of a notable campaign. As the anon above says, the phrase doesn't seem to appear in the cited refs (the sample I checked, anyway). Much of the content could probably be included in David Davis (British politician), but not in the by-election page where he is just one of the candidates, albeit the one who generated the election. PamD (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can renamed if people seriously have a problem that the actual campaign name is not being fully referred to in the news. It can't be denied that a campaign exists, the sources aren't referring to any other actual campaign as far as I know. As for merging, I spun it out of David Davis, because as per the manual of style, the content is now big enough on it's own to warrant a split. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This discussion was reopened per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 3. Please allow discussion to run for normal 5 day period. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep based on the fact a subsequent merge discussion here has died out without any consensus to merge, let alone delete on the grounds given in this Afd nomination. I personally don't know why this was reopened rather than relisted, as the reasons given for listing at Drv were different from this arguably speedily closeable Afd nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As there was no consensus for the merge and the deletion discussion was reopened after an early closure I don't think "speedy" is really an option here. Let it run for its 5 days and see what happens. Road Wizard (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't you think it is rather stupid to relist an Afd that questions notability, and suggests mergeing, after a merge suggestion fails? As far as I know, listing for Afd is not standard procedure after a failed merge, but I think you know this already. Like I said, the Drv nominator, and some of the voters here after relisting, are voting delete for different reasons than given in this Afd's nomination, hence it should have been re-nominated under those arguments. This Afd nomination is speedily closeable due to the invalid nomination and subsequent failed merge. MickMacNee (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I think and what others think is not important. What matters is that a consensus was formed at review to reopen this discussion. Closing the discussion early again will not help resolve this situation as the issues need to be aired and a conclusion found. In reference to your point about the phrasing of the nomination, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, with particular attention to the section on discussion. Collecting varied viewpoints in a deletion discussion is not only allowed, but actively encouraged. Commentators in deletion discussions often find different reasons to keep or delete an article beyond the case put forward by the nominator. Road Wizard (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the merge is looking doubtful simply because the sheer number of candidates has made the article, making a subarticle for an individual candidate look reasonable the same way Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 is a reasonable subarticle of United States presidential election, 2008. However, that analogy suggests a rename to something more neutral such as: David Davis by-election campaign, 2008 is in order. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Caerwine. Road Wizard (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am withdrawing support for the rename proposal. The current arguments seem to be resolving to 3 main categories, keep, delete or merge. I see no need to confuse consensus with a 4th option that has gained little support. Road Wizard (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Davis precipitated a parliamentary by-election by resigning, and this is his campaign platform. There is no evidence that it is anything but an election manifesto. Davis is merely using the campaign to turn the election into a pseudo-referendum, and that to me suggests that the article should be merged to his personal article, with some mention in the Haltemprice by-election article, whilst being in keeping with WP:UNDUE. I would lean towards delete, as WP is not a soapbox, nor is it the news. Coverage of a newsworthy event (the by-election) does not make the campaign particularly notable. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - enough notability - if you want to merge the article, please do not take it to AfD. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge): covered by articles about David Davis, the by-election and the bill. Not separately notable. --Rumping (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -Merge with Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Wikipedia is not a soapbox 92.8.227.191 (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's 2nd edit MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a Poli-Blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.236.108 (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's 5th edit (3 of them about this topic) MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep I would disagree with merge because this is the central point, if you like, of one of the biggest political events the country has seen for years. It will probably be the biggest until next election (although nothing is ever certain). There has been a vast amount of coverage nationwide and I will certainly remember this for years to come. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'One of the biggest political events the country has seen for years'? I have to disagree with that assessment. In the past year alone, political events that have received more attention than David Davis' campaign include the nationalisation of Northern Rock, the London mayoral election, 2008 and the previous by-election in Crewe and Nantwich. 'It will probably be the biggest until the next election' is an argument based on attempting to predict the future, which Wikipedia doesn't do, and 'I will remember this for years to come' is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. While I appreciate how much many people care about this subject, I just don't think it has proven to have long-term notability. Terraxos (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'One of the biggest political events the country has seen for years' because it rebels in the face of the governmet. There has been much attention given to the lack of support the government has these days, and this is the main demonstration of that, if you like. 'I will remember this for years to come' is a direct response to people suggesting we will have forgotten about it in six months. That isn't a valid reason to delete, but \i don't see you picking them out for it, only taking my response to them out of context. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least move to how to pointlessly waste public money and ruin your political career. I am not a dog (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Just a month later, the publicity over this event has already died down - ~~the by-election itself received very little coverage from the mainstream media, as the result was never in doubt.~~ It's clear now that David Davis' resignation, while surprising and interesting at the time, has had little to no lasting impact. As it is, this article is basically just a political campaign ad by one individual (a bit like all the Ron Paul articles that were created last year) and should be merged into the article on the event which it is really about, Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Terraxos (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood the notability guideline. If something was notable at a specific point in time (and that cannot even be argued otherwise given the amount of sources), then it remains notable for all time. We do not subsequently merge/delete articles purely because time has passed and the event is percieved to have faded from the spotlight. As an aside, I don't realy know what you define 'little coverage', as the result was on every single mainstream TV and radio news bulletin I saw yesterday. A merge with the by-election would be a violation of giving undue weight and given the size of this article, would be counter to the manual of style. But the case for a merge has already died out as a no consensus, something which seems to have been overlooked in the reopening of this Afd. Nothing has changed since that very recent debate, so it realy is a moot point. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few responses: firstly, I'm not convinced that the merge proposal really received enough attention to represent a fair judgement on the article, though that is obviously open to debate. In any case, consensus can change and a 'delete' or 'merge' conclusion to this discussion would supersede the earlier 'no consensus' conclusion in the merge discussion.

Secondly, on the 'notability is not temporary' issue - I take that differently to you do. As I understand it, it means that 'notability' means lasting importance, not brief interest, and an event that only receives attention from the media for a brief period before they move in is not in fact 'notable'. (From Wikipedia:Notability: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.") In this case, this article would fail.

Finally, while I take back what I said above about this receiving little coverage, I don't think that's an argument to keep this article - the press coverage, as far as I can tell, was focused on the fact that there was a byelection and Davis' performance in it, as much as his personal campaign. The fact that there was plenty of media coverage when Davis first resigned, and when the results of the election were announced, but not so much in between, proves my point that it was the by-election that was really the notable topic here. If there had been no resignation and by-election, Davis' 'Freedom Campaign' would have received much less attention, and this article would probably not even exist; therefore, the latter should be considered a subtopic of the former rather than an event in its own right. Terraxos (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite saying 'finally' above, here's one more comment - I don't feel merging this content in with the main by-election article would constitute undue weight, as Davis' resignation and campaign on civil liberties is clearly the most important and significant aspect of this by-election, therefore deserves more weight than any of the other candidates (and the BBC, amongst others, covered it as such). There is precedent in having an article about a by-election which focuses heavily on one particular campaign: see Bermondsey by-election, 1983, which I believe is perfectly in keeping with the length and weight guidelines. Terraxos (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The merge propsal was initiated very recently, any moves to reopen/revisit based on consensus can change are clearly grounded in the fleeting interest basis, which as I said is irrelevant under the notability guideline. The merge proposal was on the talk page of a highly trafficked article, and still garnered no consensus. On notability, I think we just have a different interpretation of the bar of notability. This campaign is miles above being classed as a simple news blip not to be of note in its own right, this is seriously not even in doubt to me from my knowledge of wikipedia. And as I recently added, the campaign is not closed or finished going by Davis' statements. It arguably even pre-dated the by-election given the issues being debated. As for the bermondsey article, I would suggest that you may indeed be lacking in understanding of the manual of style, that article is frankly terrible. It has no lead section, and some very badly named, structured and worded sections. It took three scans of the article to figure out the story. Yes, it is about a single issue, but that issue is related to the by-election only. I realy can't even see under what title you would spin out the information that gives undue weight (presumably tatchel's leftist stance and homophobia against him). The article is biased towards Tatchel (you only find out Hughes actually won by looking at the Results table), but again you would still not justifiably double the length of tatchel's bio article to cover it that way either (although without looking, I would guess tatchel's article is much longer than Davis' bio). MickMacNee (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS the lack of coverage of the campaign inbetween the resignation and voting phases is down to in my opinon the lack of any labour candidate, or an obvious credible anti-Davis candidate, leading to the lack of any reportable 'debates'. However, the campaign was discussed for nearly half of an edition of BBC's Question Time during this time. MickMacNee (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of this belongs on the by-election page, or nowhere. — ciphergoth 06:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge relevant info into David Davis' article and/or the by-election article. --RFBailey (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename' - In any event the title of the article could do with renaming. 2008 David Davis civil liberties campaign? Francium12 (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources- [1] [2] -- 86.29.252.163 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing us with some of the sources, but do you wish to add a comment to go with them? Are you in favour of keep, delete, merge, or rename (or a fifth option not discussed yet)? As these seem to be similar sources to the ones referred to by MickMacNee and Terraxos above I don't see what new information they add to this discussion. Road Wizard (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remame it 'The 2008 David Davis psudo-civil liberties campaign?

