< 19 April	21 April >

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Jones (artist)[edit]

Despite the references, notability is not established. Cited reviews are thin, and the mention which features prominently in the article is a dubious support for significance. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. JNW (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No non-trivial sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Blueboy 96 15:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NBC is a non-trivial source. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that in this article, NBC is not a source. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender linguistics[edit]

Article that may seem attacking in nature, or implies that different genders use a different subset of languages —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 19:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article has many problems but some of the information is salvageable and the references appear to suggest that research has been done in this area though how "lavender linguistics" fits in I have no idea. If not significantly improved then perhaps a merge is in order. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 23:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the stub is still under construction. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, Rename. There is no indication in either the article or its sources of the relevance of the term lavender, let alone an assertion of widespread acceptance of this term. For the moment, we have a neologism. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if the article is terrible. Googling shows that the term is in used, if not widely. Mangoe (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still under construction and will include orienting information to establish how the term is used. Crumblies (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the term is not a neologism, it is not as widely used simply because it is a very new area of study in linguistics. I study linguistics at the university level and have heard the term used several times by professors.Bepett (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a heads up: Here are just some reputable uses of the term [1] [2] so it seems fine, if still not widely used. Also, you guys should definitely flag up that this is a university project. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 19:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Q: What university project is this? -- Banjeboi 06:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - A linguistics class at UC Berkeley is working on sociolinguistics articles. James McBride (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and with the current name, as this is the term used by linguists to describe what is a relatively new area of study. I added a reference to the introduction from a dictionary of sociolinguistics, which I think should be a plenty reputable source. James McBride (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, for now. Snow keep It was an uphill battle to find sources for gay lisp but there is - oddly named studies - that do support this content in theory. Not having the time to sort through this my instinct it to give it a pass and assume good faith unless a major revelation of hoaxing is unearthed which doesn't seem to be the case here. -- Banjeboi 06:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced, notable. And nice way to welcome Students from the Spring 2009 course on Sociolinguistics at University of California, Berkeley - Afding their first contribution a minute after it was created. At least give articles time to expand. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very well referenced with impeccable and unimpeachable academic sources, including several from the prestigious and highly regarded Oxford University Press. This is an academic field within Linguistics, as indicated here and here, and they have been holding academic conferences for ten years. Therefore it's not a neologism, although apparently not well known outside the academic world. The use of LGBT subculture languages, e.g., LGBT slang and Polari, have a long history. The article is under construction, but already has way more than sufficient independent and significant reliable sources (22 at this point) to support notability and verifiability, added since nomination. This is an academic study of a subculture language, not an attack against a minority, and language subsets are used by groups based on socioeconomic class, ethnicity, regional geography, orientation, profession, gender, race, language and country of origin, etc. In fact, that is often one of the ways that such groups differentiate themselves and the members recognize each other. — Becksguy (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced article that is not attacking, about a valid academic field. Ladyof Shalott 18:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Lavender Languages and Linguistics Conference is a major conference in linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics dealing with LGBTQ language styles. It may be a reclaimed word, but as used here it is not a slur. Cnilep (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onur Karakuş[edit]

This was marked Prod for lack of sources to support the information in the info box. It seems that (if true) he played in a fully professional league, but I'll bring it here to see if someone can find sources - which may be in Turkish (which I don't speak well) or Bulgarian (even worse for me). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I proposed the article for deletion, because I checked the normal sources on Turkish football and found no record of such a person. If one really existed and played for Sakaryaspor, he would have a record at the TFF.org.tr website. This article is an apparent hoax and fails WP:V. Jogurney (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not eligibile for speedy deletion, but lacks evidence of notability. --Angelo (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Giant Snowman 10:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. He's said to play for Sivasspor but their team is listed on their website here and he isn't there. He appeared in Sivasspor's Wikipedia article, but only because he was put there by 88.245.29.140 (talk · contribs), the author of this, replacing Sezgin Bektaş. I have taken him out, but not replaced Bektaş, who doesn't appear on the website either. I have also removed Karakuş from Lists of Turkish people. I was puzzled to see how an IP could have created this article, but it seems from the history that it was created as a talk page and then moved to an article by another user. JohnCD (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icestorm815 • Talk 00:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live Well HD Network[edit]

Not explanation of notability, very little found on Google, nothing on Google News, no sources. Not every network is notable. TheAE talk/sign 23:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too premature. Not even a live network as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep Disney-ABC Television Group owns the network and it will be carried by all of the ABC O&O stations, and the network is scheduled to premiere next week on Comcast and Cablevision systems which carry ABC O&O's (G-News hits). Some more sources are needed, but if the network has a launch date next week, even with a quiet soft launch like this, the notability is there. Nate • (chatter) 05:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have further expanded the network article, and will continue to do so within the five-day window as I find out more about the network. Nate • (chatter) 09:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No such thing as too premature to have an article. Should be kept around and improved to provide more information about the network. With the launch in just a few days, notability of the network should rise. Diemunkiesdie (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCRYSTAL Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The network is launching in 2 days, in the largest markets in the country. If you recall, The CW had an article months before it was launched, this is only a few days from now.Deemers (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Abstain – The network seems to be gaining some coverage (such as this article). Though I'm not convinced it's a strong keep, I can no longer support deletion. Abstain TheAE talk/sign 05:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that's a WP:RS, owing to the Disney / Go WP:COI. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup, and Keep: I can clean up this article to sound more like an encyclopedic article, than an advertisement. This seems notable in that it is owned by the Walt Disney Company and will air on ABC network stations (i wonder if it will air on private ABC affiliates like WXYZ-DT)... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What should have happen was either ((future television)) or ((Future)) tag been applied. The channel itself is of importance as it falls under the Disney umbrella just like SoapNet or ESPNNews. Not only does the O&Os broadcast it, but their their contracts with the cable and FiOS, extends it's output much further. More info on the channel will come out as time goes. TravKoolBreeze (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: In my honest and very biased opinion, this article should most certainly be kept. Retro Agnostic (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was a very difficult call on my part. In most cases, discussions like this merit being closed as "no consensus." However, given the BLP issues, it's best to err on the side of caution and delete. Blueboy 96 15:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brindle family[edit]