--86.29.243.15 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's 2nd edit Road Wizard (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable campaign against left-wing campaign against civil liberties. --89.24.4.82 (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's 6th edit Road Wizard (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may be a little early to judge, but the website has not received an update since a press release about Davis's acceptance speech was uploaded on 11th July. There are no future events listed in the website's calendar and associated websites like twitter have seen even fewer updates. It looks increasingly likely that the campaign website and other materials related only to the by-election campaign. It is possible that something more may come from the campaign in the future, but the burden of proof lies on those claiming this is more than just a by-election campaign. Road Wizard (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not employ original research to conclude the status of the campaign. Davis' official statement made clear the campaign will continue. Notability does not change with time, please do not try to disrupively chnage the nature of content with false pretenses. MickMacNee (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but how does WP:OR apply to my comment? I have not presented unsourced information for inclusion in the article so I can't see the relevance of your point. I have presented a comment that the campaign websites appear inactive since the end of the by-election campaign as was suggested would happen by several editors after the article was created. I have also included a qualification at the start of the comment that "It may be a little early to judge..." I am sure other editors are mature enough to take the evidence I have presented in conjunction with the qualification to make their own minds up about the situation.

I would also like a full explanation about how I am being disruptive. Can you please provide links to the policies or guidelines that I have violated as I surely cannot see them. If I have not breached any policies then I would suggest that you reread WP:AGF and consider your comments carefully before you click the "Save page" button. Road Wizard (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. If you didn't understand the first time, please provide sources that the campaign is over, per your ORIGINAL RESEARCH that the campaign is over. I hope this is substantial explanation of the concept. I will withdraw the accusation of disruption if needed. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread my comment. I have not stated anywhere that the campaign is over and in fact have made two explicit qualifications of my statement that it might not be over per "It may be a little early to judge..." and "It is possible that something more may come from the campaign in the future". What I have stated is that there has been no activity on the campaign website or associated websites since the day after the bi-election campaign. This is not original research. You can check the campaign website for yourself to see that what I have said is correct.

A clearer picture would be provided if we were discussing this a few months after the end of the by-election as then the activity or inactivity of the website would provide its own argument. However, as this deletion discussion may be closed at any moment the only option available is to present the facts as they stand at this moment in time. The website and supporting materials have not been updated since the day after the bi-election (this is a fact and not OR as can be verified by visiting the campaign website).

I know that you are eager to retain the article you created, but please do not misstate other people's comments. Road Wizard (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Wal-Mart brands. Not notable alone. Malinaccier (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ozark Trail (brand name)[edit]

Non-notable private-label brand. Possible merge with List of Wal-Mart brands. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wal-Mart brands. An entry already exists at the redirect target, and the current article information is not sourced. -- Whpq (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, and WP:BEFORE - Neier (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
R# to List of Wal-mart brands. This page is actually to stubby.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 03:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Wal-Mart brands; having an article for Ozark Trail is kind of silly. Mentioning it at List of Wal-Mart brands, however, is not silly. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that some other organizational structure may be preferable in the future, but no to deletion at this time.--Kubigula (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

809 in poetry[edit]

Only one death...and that's it. The template is 92% of the content of the page. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all "years in poetry", not sure any year in poetry is notable. --neon white talk 22:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Any year is notable if notable things happened in it. Its a useful way of organizing material. that said, for stretches of years where the events are far between in a given field, a larger degree of aggregation would be a reasonable editorial decision. DGG (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ina greement with DGG, and note that wikipedia's coverage of literature from that era is likely to be very incomplete, so there may be possibilities for additional information -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, doesn't really do any harm, if we're going to have any "year in poetry" articles there's no reason not to have this one; and if we're not going to have any - well, that's a discussion for another place. --Stormie (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all we have to do is expand it.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 03:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as improved.--Kubigula (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Wales Public School (Barrie)[edit]

Non-notable school that fails to cite sources. Delete GreenJoe 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is better now. I added references about the schools no-homework policy and about a student's death from a heart attack at this school which did not then have a defibrillator. --Eastmain (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Simcoe County District School Board, and this could have been done without an AfD. Some WP:RS coverage relevant to the district and the community found. Not enough for an article but important enough for the school district article. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: I'm still inclined to merge, but if the other editors are convinced this school is notable, I'll go along. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this school has 132 years of history that can be researched and incorporated into the article. The homework-free situation can be expanded - there was a significant issue over whether homework disadvantaged less privileged homes. The question of closure brought forth a community petition here, and there are other topics and sources that can be added. Whilst most elementary schools are not notable, this one looks as though it is. TerriersFan (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as work done to this article since nomination has shown school to be notable.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, this article has fairly enough source, add it to a bigger article may be suffice.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 03:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Not notable without sources, and as it is WP:NOTDICDEF. Malinaccier (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Merchant[edit]

Other than a very brief mention in "Scientology Fiction" in The Washington Post, could not find significant discussion of this article's topic in secondary WP:V/WP:RS sources. Also, WP:NOTDICDEF. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. It's an interesting topic, and I actually rather like the idea of researching those who profit from chaos. But it's not encyclopedic. --Good Damon 23:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's topic is just some term used by L. Ron Hubbard. That's not enough to make it notable. The Washington Post article doesn't make it notable. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 00:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment: send it over to Wiktionary. Not enough to information to warrant an encyclopedia article.~~ DigitalC (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC) [changed my mind] - If reliable source is found that says it is the same as an SP, then Merge and redirect. DigitalC (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Suppressive Person. Scientology's own dictionaries say the two are identical, this term apparently being older. WillOakland (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another obscure Hubbardism that L. Ron used to label people who he did not like. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guns N' Roses' unreleased songs[edit]

A non-notable, unsourced, listing of bootlegs. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The bulk of this is better covered at Chinese Democracy, the rest is non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street wear[edit]