Without referencing (the sole reference doesn't work) this is a blatant WP:BLP violation against both families mentioned. Even with referencing, I'm not convinced it would meet our notability standards. – iride scent 23:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No valid references, BLP violation. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as an unsourced attack page. Alexius08 (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite Plenty of coverage. BBC The Independent The Independent again and again and again. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to the references just listed. They could have been found at the start. So many of our crime articles are done very carelessly, but they should l be checked and sourced, , not nominated for deletion. DGG (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator obviously didn't make an effort to find an alternative link for the given source, check somewhere that it actually exists or try finding other sources from different publications. All violations of WP:BEFORE. Deletion is a last resort and should only be applied when sources can't be found. Not when they're not in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely disagree. There are sources for individual members of the family being alleged to be criminals; there is no source for the family being a criminal organisation other than insinuations. Going through all the sources given above, this and this are about a member of the family as a victim of crime; this is about one member of the family being murdered, and another two members of the family being acquitted of criminal offences, while this is a cut-and-paste from this, which does tangentially mention this family ("Bermondsey and Rotherhithe: Traditional base for largely white crime gangs with big interests in drugs. The Brindle family and Arifs have fought turf wars here for a decade."). Aside from that brief tangential mention in an article on an unrelated matter, there is nothing in any of the sources you've provided connecting any member of this family with criminal activity, other than as victims of crime or as defendants who were found not guilty. – iride scent 12:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As iridescent pointed out, the sources do not support the claim that the family is a crime family. There are no details on any alleged crimes they may have committed, no coverage of the family itself in the context of a crime family, only trivial mention. This does not meet the requirement of coverage in multiple reliable sources, and without said details, there's no claim to notability. Per WP:BLP, this article needs to go. Should have been speedied as an attack page. لenna vecia 12:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:SYNTH (per Iridescent) as well as WP:BLP (per reading the article and seeing how unbalanced it is). Per Jennevecia, should have been speedied. ++Lar: t/c 12:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not one of the sources supports that the family is a "criminal organisation". Had Pascal not declined a speedy, I would delete it now. Kevin (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tabloid Evening Standard article here (registration required) says "Roads was convicted of acting as an armourer for Michael Boyle, a former terrorist hitman who was brought to Britain from Dublin to carry out the contract killing of Anthony Brindle, a leading member of a south London crime family engaged in a bloody turf war." --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is here in a no-registration-required version. Again, this is about a member of this family as a victim of crime. – iride scent 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete. Although one article says they had a "turf war", what handful of other WP:RS they are sees the Brindles as the victims of crime. Even if they are a criminal gang, they're not high profile enough to be notable. They would just be one of the thousands of dodgy families that exist. We don't even know the extent of their 'crimes'- this seems partly like an attack page. At the most, this should be merged into an article on london gangs or whatever; but a family is not a gang. This delete is a matter of decency towards them as living persons. Sticky Parkin 13:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment iridescent asked me to take another look, but after careful re-reading I continue to find the BBC article quite sufficient to prove the material in the article. "The background to the shooting involved a long-standing "feud" between the Brindles and another family, the court heard. In 1991 Mr Brindle's brother, David, was shot dead by two masked men in a pub. In 1994 his brother George was hit with several shots from a handgun fired in the street by an assailant." That's connection enough. The Telegraph article seems unavailable, but the G News Archive summary is "He was also close to a Turkish family called Arif, who had held sway as the number one criminal gang in south London for more than two decades until the early 1990s, when a number of the brothers who made up the clan found themselves variously convicted of drugs and robbery offences. In March 1991, Abdullah was shot dead in a William Hill betting shop in Walworth. Anthony Brindle and his brother, Patrick, were charged with his murder and later acquitted at the Old Bailey." I am aware of the nature of UK tabloids--I have frequently been unwilling to sustain BLP articles sourced only to them. I would not have said keep except for these two articles. DGG (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But again, the first story you mention is of members of the family as victims, not perpetrators of crimes; the second makes it clear that although members of the Brindle family were accused of crimes, they were acquitted. Nobody so far has found a single source for any member of this family being found guilty of any crime, even at unpaid-parking-fine level, let alone a serious offence; for an article whose first sentence is "The Brindle family is a criminal organization", that seems woefully inadequate. – iride scent 18:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arifs (gang), as they are known primarily for the violence associated with their feud with this much more notable gang. I don't see any historical significance for this gang, so merge. Rd232 ^talk 00:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think a merge or rename is in order, if anything. I can see the start of one article which alleges stuff against the Brindles,[3] but most of the coverage is about the crimes of the Daleys. Sticky Parkin 00:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not nearly enough good sourcing for WP:BLP. We can't call them a "crime family" or "gang" unless those terms are specifically used by reliable sources and I see no evidence of that here. Absent that, I don't see any basis for an article at all. *** Crotalus *** 18:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "underworld family"? [4] Rd232 ^talk

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lindsay[edit]

No major roles, not much on IMDb (several people by that name). Not notable. TheAE talk/sign 23:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JNW (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything on the internet (ex IMDb) –Nathan ^Laing 00:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reference provided is from a community newspaper. How are we to believe a production company headed by a 15-year-old is notable when the article gives no hint of any notable production? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No support for claims of notability. Seems like a hoax or wishful thinking. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 01:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to satisfy verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icestorm815 • Talk 00:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This was originally nominated for deletion by User:A-Kartoffel. It has since been discovered that (a) that account, and several of the accounts in the original AFD discussion, were sockpuppets; and (b) it is no coincidence that the sockpuppet account name is similar to User:E-Kartoffel, the creator of this article. ☺ The closing administrator and several other editors commenting at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009 April 20#"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes think that re-listing this afresh at AFD is the way to proceed. I have not looked at whether sources exist, and reserve my own opinion for now. Uncle G (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was the person who started the deletion review, I guess I'll have to vote keep. I thought it was a bad faith nomination.SPNic (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dazed and Confused (song) and Jake Holmes. Ikip (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no matter who gives it Wiki, once its our's we decide on its notability. The article itself looks good and is properly sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep because every single account arguing to delete in the original AfD, including the nomination, was a sockpuppet. DHowell (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dazed and Confused, album is not notable except for the controversy surrounding that particular song, which is much better known as a Led Zeppelin track. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - based on internet research we can't exactly judge over its initial impact in the 1960s (FUTON bias / NAA bias). But there is some websites, including this one, that might be useful to improve the album article as well as the one on the artist. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 18:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep I believe the general consensus here is to simply clean the article up, not delete the entire entry. Cheers. I'^mperator 20:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black people in Scotland[edit]

Unsourced article, seems to have racialist claims. Able-bodied Creature (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just out of interest, what do you think the "racialist claims" are? I can't see anything remotely resembling one. – iride scent 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is the subject of this article separate from African migration to the United Kingdom, British African-Caribbean community, African Americans in the United Kingdom, or Black British? These articles seem to cover it, but then again, I'm American and don't know whether all Scottish people identify as "British," nor do I know whether African and Afro-Carribean immigrants comprise the entire black U.K. population. This may well be a separate article, but if we can agree that these articles cover it, then delete. Otherwise, keep and expand. Graymornings_(talk) 22:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unsourced. There is also a slight whiff of racism, particularly the last sentence. I could be completely wrong there, but it needs rewriting to make it sound more encyclopedic, and certainly needs backing up by sources. Quantpole (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right OK, are you going to justify the deletion of New Scots, Asian-Scots... and other groups such as Italian-Scots who have completely assimilated into Scottish society?--Whittake Over (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has now changed to remove the offending sentence. I concur with the other comments that the subject is notable, however, I suggest it be better placed in other articles such as Black British. Though searching for Black People in Scotland does give lots of google scholar results, very few of them seem to be relevent (putting speech marks gives only 4 results). I have had a look to see if information can be found, and there is census information available (and more could probably be found). Relevent info here[5] (table 7) showing the numbers of black people in edinburgh, or here[6] for Glasgow ethnic mix. The problem is making an article out of this sort of information. Unless a scholarly work can be found, all we would be doing is quoting figures. I am therefore changing my vote to redirect to Black British, and merge to other articles such as Nigerian British as required. Quantpole (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- Black British seems to be essentially the same subject, though we might want to expand it to include more Scottish info. So, merge/redirect. Graymornings_(talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A guy that I know from work, his girlfriend is a partial Italian-Scots girl, with an Italian surname, and they're a significant group; the same principle should be applied to Africans or Nigerians or whatever. Sources must exist.--Adrenaline mestixo (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs expansion, that's all. DGG (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very poorly worded, but obviously notable. Tons of reliable sources exist - see a basic Google search, or this for more scholarly work. I understand the nominator, but a few of the oddest articles in Wikipedia started out as "hot messes". Bearian (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "very poorly worded" is an understatement. Outright false in parts and possibly in whole is a better description. Black people in Scotland is a new thing that happened in 1997? To quote black scottish poet Maud Sulter, who was born in Glasgow in 1960 and died in Dumfries in 2008, on the subject: "Black people have been in Scotland for over four hundred years". Uncle G (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment You know, I never got why there are often AfD's on articles involving XXX people in YYY location, why not just do cumulative "Demographics of YYY" articles ??? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to someone posting a better article/stub later. Subject is notable but this article does nothing but make dubious unsourced claims about a group of people. If this stays, the claim about the influx due to oil has to go unless a damned good source can be found. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Enough has been done to rescue the article. I would still prefer it if the uncited phrases were either backed up or deleted though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. Problems with the article should've been mentioned on the talk page, and citations added, before coming here. The subject is notable, the content of the current article could use some work. Dream Focus 03:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you don't like it, clean it up instead of AFDing an inherently notable subject. Jwray (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely unsourced on a topic of limited notability. Then redirect to Demographics of Scotland.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also that placing this in AfD is not the solution. --Moloch09 (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cellophane (band)[edit]

Fails WP:BAND; content is copied from the band's Myspace page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just another non-notable myspace band. Keep passes WP:MUSIC#C1 & C5. How the hell I missed the Allmusic entry in my searches God only knows. I need to clean my glasses me thinks. Sorry for that Team. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant independent coverage, possible copyvio, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were at ozzfest just trying to make a page that could be helpful but just delete I've never heard about the band till yesterday. Then Delete it this is taking way to long you say you want to delete it well are you rubbing it in my face or do you like to drag it out. Captain Chrisma come to RAW (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I would say that qualifies as Speedy Delete per G7. Somebody want to close this? Nikkimaria (talk)
Not so fast, please. There is at least one reliable source, a review of their debut album at Allmusic. It also seems that said album, Cellophane, was released on a major label, Virgin Records, in 1997, and their second album, Wandering Man, released in 2000 on Universal/Polygram. On that basis, I'd suggest that WP:MUSIC#5 is met, so I'm voting Keep, despite the article creator's protestations. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 16:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, I've tried to improve the article a little by adding some refs and cleaning up - hopefully this is worth another look now. Thanks sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In addition to what others found, I also found an article about this band in The Herald, which I added just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources found demonstrate notability.--Michig (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The new sources warrant the article inclusion under WP:V. ƒingers^on_Roids 22:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the sockpuppetry removed there are no good-faith arguments to delete remaining, and consensus to keep now seems clear. Suggestions of a merge can be discussed as necessary elsewhere. (non-admin closure) ~ mazca ^t|c 13:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that four of these editors who !voted for this AfD: TheClashFan, JamesBurns, A-Kartoffel, JoannaMinogue are socks of the same person, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive Ikip (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Nobody's Fault But Mine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/It's Nobody's Fault But Mine

Unnecessary fork off the main article and most common name "Nobody's Fault but Mine". "It's Nobody's Fault But Mine" was never released as a single and anything that could be said about it, is already discussed in the main article TheClashFan (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet comment—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term. (Merge anything not already mentioned in the main article) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above proposal is not at all accurate: This is not a "fork off the main article": The song is completely different from the Led Zeppelin entry: I have posted the lyrical differences on the discussion page.