Non-notable marketing term, likely created to promote a magazine by the same name. Despite several requests on the talk page, no references have been provided to show that this is a notable topic on its own. Almost all edits have been done by anonymous IP's with little or no edits outside of this page, suggesting a possible conflict of interest. As discussions on the talk page have stalled, I present this to the community for discussion. BradV 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out: http://www.amazon.com/Streetwear-Insiders-Guide-Steven-Vogel/dp/0811860361 Streetwear is NOT the same as HipHop fashion Also check out trade exhibitions such as http://www.breadandbutter.com and http://www.margin.tv to get a grip on what streetwear's about. These are streetwear exhibitions where hiphop fashion plays a very small part. Urban hiphop fashion may dominate streetwear in the USA but this is not the case across the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.166.167 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Likely", "Possible" are weak points against already presented NUMEROUS REFERENCES for Notability of the article on the article and talk pages. The STREETWEAR is the term used to define very particular style of clothing made by dozens of independent and big name brands. The discussion on the talk page has been stalled because Proposer of AFD has coped out from the discussion. Community should reject The Proposer's Personal POV on the issue as inept understanding of the subject.Imprevu (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per wp:nn The article does not have multiple reliable sources, it has links to PR snippets. This subject, if notable, would be covered by independent news outlets. As it is the article seems to be helping clothing manufactures to define a market segment and attract attention to product lines. The supposed popularity of this subject does not make it notable and clearly the links provided are more about getting early adopters to act than about neutral coverage of a topic. The "NUMEROUS REFERENCES for Notability " Imprevu mentioned are not links to reliable sites but to industry trade magazines and amazon.com. Faradayplank (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean trade magazines? "Mass Appeal" is sold at newsstands (trade magazine?)... It covers variety of subjects, including "Streetwear". Industry doesn't define a market segment, but cater to existing market grown upon need of a particular lifestyle (and noticeable) of population segment... Why don't you ask skateboarders, fixed-gear bikers etc. what style of clothing they wear... Streetwear... Amazon.com link provides info about book covering that subject... Haven't you noticed that? And now... let me prove that Im not an elephant...Imprevu (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "not an elephant"? With regards to trade magazines ( see trade journal ), the magazine ref you provided isn't one (my mistake). Still to meet wp:n the references provided are not sufficient. Please, since you seem to care, go find more reliable third party links to provide the basis for notability. If this is so obviously a notable subject, as you contend, it shouldn't be hard to find them. In fact with 1,600,000 ghits and 660,000 ghits you shouldn't have a problem getting 3 more. like this one from 1994 and this which I would add to the article if I knew they were relevant but I'll leave that to you. It's all part of making Wikipedia a great encyclopedia. Best of luck :) Faradayplank (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have found more than 2 millions hits on Google(!) Isn't that constitute a Notability? Mass Appeal Magazine, Complex Magazine, Vapors Magazine, Faders Magazine, Vice Magazine, UBR Magazine.... Search for "Streetwear" on their sites - you'll see a lot of articles... I rest my case...Imprevu (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they do not constitute notability. See WP:GHITS. They only show the potential for improving the article through reliable third party references Faradayplank (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good... Half a dozen of non-trade third party magazine-references have been established wp:n. Read them, enjoy it... Anything else I can do for your thirst for Streetwear knowledge?Imprevu (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable topic, adequately sourced. DGG (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article could use some cleanup, but the topic itself is notable. For example, the Toronto Star has an article on hockey star Alexander Ovechkin's new line of street wear. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Robbins[edit]

Article does not fulfill the requirements for a musician/ensemble. He is signed to a major label, but has (as of yet) no releases on that label. Ironho lds 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not confirmed. The article would be best relisted once Mr. Robbins' release is ready. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball on this person's future artistic success. Artene50 (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Robbins is an artist signed by Universal Motown and in fact exists on the Universal Motown page in wikipedia. So i would strongly press that he is notable.

universal motown page on wikipedia itself puts him under "Notable artists under the Universal Motown/Universal Republic Group".

This is from the WP:MUSIC guidelines: "Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network.". I suggest you follow this link [radio.disney.go.com/artists/incubator/jimmyrobbins/bio.html]. Somewhere in the "J's" are "Jimmy Robbins of Too Sorry for Apologies- Step One. Obviously notable enough for Radio Disney

iTunes also has him on there, another media source

Jimmy almost has 5 million plays and he has 79,000 friends on myspace. He actually has two songs on radio disney, 'Step One' is just the more popular one. He has a Street Team page, and many fansites dedicated to him. He has also gone on tour with noteable artists like The Scene Aesthetic and he is working with the very famous producer Bryan Todd

here are two more articles that we found on jimmy robbins [3] [4]

Alternative Press Magazine featured Jimmy in it as well, back when he was still TSFA. Isn't a spot in a major music magazine considered "notable" ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabszx (talk • contribs) 09:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:NOTINHERITED. _→AzaToth 16:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what being inherited has to do with Jimmy Robbins. His popularity was not inherited; his previous band name was Too Sorry For Apologies. His name simply changed. It wasn't a previous project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.139.133 (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The songs have to be on rotation, not on a request list as the Radio Disney songs are. Myspace popularity is not considered a notability requirement or even source, and yes, he has an iTunes artist selection, but considering his record label signed a deal with iTunes to make every song in their catalogue available that isn't really suprising. Lastly, as I explained on the talk page, being signed to a major record label does not make an artist notable; two or more releases on said label is required. Ironho lds 11:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The artist has had music in rotation at Radio Disney. Currently his music has not charted but according to Mediabase and BDS he is getting 4 spins a week. Furthermore, his Radio Disney interview was broadcast throughout the RD network in July of 2007 as part of their incubator program. His website feature was added to supplement his radio feature. Additionally, you mention that the artist needs two or more releases on said label to be considered notable. Would you like me to list the plethora of artists on Wikipedia that are currently supporting only one release? --Adamlarue (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, add away. You'll find those that have will have fulfilled the notability criteria in other ways. Ironho lds 22:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was one of the youngest performers on warped tour when he was with Ashwin. And as said before he was featured in AP magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabszx (talk • contribs) 10:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Ananny[edit]

The article has been the subject of COI concerns for some time. I've looked for multiple references to satisfy the general requirements of WP:BIO, but can't find anything non-trivial. The artist's website [5] lists private and corporate collections, but none that can be verified, and no museum collections that might satisfy the specific requirements of WP:BIO#Creative professionals. Artfacts.net, usually a reliable and comprehensive source, only lists dealers [6]. Ananny is a working artist, but fails to meet the notability requirements for inclusion in the encylopedia. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. freshacconcispeaktome 03:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Teapotgeorge (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above... please see talk page of article re: Terry Ananny Canadian UNICEF Artist which states that Terry Ananny is a Canadian artist with notable collections such as Ottawa Senators Hockey Club, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., Ottawa General Hospital - Riverside Campus, CTV Television Corporation, Global Television, Canada House (Canadian Embassy in Brussels, Belgium) and Canadian Medical Association. Her work has illustrated the cover of Canadian Health Services Research Foundation 2000 Annual Report Cover [7] Her work has been selected by UNICEF [8] for greeting cards in the years 1998, 2001, 2002, 2004 (three cards), 2006, 2007, 2008 and just recently selected for UNICEF's Christmas in Canada 2009 greeting card collection. Her work has appeared on Canada Save the Children cards in 1999, Children's Wish Foundation cards [9] work selected 2006, 2007 and 2008, Mount Sinai Hospital card [10] work selected 2007 and Canadian Greetings card [11] work selected 2006, 2007 and 2008. Her work was chosen by the Quebec Ministry of Education for their 2008 video "Art Speaks", which was distributed throughout the English school board in Quebec. Cornerstone 52 Foundation - Cards Helping Kids[12] [13] has selected Ananny's work to appear on greeting cards in 2006 and 2007. Large corporations have also selected Ananny's work to appear on corporate greeting cards; Amway 2004, Reynolds Mirth Richards and Farmers 2005, Blake, Cassels and Graydon 2007. Her work has appeared on the CD cover "Chantons Noel" 2005 (CPM Distribution). Her work has been collected by Jean Charest, Quebec Liberal Party Residence, Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Terry Ananny is listed in the following government libraries: Artists in Canada - National Gallery of Canada[14] Art Gallery of Ontario[15] Musee d'art Contemporain de Montreal [16]. Ananny has also attained notability through having over one thousand paintings in corporate and private collections world wide... User:Jane Rushmore June 23, 2008
Keep Article lists several exhibitions, which is one of the criteria defined in WP:CREATIVE Livitup (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says "significant exhibitions", which none of these seem to be. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above...Jane Rushmore (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Ananny's works were shown at the International ArtExpo in New York, N.Y. in 2003. Ananny has continuously shown her work in prestigious commercial art galleries in Canada and the U.S. from 1993 to present day Exhibitions. Ananny exhbited her work at Canada House Gallery in Banff, AB from 2004 - 2008 the same gallery that Norval Morrisseau one of Canada's most renowned painters exhibted at in 2000 and 2001. In 1999, Ananny had a solo exhibition at the Ottawa Corel Centre - Air Canada Club, home to the Ottawa Senators NHL Hockey Team. This exhibition presented over 30 original works and large six foot hockey sculptures Magazin'Art.[reply]
Keep- reliable sources are cited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by I live on Planet Art (talk • contribs) 00:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only non-trivial source is the Magazin'Art article from the artist's website. WP:CREATIVE asks for "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". The other sources support the existence of a working artist/greetings card designer, but not notability.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are infact several non-trivial sources cited; the artist's works were chosen to illustrate the annual report cover of Canadian Health Services Research Foundation 2000 Annual Report Cover[17]; it is interesing to note that Canadian Health Services Research Foundation found Ananny's work notable enough to be selected for this important presentation. Ananny's works have been selected in 2008 by the Quebec Ministry of Education to appear in the copyright video "Art Speaks" which was distributed throughout the Quebec English school board. The nature of Wikipedia would suggest that this "encyclopedia" is privy to an inexhaustible sourcing of information to prove notability, when infact it is not. Wikipedia is only able to prove "sources" when they are hyperlinked in an already existing internet article. Wikipedian's will never be able to "prove" copyrighted reliable sources exist for this reason. Ananny's works grace the walls of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Ottawa. Again, it is intersting to note that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. considered Ananny's work to be noteable enough to purchase her works. How is this notable "reality" to be proved? Can this reality be hyperlinked to an existing article in Wikipedia? I think not and never will be. The wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that it does not have to rely on dusty periodicals which present "historical facts" centuries later. Wikipedia can be more than that, it can report facts like the newspaper - in real time! Perhaps Wikipedian's need to address the way they are limiting their viewers exposure to the "real" world.Jane Rushmore (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but with a serious edit down of the long lists of exhibitions, collections etc. The objection of some editors appears based on snobbery because Terry Ananny is a commercial illustrator / artists who produces rather twee pictures. As her work IS widely published there is no good reason to exclude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.170.197 (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media-net-works[edit]