Furthermore: "It's Nobody's Fault But Mine" was released by Columbia Records in the original 1927 recordings of Blind Willie Johnson. It is a delta blues song and is a part of American blues history: It is not a rock song, it is not the same as the Led Zeppelin song "Nobody's Fault But Mine", it is - at best - a possible progenitor for the latter-mentioned song.

To conclude: Just because the song is "discussed" in the "Nobody's Fault But Mine" article, does not mean that they are one in the same. The two songs are vastly different, and will not merge appropriately.

Please do not merge or delete the article! If you read the discussion page attached to it, and my above posting: It will be obvious that the two articles, while related, are not at all the same. Mr. McSinister (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page I have found no cause for the AfD tag and have removed it. This article does not meet the criteria for content forking, as it is a "related article". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwmcmaste (talk bwmcmaste (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please to not remove the AFD tag from the article. Only the closing admin can remove the AFD tag when the discussion is completed. The deletion policy states under "Deletion discussion:" Do not remove the tag from the page. The guide to deletion says the same thing as well as the AFD guideline. MuZemike 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything worthwhile, then redirect per above- The Zeppelin song was based on this song, and the song only gains notability based off of that, otherwise, it'd be just an obscure blues song from the 20's. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect for reasons stated above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CFORK there is very little to merge here. Only one sentence different between the two and that sentence doesn't say anything notable either. JamesBurns (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as sockpuppet comment—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it should be contributed to. Is anybody even listening to me here? These songs are not the same: They are related, but are not the same!bwmcmaste (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The song has a brief description in Johnson's entry in McNeil Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music (Routledge 2005, ISBN 0415941792) which provides a reference to a further article that I can't find a copy of and which may go into more depth. discusses the similarities between this song and the Led Zeppelin song, along with a summary of other sources about those similarities. Page 101 of Govenar & Brakefield Deep Ellum and Central Track: Where the Black and White Worlds of Dallas Converged (U. North Texas 1998 ISBN 1574410512) describes it as one of Johnson's most popular songs. According to google book search there are further references in Carpenter Uncloudy Days: The Gospel Music Encyclopedia, Dixon & Godrich Blues and Gospel Records, 1902-43, Kinkle The Complete Encyclopedia of Popular Music and Jazz, 1900-1950 and two different editions of Cadence: The American Review of Jazz and Blues, however the content of these are not available online so I have been unable to confirm the extent of the references. JulesH (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not sure we benefit from deleting this article, as we will only have to replace it with a disambiguation page: the term is a plausible search term for the Led Zeppelin song, but should also be linked to its original author Blind Willie Johnson. JulesH (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Under WP:DAB "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then a disambiguation page should normally be created for that term". What other term uses "It's Nobody's Fault but Mine"? Best left a simple redirect for people wanting to find both songs. TheClashFan (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as sockpuppet comment—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to refer you all to the discussion page for the article. I have presented the clear differences between the songs. If this article is to be merged with the Led Zepellin version: The person merging it must provide a long description about the Johnson version being the original version, and a further explanation regarding the similarities. bwmcmaste (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article arguing the differences between the two songs: bwmcmaste (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: nothing has been stated about why the Johnson song is notable. Blues might have a rich tapestry but so does pop music, and not all pop music songs are notable, as this song isn't. JoannaMinogue (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable song. Did not chart. There is no entry on ASCAP (www.ascap.org) indicating the song was ever registered for copyright, and is thus classified as public domain since Johnson's death. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as sockpuppet comments—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. What chart was around in 1927 for it to chart in? And I fail to see why the public domain nature of this song is relevant. JulesH (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Looking back at many of the groups who have either covered or altered this songs, it should be clear that this song was one of many that functioned as a great influence on many artists. bwmcmaste (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither you nor JulesH have demonstrated why this song is notable. 1) It did not chart 2) It did not sell 3) The more notable version is the one by Led Zeppelin, not Johnson. 4) You have claimed both songs are not the same - in wikipedia notability is not inherited, therefore the entire notability of the song is based on the Led Zeppelin version, not the Johnson song. And as for the many musicians covering the song one look at allmusic.com tells the story - "Nobody's Fault but Mine": 269 "It's Nobody's Fault but Mine": 18. Therefore "Nobody's Fault but Mine" is more notable in usage, not "It's Nobody's Fault but Mine", to delete and redirect to "Nobody's Fault but Mine" is the common sense solution. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as sockpuppet comment—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - It didn't chart because there were no charts for it to chart in at the time of its release. It is described in reliable sources as among the most popular of the notable artist's works, which suggests it did sell a reasonable volume. The Led Zeppelin song is not the same song, so whether the Led Zeppelin song is more notable is irrelevant. I don't understand your argument about notability not being inherited; nobody has claimed it has been. Nobody's Fault but Mine is an extremely notable and highly popular song by one of the most influential bands of the last 40 years and comparing the two in terms of the number of cover versions is bizarre. 18 recorded versions of a song is substantially higher than the vast majority of songs ever achieve, 269 is simply a staggering number. But just because the LZ song is extremely notable I don't understand why that means that this (entirely different) song shouldn't have an article. JulesH (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "It is described in reliable sources as among the most popular of the notable artist's works, which suggests it did sell a reasonable volume." Please provide a verifiable sales figure. "18 recorded versions of a song is substantially higher than the vast majority of songs ever achieve" Those 18 are the same version by Johnson across 18 different compilation albums, not by 18 different artists. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as sockpuppet comment—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the song is historical in nature (being a part of Johnson's limited discography). If this article is going to be deleted and redirected, than it must have sufficient coverage in the "Nobody's Fault But Mine" article (which it does not presently have). bwmcmaste (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable non charting non selling track. Iam (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as sockpuppet comment—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- This seems highly unlikely as (1) the artist apparently only recorded three songs in the year it was released, clearly not enough to fill an album and (2) the first album (as we understand the concept today) was produced in 1948, 21 years after the release of this song. JulesH (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact this definitely looks like a single to me. JulesH (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JamesBurns/Archive.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination by identified sockpuppet. The subject's notability does not appear to be in question. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still stand by my weak keep argument above. There are few sources describing this song, but there _are_ sources, and as the artist is notable this seems like a reasonable article. In clarification of my latest comments (18:22 and 18:34 on 9 Feb), it would appear that the comment they were a response to was modified after I wrote them, and it originally suggested that the record was an album track only, and never released as a single. JulesH (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also note that some content of one my above comments has been deleted, [7]. JulesH (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a notable blues standard itself, and the Willie Johnson version is notable in its own right. That Zeplin covered it should suggest as much. Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Eliminating the sockpuppet arguments leaves no one actually arguing to delete. DHowell (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour. Article consists only of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tour generated substantial press coverage at the time, and should be able to meet the general notability guideline with ease if one looks in a suitable place (i.e., contemporary newspapers and music magazines). JulesH (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide some of that coverage? And to be notable, the tour must be notable on its OWN, completely regardless of what band it was for, because notability cannot be inherited from another subject. The subject of the article must be notable in its own right, and nothing seems to suggest that here. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just an indiscriminate collection of fancruft. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing inherently notable about this tour, a list of dates without explanation or rationale. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tour was reviewed in the Boston Globe and also in The Times, and was covered in Rolling Stone. The tour is notable for drawing record crowds in Argentina (The Washington Post). And I have no reason to doubt JulesH that even more press coverage exists from 1980 and 1981, but thanks to FUTON bias, it probably won't be found in a Google search. DHowell (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources DHowell gave. But I take issue with the current article: it has lots of lists and very little prose. I'm going to be bold and delete all the lists. I see a problem with duplicating lists off Queen's website...why? Because (1) it's a self-published source, and (2) it violates WP:NOTMIRROR. Cazort (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh no! There's a whole shitload of articles on Queen tours, and they're all just these enormous lists duplicated off the website, with no prose! Please, someone do the dirty work for me! I don't want to be the bad guy! Cazort (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per User:Esradekan. Indiscriminate list. Iam (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Comments from sockpuppets of User:JamesBurns have been crossed out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources JulesH gave. It is substantially covered by reliable sources. Although the article needs a huge amount of improvement, the subject is notable enough to have an article. Tim meh ! 23:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough sources from reliable side. I ask the nominator what he wants to show notability: A book, a movie, 1 billion Ghits, a star named after? Also which policy he bases his claim on, that reviews do not denote notability? [8] We are not talking about some garage band, but one of the most successful bands ever, especially back in those days. And if it comes to tours, Queen always were known not only for their records, but also for their concerts, being initial in many aspects of the evolution of live sound and lighting along Pink Floyd and Genesis. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 00:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What!?? A tour by the Queens covered by reliable sources including the Rolling Stones, I don't know what else to say.--J^mundo 01:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is cerainly some coverage, and I would tend towards keeping this, but surely the concert that drew record crowds in Argentina was on the Hot Space tour rather than this one?--Michig (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawal of nomination. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Dubrovinskaia[edit]