I'd be wary here. There might be POV issues due to the fact that the original creator works for one of the partners in the project. Three paragraphs look like they were heavily reworded straight from the media-net-works.de website - and have NO wikilinks in them. TRKtv (da aaa ah!) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM User Marcus Stefan who created this article has all his edits on this subject here which suggests he was spamming Wikipedia. He even freely gives out his E-mail address on the article's talkpage Artene50 (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. Livitup (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stephen Arnold Music, Nakon 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Arnold[edit]

Biography, no independent sources, written like an ad, questionable notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite: It looks like copyvio now, but rather notable TV stations in the US use Stephen Arnold theme music. And yes, I'm back. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Stephen Arnold Music already exists, and the additional biographical information in Stephen Arnold is totally unsourced. Delete if not rewritten completely. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to Rewrite

RE: Sources – The article is sourced to multiple trade articles (Mulitchannel News, Post and SCREEN Magazine) written about Mr. Arnold, supporting the info about what he does for a living AND at the same time, what makes him notable. What else in the article do you need sourced?
RE: Birth date/age/nationality – How is this really relevant? This info would not make the page any more interesting. He’s just a middle-aged Caucasian male and it does state that he is from Indiana in the copy.
RE: Written like an advert – Its not. There is nothing in there that is an opinion nor that sways your opinion. It’s pretty cut and dry. Look at other pages and compare. I see MANY bio pages with no sources and that are poorly written. Just because it was written by a professional, and not someone off the street, the language should not be dumbed down.
RE: Stephen Arnold Music does exist as a page. However this is the company of Stephen Arnold and not about the man himself e.g., Donald Trump Organization is different to Donald Trump the man (and yes, both these seperate pages exist).No need to delete. Regards, Timesrunningout (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources - most of the citations are about the company, not the person. Besides, the online sources have the character of press releases or "business listings" (not independent, critical reporting), for example none of them seems to mention competitors, and all the information seems to come from the company itself, so they fail Wikipedia:COMPANY#Primary_criterion. And you have cited online sources in a misleading way (the source doesn't say that Arnold has a well-established reputation for delivering the successful sounds that ... "stick in a viewer's brain like chewing gum", it merely quotes Mr. Arnold saying that they try to create such sounds). Which makes one wonder if the offline sources are quoted accurately.
RE: Birth date/age/nationality - the exact birth date might not be essential, but an article about a person which doesn't even indicate from what part of the world he comes from and from what generation (is he 25 or 85?) is lacking fundamental information. In contrast, the humorous personal trivia in the (completely unsourced) "Personal Life" section are not relevant to the reader of an encyclopedia. This again raises the question why there should be a separate article besides Stephen Arnold Music.
advert - as Mr. Arnold's publicist[18], you are quite obviously more familiar with the writing style of marketing texts than with the neutral, factual tone expected in an encyclopedia. To just quote one example from your text:

Dedicated to providing the highest quality music productions, easy and efficient access to syndicated production music libraries and superior customer service, Arnold has a well-established reputation for delivering the successful sounds that make a difference

This is full of what is called peacock terms in Wikipedia. "successful" does mean what precisely? "Dedicated" is a typical advertising term (what does it really mean? that the goal of providing the product is more important to the company than making money?). "Superior" is an opinion that competitors might not agree with, so it violates WP:NPOV. Writing for and about your employer, you should really have read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Look at other pages and compare - Wikipedia is always a work in progress and there are certainly other articles which have quality issues and should be deleted. You are welcome to help out by pointing out some of them. But this is not a valid argument to justify violations of Wikipedia policies, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I am allowed to do this, so revert if I am not, but I think this needs to be relisted for more discussion since only 2 have commented.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Finalnight (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stephen Arnold Music. What the company does is certainly notable, and its article could usefully be expanded (though preferably not by its own PR); but Mr Arnold's notability is what his company does, and this article has major problems:

conflict of interest - the author is Mr Arnold's publicist;
promotional tone and peacock terms: "Dedicated to providing quality... easy and efficient access... superior customer service... well-established reputation for delivering the successful sounds that make a difference" - none of those words backed up by the reference cited for them;
The sources quoted are mostly about the company and what it does, not for the personal part of the article, which as HaeB notes is oddly incomplete and trivia-like.

In short, I agree 100% with HaeB's remarks above, but I think the solution is to redirect to the company article, so that anyone searching the name will find that. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treadmill doctor[edit]

This article has been speedied once, but I'll bring it here for discussion. Article is mostly advertising, and sources lead to a business directory listing and a self-nominated award. TN‑X-Man 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Blatant advertising. No bonus points for the nifty formatting. This is the first time I've seen the phone book cited as a reliable source. Townlake (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Pure spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Spam. Livitup (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Knowles (footballer)[edit]

Was originally a prod, which was contested. Non-notabler footballer - hasn't payed in a fully professional league and so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, only played as far to the Conference National with Farsley Celtic. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom --Jimbo^[online] 22:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prod remover claims he has played for Blackburn, but Soccerbase begs to differ. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN player; also article creator appears to be associated with a group of several users who have been blocked. Not vandalism, but definitely not encyclopaedic. DWaterson (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PROD was apparently contested, but no rationale has been given as to why this article deserves to be in an encyclopedia. Article originally stated that this player had played at Premier League level, but as stated by Number 57 there is evidence against this; it also seems highly unlikely. The burden of evidence lies with the article creator to prove that this player is notable; they have so far been unable (or unwilling) to do so. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 15:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 18:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 11:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 21:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100 Players Who Shook The Kop[edit]

This is a list created by a poll, and therefore not an objective list of statistics. That makes this the intellectual property of the football club, and therefore a copyright violation. I discussed this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and was pointed to [19], which specifically discusses such content, and which says any list whose selection is based primarily on editorial opinion (rather than say statistics or geography) is considered to have that minimal spark of creativity necessary for copyright Corvus cornix_talk 21:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - may be worth a mention on the individual player articles. -- T-rex 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete as copyvio. The compiled list is copyrighted. The name "100 Players Who Shook The Kop" probably is a trademark of liverpoolfc.tv. As for the notability of the topic, there are about six news articles discussing the list10/11/2007. Most of them discuss the list in the context of a specific player (e.g., Alan Kennedy was at 31 in the '100 Players Who Shook The Kop' last year, David Fairclough was voted 18th on the 2006 poll of 100 Players Who Shook The Kop conducted by the official website, and in a poll to find '100 players Who Shook The Kop', Neil Mellor's name appears alongside Kevin Keegan, Ian Rush, Emlyn Hughes and Alan Hansen.) That's probably how the list should be used in Wikipedia as well - in the individual player's article. -- Bebestbe (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:OR and copyright violation Artene50 (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a lovely chart, but it is clearly subjective and a property theft. As noted by Bebestbe, the list is best used in the same way we'd use any decent source to inform individual articles, rather than merely copy. SilkTork *^YES! 14:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We already have List of Liverpool F.C. players performing this task in an objective way. – Pee Jay 11:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Dancarney (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I was close to calling this one no consensus, but in spite of some arguments that the delete !votes were unfounded in policy, the same holds true for many of the arguments for keeping, which seem to be based on claims that it is useful or citing the WP:ITSCRUFT essay. In the end there were no answers to the concerns that this list did not pass key guidelines and policies such as WP:V and WP:LIST. As there are no major objections to userfication of the material, I will make it available upon request. Shereth 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Alumni of Real Universities[edit]

Non-notable list-cruft. ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Rejectwater (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see more reasoned argument for deletion than "Non-notable list-cruft". This list will compile information that users would otherwise have to dredge through multiple articles for. The fact that there is only one entry in the table now points to the article's stub status, not any lack of notability. Currently only a couple of the university pages have listings of fictional alumni. Those alumni can be rolled into this article and it can be expanded to contain information that is not currently available elsewhere on Wikipedia, providing an article with worthwhile and convenient information for the reader.

I think that this is a case of:

Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy 
spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to 
human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain 
why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.

and I hope that I have successfully rebutted the claim that this article is not related to human knowledge. --John (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of like this list. I can think of a lot of fictional characters which should be added, if I had the time. Didn't Inspector Morse go to Oxford? (Can we include Jimmy Carter and Robert Redford as fictional alumni too? Oh dear, my bad.) Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - no content --T-rex 22:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not "no content"... stub content. Just because one user does not have access to all information needed (or time needed) to write the article does not mean that the article does not have merit. That is why we have the "stub" designation so that we can get others to help flesh out the article. I'm not sure why some people seem to be ready to throw out an article without even thinking about it. There is *lots* of content out there for this article. The content is about notable characters and notable schools and notable authors and notable sources. Anyone interested in finding this information now has a bear of a time doing so, if they even can. That means this article needs to be *written*, not deleted. Unless someone has something more convincing that a two or four word unsubstantiated conclusion, perhaps it would be best if they gave their response more thought before posting it. --John (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the time I made that comment the article had only one eighth of the very minimal content it currently has. Still the topic is not notable, and even after being nominated for deletion, nobody has made a serious attempt at giving the article a reasonable start. Despite the above (unsigned) comment this is still also "Non-notable list-cruft" and as such should be deleted.--T-rex 04:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At present, this list is biased to the USA. My concern is that if it is given a global viewpoint, it will be very long. For example, some research on all the links in University of Oxford in popular culture, would add hundreds of people to this list. University of Cambridge#Cambridge University in literature and popular culture would add a whole lot more. That is just two universities. I am yet to be convinced that this list is a sensible project, so delete for now. --Bduke (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may have a point. This list may be such a solid topic that it may have to have some lists broken out because they are too large for the main article... just like most of the other healthy list articles that are currently in Wikipedia. Why that makes it worthy of a "delete for now" is not clear. --John (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - this strikes me as synthesis that strays into the realm of Original Research. Yes, you can source every character and their school, but the topic itself was invented for the sake of the entry. "The content is about notable characters and notable schools and notable authors and notable sources"- this is true. The authour has taken the knowledge of many of these otherwise unrelated notable topics, found a common thread, and made that thread the topic for an article. Hence, Original Research. Rejectwater (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So... let me make sure I understand this. If the information exists--in print even--but has never been synthesized into an article before, the the article should be deleted because it constitutes original research? What you are saying is that unless the article is a copy of some other preexisting article, it is too original for Wikipedia. I think that you are making a rather extreme interpretation of the text when it comes to the originality rules. Taking material that is there already--especially if it is already on Wikipedia itself--and making it more easily found and read is *far* from original research. How this rates a "strong delete" based on this reasoning certainly isn't clear. --John (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you have described is, in fact, original research. The information exists, in print, as part of information from separate topics, and you have synthesized it and turned it into a new topic. A+B=C=>Original Research. See my recent comments below for further detail on this. Rejectwater (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the sources listed on the page are other Wikipedia entries. Rejectwater (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, they are. You've just refuted your own argument that this is too original. The idea for the page may be original, but the information was already present in Wikipedia, and was ready to be synthesized. Hopefully others will know sources other than Wikipedia, and add to the content here, presuming it is not deleted due to the quick succession of overly impulsive "delete" votes. --John (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The nominator proposed this article for deletion as "non-notable". Lack of significant coverage in reliable third party sources is proof of said status. See my recent comments below for more detail on this. Rejectwater (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete / Userfy The idea isn't bad, but this article is nowhere near ready for prime time in its current state. Townlake (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... when did it become a requirement for an article to be absolutely complete and "ready for prime time" in order to avoid deletion? If this was the criterion for deletion, we could save a ton of time by simply deleting every stub article in the system now. How does this justify a vote of "Strong Delete" rather than a vote of "Improve the Article?" --John (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC): (Edited 06:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. Every vote for deletion here is more based on personal taste than on reading the rules for adding material to Wikipedia. Even the one that sites a valid reason (original research) pointedly ignores the commenter's own observation that it is simply bringing together information that was already on Wikipedia. The only arguments I see for deletion so far amount to:

I don't like this material. I think it's cruft, and don't think it belongs (obviously unsubstantiated opinion, and moot to this discussion)
This article is a stub, and I think we should delete stubs because they aren't complete yet (ridiculous and should have been better thought out before being suggested)
Pulling together information that already exists into a new article is "original research," and as such the article should be deleted because it has never been written before. (Again, ridiculous. If this was true, no new articles could ever be added to Wikipedia)
This article will have so much notable material--just from what is already on Wikipedia--that it will be too large. (This is really a reason to argue *for* the list, and for the breaking off of sub-lists if it gets too big--as occurs regularly here)

For goodness sake people, please think about what your argument really means before you cast your vote. Read Wikipedia:Lists, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates, Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:No original research, and (most importantly) Wikipedia:Deletion policy--and understand them--before deciding that your particular issue supports deletion of the article.

One critical thing to remember when voting (quoted from Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Editing):

If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.
A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem.

This article is already in compliance with this by virtue of having been tagged with ((stub)) and ((expand list)); therefore, arguments that it is too incomplete do not contribute to this discussion, but ignore points already addressed.

Comment WP:CIVIL. Townlake (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if my comments above seem uncivil. It was not my intent to insult the authors so much as to put an end to ill considered votes to eliminate a valid article. If someone can provide an unbiased and appropriate (as per Wikipedia rules, not as per opinion) reason why this article is not valid, then I would like to hear it, but I was getting frustrated with responses that voted "Delete" without citing a valid reason to delete the article rather than simply improve it. -- John (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I second that Userfy is appropriate for this article. Rejectwater (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:NOTE. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Please provide links to reliable third-party sources that discuss this topic in order to demonstrate that it is notable. Wikipedia is not a reliable third party source. Note that the discussion is not whether Iron Man, Chuck, and/or Stanford are notable. The discussion is whether the topic of the article, Fictional Alumni of Real Universities, is notable. Also, WP:NOR. ""Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material." In the absence of any evidence to the contrary (i.e., the discussion of this topic in reliable third party sources), I stand by my contention that the authour has taken knowledge of a variety of different notable topics, found a common thread among them, and turned that thread into a Wikipedia entry that is itself original research and not notable. Rejectwater (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I dunno about the OR argument, seems to me something could be cobbled together there. Character development in fiction often involves inclusion of details that will either resonate or purposefully not resonate with the reader... using real universities as background elements would have some interplay with that. This issue can probably be addressed; what I don't think can be addressed is the fact the criteria for inclusion in this list are so undefined, it may well include any fictional character anywhere in the world who even went to one day of university. (The list table also includes irrelevant trivia right now in the last column, further confusing the list's purpose; and in fact the article currently contains multiple lists.) Userfication for improvement and eventual re-introduction as a workable, editable list simply seems the best course of action at this point - I think this COULD work, but right now it fails LIST. Townlake (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:NOR: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." This is a classic example of synthesizing information into original research. You take Tony Stark who went to MIT (A), then you take Chuck who went to Stanford (B), and you realize that there are any number of fictional characters whose back story includes attending a real university (C). Once again, WP:NOR: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C." Where is the third party source that discusses this topic? Find one reliable third party source that discusses the topic of Fictional Alumni of Real Universities as an independent topic and you will prove this is not OR. Rejectwater (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:NOT. I would further contend that this article falls under the category of Wikipedia is not a directory under the heading of both Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics and Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Rejectwater (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC):[reply]