Substub on a post doc with little to no possibility of expansion. The rationale for deletion was eloquently laid out by User:87.164.198.76: "It is not clear why and by whom this page was created, given that there is no support that this person meets notability criteria. Notability is more and more often quantified by the h-index. H-index for this person is 11 according to the Web of science, which is low by most standards. According to the web-page of the University of Bayreuth this person is not a group leader. There is no support that this person has priority in synthesis of aggregated diamond nanorods. Besides, even if one proves the priority, there is no support that such synthesis is remarkable." ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep 65 publications, in the highest quality journals, most lately first author of PNAS 105, Issue 33, 19 August 2008, Pages 11619-11622 "An insight into what superconducts in polycrystalline boron-doped diamonds based on investigations of microstructure" DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0801520105. Her most cited paper, Nature 410 (6829), pp. 653-654 is cited 97 times, then 41, 38, 37 etc. for the leading others. Home page at Heidelberg: http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/institute/fak12/min/de/personen/personen_page/dubrovinskaia.html. It is foolish indeed to use the h index as a numerical value across fields for quantifying notability in Wikipedia. It is totally insensitive to the publication of a few high quality papers, & rewards the mass production of medium quality papers. : Publish 11 papers with 11 citations each, the h index is 11. Publish one with 97, and 10 with 11, the h-index is still 11. In fact, publish 10 with 970 and one with 11, it's still 11. Weak, because the principal author in this work might be Leonid Dubrovinsky, who has 3 times as many publications, but none of high citation count. http://www.bgi.uni-bayreuth.de/organization/bgistaff/staffinfo.php?id=87 I;'d need some more information to avoid sexism about who is the Principal investigator--or whether they might even be equal. . As for whether the work itself is important, I'll trust the reviewers at Nature and PNAS for that . DGG (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps this person is notable, but the current version of this article fails to establish notability. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That would be because somebody removed valid sources from the article a few minutes after it was nominated for deletion. I have replaced them. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the general notability guideline and WP:PROF criterion 7 with plenty of coverage in non-academic sources such as the ones that an IP editor has persistently removed from the article and many more found by a Google News search. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It's not even clear to me how this was nominated – most of the assertions in the prod are non-sense and easily refuted. Here's a partial list: (1) she's not a post-doc, but rather a fully-habilitated professor (according to her website) – note that the Habilitation is the highest academic qualification in a number of EU countries (above the PhD), (2) Web of Science shows >50 publications in mainstream journals, many of which have a limited author list, implying she made substantive contributions and was not listed gratuitously, was not just a technician, etc., (3) there are well-known problems with using metrics like the h-index exclusively and this instance is certainly one of them, as DGG has capably pointed-out above, (4) even if you did like to rely just on h, the asserted value seems to be wrong on the low side – Web of Science shows a value of 15 searching on "Author=(Dubrovinskaia N*)", which is substantially higher than 11, given the non-linear nature of the metric. (I do not know what accounts for the discrepancy with the value in the prod, given that they evidently also used Web of Science.) Be that as it may, I think what is clear is that the subject has long and notable research record, making her a leading authority in her field (materials research). The article could easily be expanded to reflect this. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 03:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interartcenter[edit]

Notibility issues: this site is ranked 1,681,443 on Alexa http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/interartcenter.net Photoact (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to have some notability and i think it passes W:WEB. Cheers Kyle1278 03:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You got it wrong Photoact, please read the content. – Interartcenter is the name of the company that holds all following domains:

ranked 58,545 on Alexa http://alexa.com/siteinfo/fantasyartdesign.com ranked 89,802 on Alexa http://alexa.com/siteinfo/artist-3d.com ranked 72,435 on Alexa http://alexa.com/siteinfo/freeartsoftware.com ranked 77,820 on Alexa http://alexa.com/siteinfo/artdigitaldesign.com etc.Aliciawoo (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is a well-known and well-respected set of websites with some great content.