Link for block of text is here. Sorry to edit someone else's comments, but we need to be able to read the entired afd page. If you think this is out of line, revert or change it, but I feel that the block of text doesn't help. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I was considering doing that myself, but was unsure as to the protocol for changing what has been said in a discussion--at least by that much. This is the first time I've been involved in this process, and I hadn't read the guidelines for how to use this page until I had already responded. Thanks for your help cleaning up. --John (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's totally cool. I appreciate your passion. Have you checked out some possible secondary sources on these things from the library (granted, you'll need a good ILL system to do so). Marvel and DC both have had numerous secondary compilations produced which may cover the issue at hand (though not explicitly). Check out some omnibus Marvel or DC histories to see if they don't cover this sort of thing in any way. Sources may exist for this. Just because people !vote to delete doesn't mean that the article/list is hopeless. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I am sounding frustrated here, but I have begun to feel like you are trying to justify your initial vote by "quoting scripture for your own purposes," and without keeping an open mind that your initial opinion may have been in error. Please... PLEASE... read the entire policy or guideline that applies before jumping to the conclusion that it supports deletion of the article. --John (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John, the way in which you're block-responding to notes here could be perceived as tendentious editing. I assume you mean well, but it is very difficult to engage in a conversation given the length and inconsistent formatting of your comments. Townlake (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Townlake. That is not intentional. I'm new to this, but I'll try to keep it more succinct in the future and follow the bulleting guideline for responses. I simply find that so often the rules cited are being taken out of context, and want to ensure that the context is brought back into the discussion. It is getting frustrating to have people use one sentence out of a paragraph to justify a delete vote when the next or previous sentence explicitly contradicts their point. I am also afraid that this discussion may be getting artificial stress put on it by someone who makes a hobby of Cruftcruft (i.e., Rejectwater, who explicitly claims an interest in that and in prolonging deletion discussions). I don't really have the time to be spending defending this, and while I feel that it is an article worth keeping, people with more time and less diligence (in reading the rules) seem likely to get it killed. At this point, I'm about ready to just let them do it and just bag the whole idea of expanding Wikipedia. If it's this easy for someone to hijack my time and throw out my work then I'm not going to bother. --John (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists of notable things in a fashion that is useful for t he reader are appropriate for the encyclopedia. Its a good way or organising material. i think that's what John wanted to say. I agree with him it's time that people stopped nominating article like these. The basic policy that lists are acceptable is quite well accepted. If one wants to change it, try the village Pump, but I think it wil be treated there too as a throughly -rejected proposal. DGG (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As has been said before, this is OR. The points about which primary sources apply aren't germane. We are obviously not trying to use WP to promote Iron Man (or other fictional alums), so it might be appropriate to use primary sources to augment an article such as this. Likewise the discussion shouldn't hinge on whether or not wikipedia is a reliable source. The issue is not the reliability of the information or its truthfulness but the independence. furthermore we are NOT making a WP:SYN argument. It is not being asserted that a new viewpoint is being stitched together from originally disparate sources. The question is simple. Is the creation of a list like this original research in the sense that it generates a novel conclusion, concatenation or piece of information? The answer is yes. The letter and intent of the WP:OR policy (or guideline, or pillar, w/e) is to prevent wikipedia from being a place of first publication. In the case of lists or compilations where no substantive creative or transformative effort exists, WP:OR allows them. So a list of countries in the UN (even if it were not available as a whole in a secondary source) would be acceptable while a list of the wealthiest families in history would not be acceptable. The lists LOOK the same, but the former requires no more effort from an editor than to ensure completeness and accuracy while the latter requires research and judgment. A list of fictional characters who matriculated from real universities would fall into the latter column. In order to populate this list (absent a secondary source), an editor would have to dig through primary sources and validate the information herself. That is PRACTICALLY the definition of research. Protonk (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for clearing this up. Well put. Rejectwater (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict), while I certainly think this is a good faith effort, I believe this list does fail some of the guidelines already pointed out above. It is not a topic that in and of itself has received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, failing WP:N and WP:V. As per WP:LISTS, "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." While some of the characters may be notable (and most of them are not), the topic as a whole is not a notable one. There is no extensive reliable, significant coverage discussing the actual topic of "fictional alumni from real universities." I also must agree that with its current name and context, the list does not have enough focus. Notice in the "Characters to be added to the table," three of the items listed are focused lists or topics around that single university, rather than every university. Many university articles do not include this information, as it is generally considered to be trivia/trivial, rather than a notable aspect. The topic itself could also be considered an incorrect one, as most fictional works are set in fictional versions of the universities, based on the real world university, particularly those where the school may be featured in the series itself. All that said, if the list is kept, please fix the name to follow Wikipedia naming conventions (i.e. it should be List of fictional alumni of real universities. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had thought of the verifiability issue myself. Did Tony Stark go to the real MIT, or a fictional university of the same name? How do we know? Rejectwater (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jut for grins, a source: The American College in Fiction Protonk (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the topic of the essay is the subject of the way colleges and college professors are portrayed in fiction, i.e. the use of colleges as a subject in fiction. As such it would not be relative to this discussion. Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another one: PRINGLE DAVID Imaginary People: A Who’s Who of Modern Fictional Characters (1987) Protonk (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject matter here is fictional characters. While what university each attended may be mentioned in a discussion of that character it is not the focus of the work. Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's not dismiss it out of hand. If a work like this has even a category for each fictional character with their alma matter on their, that is justification enough for this list to exist, some day. I'm not saying the existence of this book (which I have no idea if it has such a category) means that the page can't be deleted on face (I'm still weak delete), but it means that the topic could easily be recreated from any work which has a list of characters including their education. Protonk (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Less presitigous, but more to the point: Famous TV Characters Who Went to College Protonk (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a blog. Blogs are not usually accepted as reliable sources. Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From Forbes: Thurston Howell III Protonk (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Protonk. At the least, you seem to have addressed the issue of notability, since those sources seem likely to have covered the concept of universities attributed to fictional characters. My main problem is that I didn't really have the time to own this list in the first place. I only started it because I had seen the lack of it several times while trying to look up the attributed alma mater for a given character (even when I remembered seeing it in print/on screen, it was not always mentioned in the articles). I had been hoping that I could start the stub and then let the community flesh it out, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. I've already spent more time trying to save it than I could comfortably pull away from my studies, so I am going to have to bow out at this point and hope that someone with a better grasp on this process (perhaps yourself) can save the list. I've made every point that I could and cited text verbatim from the policies and guidelines as to why this article belongs, and those points and citations have been brushed aside based on what seems to be a traditional interpretation of what the rules mean (one that ignores the actual text of them, sadly). You and others who understand the traditional interpretations, and what people want to see to meet them may have better luck. May good fortune follow you. --John (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don't have the time or the inclination to own this list either. What I CAN suggest is that you have the closing admin move it to your userspace. That way you can hang on to it until you feel it is up to snuff (and the edit history gets maintained). As I understand it, there isn't a time limit on user sub-pages (I might be wrong) like there is on the sandbox. And don't presume too much blindness of editors unwilling to see things your way. If you hang around articles for deletion long enough you will see that there is no shortage of people butting heads over exact text versus interpretation. My hope is that you will see that most of the editors who disagreed with you did so in good faith. Recognizing this doesn't mean that you have to admit that you were wrong, just that their position may be legitimate. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just one Parthian shot based on your last link... Lara Croft. =) --John (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The last two are biographies of the individual character, not a look into the topic under discussion. Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The content of my user page is intended to be humorous and has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. At no point have I ever referred to any work as "cruft" and my intention is that I never will, and furthermore I have never created any list of any kind, nor proposed any for deletion. The purpose of the discussion here is to serve the best interest of Wikipedia. Rejectwater (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll delete the offending passage as a sign of good faith. Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Still fails notability. No coverage of the topic in reliable third party sources. Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - John has brought up an interesting point. Maybe this can work as a category like Category:People by educational institution or Category:Fictional characters by occupation? Category:Fictional characters by educational institution? As much as I don't like the idea as it's own article, I have no problem with it as a separate category. It brings up the problem of fictional vs. real educational institutions, perhaps. Rejectwater (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think categorizations befits this topic very well. Perhaps I'm not thinking about this intelligently enough but I see each alumnus having a category tag for each school and each school has a category page. That means that for fictional characters we would have to have a 'shadow' category for every school they attend. Maybe that is in line with what we would want to do, but I think we might be better off userifying this and checking some of the possible source material for some secondary coverage (not just the ones I linked, those were mostly sources for the fictional characters themselves). 12:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