173.35.226.135 (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs clean-up 192.30.202.11 (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Photoact (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think it is a good idea to keep it. Site is very informative and has useful and free information 204.40.1.129 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 03:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acadieman[edit]

Procedural nom. This was ((prod)) tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree; as this appears to be an verifiable and referenced article, I've undeleted it to set up a procedural discussion. Procedural nom so I abstain. – iride scent 21:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A cartoon and comicbook Acadien superhero. One seeming reliable source ins in the article and I found another which seems to be a reliable source with substantial coverage, although my French is not what it once was. The cartoon appears on TV in a Canadian province, although "Rogers TV" sounds like public access. Edison (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Partly per Edison. The article does not have very good sourcing, but the character appears to be a notable character with many appearances and awards. TheAE talk/sign 00:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The first discussion was closed as keep, with the note that this article was in need of some heavy cleanup. Disregarding the votes of socks and IPs, there appears to be a clear consensus that said cleanup didn't occur. Blueboy 96 15:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric West[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable obscure "celebrity"; a fluff piece about a "star" whose single was allegedly briefly on the charts in Bolivia, was reported to have dated some models and singer-actresses, etc., had an album that was talked about but never released, shot a TV pilot, etc. What's the male for "starlet"? This has been here for years but never has established any actual notability for the guy. Look at the photos: Eric West attends this party and this show, etc. So bloody what? Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

I didn't want to join but it's the only way I can upload a photo. It saddens to read all of this shit. I got an email back from Eric and I just felt I should upload it because he is right. He could have his 40,0000 MySpace friends respond here but what's the point.Mangie80 (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC) — Mangie80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. File:Eric_myspace_message.jpg[reply]

the only websites that matters: http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gifoxqwsldke Pop singer, model, and actor Eric West was born in New York City on May 18, 1982. In the late '90s he had success with singles like "End of the World" and "Can You Help Me?" before transitioning into modeling and acting in the early 2000s. West's LP debut, Half Life, was scheduled for a spring 2005 release, and he continued working on film projects through 2006.

even yahoo, mtv, aol news, who does the research to determine something isn't reliable? http://de.movies.yahoo.com/26092008/13/pitts-co-star-sucht-vermisste-mutter-21.html http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:us_weekly995:b3515614bac6f02caa0f65ccb9d966c2/Help-Brad-Pitts-Co-star-Find-His-Missing-Mother http://guestofaguest.com/nyc-events/conde-nast-traveler-heats-up-the-night-with-2009-hot-list-party/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.239.234 (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC) — 24.45.239.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

But the album NEVER GOT A RELEASE. He DIDN'T appear in that (or any) film. So these 'news' stories are of no consequence TheGrooveGuru TheGrooveGuru (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing has changed since the last AFD on this two months ago. I agree the broken links need fixing, though. – iride scent 00:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to delete. This is ridiculous; besides, on closer inspection none of those sources actually seem to be reliable. – iride scent 00:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None are reliable. Allmusic.com and MTV are as reliable as it gets. What's wong with the people on here? 32.141.239.170 (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)— 32.141.239.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Eric West is non-notable? lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g2OyKyT1Xg 69.112.100.139 (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)— 69.112.100.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep. Again 32.143.182.120 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC). — 32.143.182.120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. So he went to yet another party? So what? TheGrooveGuru (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is entirely unverifiable and I suspect it is largely self written. The sources need to be checked mopre thoroughly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commotion777 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interestingly enough it seems like the same people who want this deleted are unfamiliar with Eric (or claim to be). More so, I find it interesting the same (2) people who want it deleted spend a lot of time checking/editing this Wikipedia (again claim to be unfamiliar with it). This article is more than fine, it has adequate sources from AllMusic, MTV, US Magazine, AOL Music, Yahoo News. Want more do you need? If it need editing for somewhat of a better tone that's something not up to me, but it clearly does not require deletion. ItsRTime (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC) — ItsRTime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Broken links, trivia pages, another photo of Eric standing in front of an event sign, YouTube clips - including one where he is simply a member of the audience pulled onto the stage during a song yet magically according to this article the 'event' becomes interpreted as a "discovery of bright new star" ! RossRSmith (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are we really at this debate again? 68.161.142.176 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)— 68.161.142.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I'd like to see where this goes. Great to see his is working with Kanye. MusicManMadness (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on there are enough sources to "pass" notability. Clean up is needed. 174.34.141.38 (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the links, and there are less than a handful of broken, most of the article is well-sourced and verifiable and again does not require deletion ItsRTime (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Music: http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gifoxqwsldke
AOL: http://music.aol.com/artist/eric-west/2239052
NY Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2006/04/21/2006-04-21_gatecrasher_milian_myspaces_out_about_an.html
Mario Official website listing Eric West as producer : http://www.mario2u.com/music/go
MTV : http://www.mtv.dk/mtv/?StoryId=1247
Yahoo News: http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:us_weekly995:b3515614bac6f02caa0f65ccb9d966c2

All those first two links tell you is that West's supposed music career to date amounts to precisely nothing. The AOL one is a verbatim copy of the allmusic one so they hardly count as two sources. I can't even be bothered to check the rest. Plus it seems like the same one or two people who want this kept are the same one or two people who keep trying to stifle any discussion of it (look how many times the discussion page has been wiped by certain people any time anyone casts any doubt on the point of this entry) TheGrooveGuru (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be bothered to check the rest sources but you want this article deleted? Can your vote be taken seriously then? Precisely nothing happened to his career? He recently worked (produced or wrote) on albums for Mario, David Hernandez and Cher, and has been in almost every gossip magazine under the sun. So maybe to you he isn't notable, but for some he is. The guy had an endorsement deal with American Eagle http://popular.ebay.com/ns/Clothing-Shoes-Accessories-/American-Eagle-Outfitters.html . I doubt he would have had it if he wasn't notable. That does not require deletion. ItsRTime (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the third one is some gossip column rubbish about someone NOT KNOWING WHO ERIC WEST IS. The fifth is a copy of the fourth but in Danish. The last one mostly concerns the completely false rumour made up by someone that he was going to appear in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. And these are the best links you could find? TheGrooveGuru (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried to find sources that might justify a keep under WP:MUSIC, given the claim that he is an R&B singer. There are comments about two singles that he released, and somewhere it says that BMG is his record company, but I can't find any evidence that he's released an album. So we can't meet WP:MUSIC's requirement for multiple albums on a major label, national tours, or awards. Somewhere else it says he was a male model between 2005 and 2007. Are we getting close to notability yet? EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I voted keep. There is a album In the works with universal and downtown records and kanye west is producing it as well. The link is on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.137.99.30 (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's supposedly been an album in the works for the last six years or so (see Mr. Eric West)! IF and when an album gets released THEN maybe there should be a wikipedia page for him. Until then it's just so much free promotional puff. And that Kanye West link you're so proud of is a link to a pay-for-promotion site. TheGrooveGuru (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' - seems to just about meet notabilty Hollowinsideandout (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' KingU (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 68.160.202.131 (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC) — 68.160.202.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Lots of wild claims – supposed guest on the Oprah Winfrey show, alleged big hits in conveniently obscure markets, blatantly made-up chart positions, appearing in tabloids around the world (don’t you have to actually be famous to appear in tabloids) – without a shred of independent secondary evidence to back it up, there is no proof for any of this, especially with the heavy reliance on gossip sites and invalid sources like popdirt.

The only thing on his resume was appearing as an extra in Lords Of Dogtown – this constitutes notability? This is nothing more than a puff piece for an apparent habitual liar. The latest one was about his album coming out yet again with supposed production from Kanye West (we would have heard of this if Kanye was involved) – which you can quite clearly see was sent to a free submit your own news site - http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=119137 Being known for never having released an album is not reason to be on here. 82.40.86.84 (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep::: I hope I am doing this right but who the hell are all of these people with these with all of these claims. I know Eric personally and I am shocked there are all of the attacks. Do you guys even have any time for anything eelse? If this web page gets deleted his life doesn't stop. I am so proud of him and how busy he has been. He's got a new record deal, has Brian Michael Cox and Kanye West on his album so far and will be more notable than any of you. Did anyone get the new Gotham magazine? Or Women's Day magazine? Or The Mi2n front page feature? Maybe you should. He's got everything and everyone going on his side now bitches.

Eric's 'friends' need to calm down a bit. Like, they say, it's only a Wikipedia page after all. When his music career takes off then good for him, then he'll be notable enough to have a page. But I don't think that Wikipedia should be used as a tool for self-promotion by tenuous association with other celebrity names and reporting of trivial gossip column filler, which is all this entry amounts to at present (and has done for many years). Going from the links Eric and 'friends' certainly seem to have found plenty of other places on the internet to place their promotional fluff. (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - pointless waste of space article about this so-called 'celeb'. A complete fantasist and Walter Mitty made real, and it wouldn't surprise me if these 'friends' supporting him were West himself. Discobadgers (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC) you are so sad. all of your edits are from the uk the same web site that now made the 300 page topic about getting the eric west wikipedia deleted private because all of you are busted. http://www.moopy.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=22578 [reply]

Hey Eric, maybe you should send the story out to the news media! Notable model/actor/singer/humanitarian/gossip column regular Eric West speaks exclusively to makeyourownnews.com about his Wikipedia entry deletion conspiracy heartbreak! Then put it as a link on the wikipedia page!

I'm not Eric but you and your 'friends' have been busted. And you're pathetic. Who spends a week on this? You do. I emailed his Myspace.com/ericxwest but I bet he won't even care. When did you delete the long topic on you webpage to get this deleted? You're sick!! If this gets deleted too bad I don't feel bad for Eric it's just a webpage I feel bad for you. What will you do with your time now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.136.148.116 (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, most of the ones saying “keep” with named IP addresses are from the New York area – home of Eric West.

I also think the history of the page and the editors contributions should be noted – http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Eric+West

You’ll see the ones who’ve run the page for the last 5 years all do the same type of trivial pop diva article - Janet Jackson, Jody Watley etc. And a quick glance at the history for these contributors reveals that they try and get Eric West’s name in “related” articles that tie in with his page – like Christina Milian. I have no idea who noted superstar Jeannie Ortega is, but at least she actually has an album listed in her allmusic profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.86.84 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm trying to find someway of keeping this article, but I'm not sure if Mr. West meets standards for inclusion. If the article is kept, I'd suggest a LOT of clean-up and a rewrite. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect this page is almost entirely autobiographical, and that half the references would not exist if not for this page. Dmn € Դմն 18:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or don't

Eric won't defend himself, and but I will.

He wouldn't be anything if it wasn't for this Wiki? So this is the reason he is working on the album by David Hernandez? http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPicture&friendID=531055&albumId=3484083 Or the reason he was a presenter on the Urban Music Awards that aired in the US. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6Hn5mOM_0s Or the reason the Paparazzi go crazy over him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g2OyKyT1Xg Or the reason he is a successful model. Also the reason Elton John picked him to host the Elton John Aids Foundation Also the reason he makes gossip columns. Only because Wiki. Right on. Now I'm going to create my on! Now I can be as fancy as he is. Because of Wiki I can now do everything he does. It's THAT easy. Mangie80 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wow. 57 sources, all of them unreliable and trivial to boot. I'd like to say that's a record. But sadly, it isn't. (I think the "socialite" mention in the lede is a nice touch though).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how al 57 sources are unreliable? CBSnews.com, ArtistDirect.com, US magazine.com, AllMusic.com, AOL News.com, Yahoo News.com, MTV.com, Official musician web sites, ASACP and YouTube footage. This is the best thing ever. I'll wait for it. Mangie80 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't explain for you. But i'll happily direct you to where you can learn about our inclusion and sourcing criteria, SPA. Read these: WP:RS WP:WEIGHT WP:V WP:NOTE WP:TRIVIA WP:NOTMYSPACE for starters.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well How about once again ... CBSnews.com, ArtistDirect.com, US magazine.com, AllMusic.com, AOL News.com, Yahoo News.com, MTV.com, Official musician web sites,