- Category:Fictional academic institutions is already a category just like the already mentioned Category:Fictional characters by occupation. Category:Fictional characters by educational institution could be a sub-category of Category:Fictional characters and Category:People by educational institution. The sub-categories of this new category would be "Fictional MIT alumni", "Fictional Stanford alumni" etc. The universities themselves would be found somewhere in the other sub-categories of Category:Academic institutions. Categorization keeps the ability to sort the characters by educational institution, is easy to maintain, and it's easy to add a quick tag at the bottom of each character page to get it listed in the category. The thing with this is, it's not a topic, it's just categorization, which is what categories are for. Rejectwater (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Converting this to a category was exactly what I was going to suggest. Livitup (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ITSCRUFT never being a valid reason to delete as well as per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). Also, keep per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built as the article is but days old and is a work in progress. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For what it's worth, I would cheerfully switch my opinion to "Keep" if there were clear criteria that define and limit what is included on this list. Right now, we don't have that. What's the list's SPECIFIC purpose? There simply isn't one yet; the listed criteria are sort of a trivia potpourri. The question is whether that's curable. It should be, but hasn't happened, and that's puzzling. Townlake (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Personally I don't see how the age or condition of the article has anything to do with it. Saying it should be kept because it's new is just as arbitrary as saying delete for the same reason. Also, if you keep every nominated article someone calls "cruft" it would be pretty easy to avoid the deletion of any article, just call it "cruft". "Hey, someone called it cruft, we have to keep it". Rejectwater (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ITSCRUFT -- "While the "cruft" label is often used for any or all things of perceived minor interest, it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential." I think the list has good potential for organization, and allows citing sources better than a category does (as I just did for Lord Peter Wimsey).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and keep since there are no BLP concerns over the article. The main question in this debate has been whether the awards Mr. Leslie-Carter has won are a sufficient basis for notability, and with no consensus that they're not sufficient, and with a reasonable case being made for either side, this article stays. As noted, improvements to the article are desirable, at present there are no categories listed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Leslie-Carter[edit]

This article reads like a CV while the subject seems to be not notable. →Christian .И 21:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO. There's a remote possibility he would qualify for WP:PROF, but that fails as well. I can't find anything on him in any reliable sources. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be worth improving the content if it reads too much like a CV, but the references given do contain 'reliable secondary sources' which makes the subject notable albeit in a specialist field —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire Saxby (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support deletion anyway, but I wanted to mention that if it's even kept, it should be moved to Rob Leslie-Carter to fit conventions. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have made minor edits to this entry including adding some 'notability references' up front for clarity. I believe these demonstrate compliance with the notability guidelines as show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There are also some broader (non work) biographical references in some of the referenced interviews, which would be interesting later additions.Claire Saxby
- You "vote" once only. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only real claim to notability is the 2003 Manager of the Year award. Good but not enough in the absence of other independent coverage. The other references are mostly to the Arup website (non-independent coverage) and one to the alumni newsletter. The plain google search results lisyted are not impressive (only 68 ghits)[20] and there is only one hit in GoogleScholar[21]. Nothing in GoogleNews[22]. In my opinion fails WP:BIO and certainly fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Gee tough crowd! The award is from the largest independent professional body of its kind in Europe, with over 16,500 individual and 450 corporate members throughout the UK and abroad[23]. Wrt the Arup references, fair point but the first two ([24] and [25]) are independent magazine articles that are just scanned as pdfs on the arup site (i.e. they are reliable and independent[26]). Of particular note is that both references have very good depth i.e. they are multi-page articles specifically about the subject. I agree with the subject fails WP:PROF but it ticks all the boxes for WP:BIO.Claire Saxby

Delete. Wikipedia is not for CVs. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Again fair point (and yes sorry about the double vote), but the notability is work related so it tends to be a bit CVish. Like I said above, there are also some broader (non work) biographical references in some of the referenced interviews, which would be interesting later additions. Looks like I'm struggling to convince though.Claire Saxby
  - Comment. We should note that he is Claire Saxby's husband. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs rewriting in the correct format, but the awards are sufficient for notability. I started the rewrite by removing the duplicatelist of references at the start. DGG (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve per DGG. giggy _(:O) 06:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Seems notable enough for an article here.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. Five Years 05:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 don't find even a rough consensus for keeping, or deleting the article. I have assigned little weight to the IP comment regarding sourcing, since no actual examples were provided, however, the follow on arguments of the same "no applicable citation" that were from account holders got equal weight. If I gave comment equal weight, the result would be the same here, still no consensus for deletion. My best recommendation here would be to wait awhile before relisting this debate, and in the mean time, discuss notability and sourcing issue on the talk page. I see some argument for a possible merge, that can also be discussed on talk. There is no consensus to merge here either. I'm not an administrator, I was one in the past however. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Davis for Freedom campaign[edit]

I'm not sure this subject is notable enough to have a page in its own right and it's in danger of being one-sided. Does anyone think six months after the by-election this article will still be not worthy? I subject merging to Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Philip Stevens (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger which is not deletion and so AFD is not the correct process. Other aspects of the nomination are obviously flawed too since the article has copious citations of sources such as the BBC which demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably speedily. Whilst it might have been possible to merge this with the by-election article, I think it probably does have sufficient independent notability (based on third-party refs) to justify a separate article. DWaterson (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The article is an appropriate fork of content that would otherwise unbalance David Davis (British politician), Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008, plus a few other related pages. Being 'in danger' of bias, or not being notable in the future, are invalid reasons for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Re-voted on relisting. MickMacNee (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has a context of its own within the history of this unusual by-election doktorb _words^deeds 12:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not one of the cited references mentions the David Davis for Freedom Campaign. This page should be a subsection on the David Davis page or the by-election page. At most.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.240.54 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's 9th edit (4 of them about this page) MickMacNee (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a remarkable episode in British political history which has garnered huge coverage. Of course the campaign is notable. Nick mallory (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue of it being notable in 6 months is not really relevant to this discussion. The question should be "is it notable now?" Problems with notability in the future should be resolved as they appear. The one-sided argument issue is a little more concerning though as there is a strong likelihood that this article may become a soap box if editors are not careful. If this discussion resolves to keep the article then Philip Stevens may wish to start a merge discussion on the article talk page in line with WP:MERGE. Road Wizard (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "David Davis for Freedom" is the name of his website, but not of a notable campaign. As the anon above says, the phrase doesn't seem to appear in the cited refs (the sample I checked, anyway). Much of the content could probably be included in David Davis (British politician), but not in the by-election page where he is just one of the candidates, albeit the one who generated the election. PamD (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can renamed if people seriously have a problem that the actual campaign name is not being fully referred to in the news. It can't be denied that a campaign exists, the sources aren't referring to any other actual campaign as far as I know. As for merging, I spun it out of David Davis, because as per the manual of style, the content is now big enough on it's own to warrant a split. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This discussion was reopened per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 3. Please allow discussion to run for normal 5 day period. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep based on the fact a subsequent merge discussion here has died out without any consensus to merge, let alone delete on the grounds given in this Afd nomination. I personally don't know why this was reopened rather than relisted, as the reasons given for listing at Drv were different from this arguably speedily closeable Afd nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As there was no consensus for the merge and the deletion discussion was reopened after an early closure I don't think "speedy" is really an option here. Let it run for its 5 days and see what happens. Road Wizard (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't you think it is rather stupid to relist an Afd that questions notability, and suggests mergeing, after a merge suggestion fails? As far as I know, listing for Afd is not standard procedure after a failed merge, but I think you know this already. Like I said, the Drv nominator, and some of the voters here after relisting, are voting delete for different reasons than given in this Afd's nomination, hence it should have been re-nominated under those arguments. This Afd nomination is speedily closeable due to the invalid nomination and subsequent failed merge. MickMacNee (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I think and what others think is not important. What matters is that a consensus was formed at review to reopen this discussion. Closing the discussion early again will not help resolve this situation as the issues need to be aired and a conclusion found. In reference to your point about the phrasing of the nomination, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, with particular attention to the section on discussion. Collecting varied viewpoints in a deletion discussion is not only allowed, but actively encouraged. Commentators in deletion discussions often find different reasons to keep or delete an article beyond the case put forward by the nominator. Road Wizard (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the merge is looking doubtful simply because the sheer number of candidates has made the article, making a subarticle for an individual candidate look reasonable the same way Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 is a reasonable subarticle of United States presidential election, 2008. However, that analogy suggests a rename to something more neutral such as: David Davis by-election campaign, 2008 is in order. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Caerwine. Road Wizard (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am withdrawing support for the rename proposal. The current arguments seem to be resolving to 3 main categories, keep, delete or merge. I see no need to confuse consensus with a 4th option that has gained little support. Road Wizard (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Davis precipitated a parliamentary by-election by resigning, and this is his campaign platform. There is no evidence that it is anything but an election manifesto. Davis is merely using the campaign to turn the election into a pseudo-referendum, and that to me suggests that the article should be merged to his personal article, with some mention in the Haltemprice by-election article, whilst being in keeping with WP:UNDUE. I would lean towards delete, as WP is not a soapbox, nor is it the news. Coverage of a newsworthy event (the by-election) does not make the campaign particularly notable. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - enough notability - if you want to merge the article, please do not take it to AfD. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge): covered by articles about David Davis, the by-election and the bill. Not separately notable. --Rumping (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -Merge with Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Wikipedia is not a soapbox 92.8.227.191 (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's 2nd edit MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a Poli-Blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.236.108 (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's 5th edit (3 of them about this topic) MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep I would disagree with merge because this is the central point, if you like, of one of the biggest political events the country has seen for years. It will probably be the biggest until next election (although nothing is ever certain). There has been a vast amount of coverage nationwide and I will certainly remember this for years to come. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'One of the biggest political events the country has seen for years'? I have to disagree with that assessment. In the past year alone, political events that have received more attention than David Davis' campaign include the nationalisation of Northern Rock, the London mayoral election, 2008 and the previous by-election in Crewe and Nantwich. 'It will probably be the biggest until the next election' is an argument based on attempting to predict the future, which Wikipedia doesn't do, and 'I will remember this for years to come' is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. While I appreciate how much many people care about this subject, I just don't think it has proven to have long-term notability. Terraxos (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'One of the biggest political events the country has seen for years' because it rebels in the face of the governmet. There has been much attention given to the lack of support the government has these days, and this is the main demonstration of that, if you like. 'I will remember this for years to come' is a direct response to people suggesting we will have forgotten about it in six months. That isn't a valid reason to delete, but \i don't see you picking them out for it, only taking my response to them out of context. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least move to how to pointlessly waste public money and ruin your political career. I am not a dog (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Just a month later, the publicity over this event has already died down - ~~the by-election itself received very little coverage from the mainstream media, as the result was never in doubt.~~ It's clear now that David Davis' resignation, while surprising and interesting at the time, has had little to no lasting impact. As it is, this article is basically just a political campaign ad by one individual (a bit like all the Ron Paul articles that were created last year) and should be merged into the article on the event which it is really about, Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Terraxos (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood the notability guideline. If something was notable at a specific point in time (and that cannot even be argued otherwise given the amount of sources), then it remains notable for all time. We do not subsequently merge/delete articles purely because time has passed and the event is percieved to have faded from the spotlight. As an aside, I don't realy know what you define 'little coverage', as the result was on every single mainstream TV and radio news bulletin I saw yesterday. A merge with the by-election would be a violation of giving undue weight and given the size of this article, would be counter to the manual of style. But the case for a merge has already died out as a no consensus, something which seems to have been overlooked in the reopening of this Afd. Nothing has changed since that very recent debate, so it realy is a moot point. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few responses: firstly, I'm not convinced that the merge proposal really received enough attention to represent a fair judgement on the article, though that is obviously open to debate. In any case, consensus can change and a 'delete' or 'merge' conclusion to this discussion would supersede the earlier 'no consensus' conclusion in the merge discussion.

Secondly, on the 'notability is not temporary' issue - I take that differently to you do. As I understand it, it means that 'notability' means lasting importance, not brief interest, and an event that only receives attention from the media for a brief period before they move in is not in fact 'notable'. (From Wikipedia:Notability: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.") In this case, this article would fail.

Finally, while I take back what I said above about this receiving little coverage, I don't think that's an argument to keep this article - the press coverage, as far as I can tell, was focused on the fact that there was a byelection and Davis' performance in it, as much as his personal campaign. The fact that there was plenty of media coverage when Davis first resigned, and when the results of the election were announced, but not so much in between, proves my point that it was the by-election that was really the notable topic here. If there had been no resignation and by-election, Davis' 'Freedom Campaign' would have received much less attention, and this article would probably not even exist; therefore, the latter should be considered a subtopic of the former rather than an event in its own right. Terraxos (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite saying 'finally' above, here's one more comment - I don't feel merging this content in with the main by-election article would constitute undue weight, as Davis' resignation and campaign on civil liberties is clearly the most important and significant aspect of this by-election, therefore deserves more weight than any of the other candidates (and the BBC, amongst others, covered it as such). There is precedent in having an article about a by-election which focuses heavily on one particular campaign: see Bermondsey by-election, 1983, which I believe is perfectly in keeping with the length and weight guidelines. Terraxos (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The merge propsal was initiated very recently, any moves to reopen/revisit based on consensus can change are clearly grounded in the fleeting interest basis, which as I said is irrelevant under the notability guideline. The merge proposal was on the talk page of a highly trafficked article, and still garnered no consensus. On notability, I think we just have a different interpretation of the bar of notability. This campaign is miles above being classed as a simple news blip not to be of note in its own right, this is seriously not even in doubt to me from my knowledge of wikipedia. And as I recently added, the campaign is not closed or finished going by Davis' statements. It arguably even pre-dated the by-election given the issues being debated. As for the bermondsey article, I would suggest that you may indeed be lacking in understanding of the manual of style, that article is frankly terrible. It has no lead section, and some very badly named, structured and worded sections. It took three scans of the article to figure out the story. Yes, it is about a single issue, but that issue is related to the by-election only. I realy can't even see under what title you would spin out the information that gives undue weight (presumably tatchel's leftist stance and homophobia against him). The article is biased towards Tatchel (you only find out Hughes actually won by looking at the Results table), but again you would still not justifiably double the length of tatchel's bio article to cover it that way either (although without looking, I would guess tatchel's article is much longer than Davis' bio). MickMacNee (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS the lack of coverage of the campaign inbetween the resignation and voting phases is down to in my opinon the lack of any labour candidate, or an obvious credible anti-Davis candidate, leading to the lack of any reportable 'debates'. However, the campaign was discussed for nearly half of an edition of BBC's Question Time during this time. MickMacNee (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of this belongs on the by-election page, or nowhere. — ciphergoth 06:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge relevant info into David Davis' article and/or the by-election article. --RFBailey (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename' - In any event the title of the article could do with renaming. 2008 David Davis civil liberties campaign? Francium12 (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources- [27] [28] -- 86.29.252.163 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing us with some of the sources, but do you wish to add a comment to go with them? Are you in favour of keep, delete, merge, or rename (or a fifth option not discussed yet)? As these seem to be similar sources to the ones referred to by MickMacNee and Terraxos above I don't see what new information they add to this discussion. Road Wizard (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remame it 'The 2008 David Davis psudo-civil liberties campaign?

--86.29.243.15 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's 2nd edit Road Wizard (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable campaign against left-wing campaign against civil liberties. --89.24.4.82 (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's 6th edit Road Wizard (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may be a little early to judge, but the website has not received an update since a press release about Davis's acceptance speech was uploaded on 11th July. There are no future events listed in the website's calendar and associated websites like twitter have seen even fewer updates. It looks increasingly likely that the campaign website and other materials related only to the by-election campaign. It is possible that something more may come from the campaign in the future, but the burden of proof lies on those claiming this is more than just a by-election campaign. Road Wizard (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]