Since when was CBS news, Us magazine, Yahoo news, MTV and official artists websites like Mario's not reliable? What a joke.Mangie80 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC - I've never in all my time here seen such a well sourced article where the sources add up to.. nothing at all. It's like they are constructed of quantum matter - they are there until you look at them... --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amazing—so much nothing. Fails the 'multiple third-party non-trivial coverage' test. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Mr Stephen. -down load | sign! 01:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have argued with User:Bali ultimate before, but here he hit the nail right on the head. Also Delete per Iridescent, Mr Stephen, RossRSmith, Dmn, EdJohnston, and Cameron Scott arguments. The subject of this article, Eric West, is a borderline notable entertainer, but the cites are just trivial mentions without any in depth coverage from multiple independent sources. When he garners some more notability (and I think he will) as evidenced by sufficient RS, come back with an article. Fails WP:N, WP:MUSIC, WP:V & WP:RS. Many of the comments show a rather obvious campaign to influence this AfD, as indicated by the high number of first time contributors, socks, and SPAs. — Becksguy (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

The following users have been blocked as obvious sockpuppets created to influence AFD discussions:

Commotion777 (talk · contribs)
ItsRTime (talk · contribs)
Hollowinsideandout (talk · contribs)
Mangie80 (talk · contribs)
TheGrooveGuru (talk · contribs)

I recommend their comments be disregarded above. Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - although the band appears to have been featured in one more video game since the last deletion of its article, it still is not getting any real press coverage outside of the games. Danaman5 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An endless sporadic[edit]

This was tagged for speedy deletion under A7, but the article's claims that the band's songs have been featured in various video games appear to be true. This suggests to me that the band must have some level of public notoriety. The article certainly needs a rewrite, but I'm not sure if the band is notable or not. Danaman5 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I realized that this has been previously deleted several times under its capitalized name, and it doesn't appear to have acquired any non-game notability during that time. I will close this AFD and speedy delete.--Danaman5 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rain Tapes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted at AfD but Delete votes were by sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. Therefore relisting (as should've happened at the time without the sockpuppets). I am neutral. Black Kite 21:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...I thought the procedure was to add the !notvote template at top and strike sockpuppets votes? Not to mention AFD's are not votes? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an ongoing AfD that would be the case, but this one closed a while back. Black Kite 09:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my original nomination. Subject fails notability per WP:MUSIC. It is an unreleased demo tape. No singles, no chart performance, no awards. Information comes from one source only. I thought AfD were decided on the compliance or non-compliance to Wiki-rules of the original article anyway, not the number of votes it gets?? Paul75 (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd be right, but it'd be a brave administrator that'd close an AfD as "Delete" which had no delete !votes at all apart from the nom (which is what this would've had without the socks). Black Kite 09:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont think WP:MUSIC is the right guidelines (it's not a rule) for this particular item, but then half this article is otiose, and the useful bits can be (and are) covered elsewhere. JKW111 (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent notability established for this.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lootius[edit]

Non notable video game reference. Not covered in any reliable sources. Probable hoax. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete - Non-notable and almost all sources and citations are unreliable forum posts. CanadianNine 22:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reason I wrote this article is hearing many people asking what Lootius was, and finally deciding to collect data. I'm sure there was a web cartoon somewhere I can locate, which is why I left a notation that the article is still in progress. I took a look at wikipedia article for "noob", which has references pointing to webster's definition of "newbie". Unfortunately there isn't a dictionary definition of Lootius, since the term is part of gamer slang, more or less new age virtual folklore. Up to you but I figured a clarification on what it is has a small right to exist, at least as a link to Entropia Universe, since that's where is originated. Look at the wiki article for "leet", if something like that's considered notable, I don't see why Lootius isn't. Leetspeech is pretty much used entirely by gamers nowadays.Peterbabs

Note - This user is the main primary editor of the article in question, and only real contributor to it. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim down - This editor is unsure as to why this is a "non notable" reference, as it can be seen in many popular gaming cultures today. "Noob" and other gaming terminology and lore has found its way to Wikipedia's articles, yet they are not at risk of deletion. Lootius is just as valid an entry as any pantheon of deities from varying cultures. Not a single person can provide solid enough citation that the information presented is true, yet every deity I have searched for using Wikipedia is easily found and not at risk of deletion. (edit: Additional citation on some points is needed. Though it is hardly worth deleting over. I have seen countless articles that simply have a necessity for clarification and/or citation noted without immediate risk of deletion.) Kaneyasuo 23:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)— Kaneyasuo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note This user above, Kaneyasuo is likely a SPA or sock puppet, as this is the only edit. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk)

Note - Is this how all wikipedian editors greet new members? I had heard bad things, but I didn't want to believe them. No, I am here because Entropia is a relevant interest of mine and Lootius has been part of its culture for several years now. I did not think that my credibility would be so brazenly attacked for simply my lack of activity. I hardly find, in fact, that my existence as an inexperienced user has any bearing whatsoever on the discussion. But just to be fair and undeniably unbiased in the accuser's eyes, I will make an edit to my original notation. (Kaneyasuo) 01:00, 21 April 2009

Delete, seems to be a neologism uncovered by reliable sources. Mintrick (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
errrrr...."not covered", right? ;-) --EEMIV (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a slang term with no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As a member of the church of Lootius i will be the witness of the existence of the god lootius. Even the creators of the entropia universe have mentioned lootius name and that makes lootius part of the virtual universe. Secondly lootius now also exists in the universe that is afterworld, of russian origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.23.78 (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please login to vote. Especially when I suspect this is a sock user as above. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: Unstriking text: IPs can contribute to the discussion but the reviewing admin will weigh their comments accordingly - in this case, not much. – ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable fancruft. ukexpat (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to have the requisite independent reliable sources, and without them it doesn't qualify as notable enough for an independent article. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources fan something or other (as currently written it's borderline incomprehensible).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:WHACK! for possible sock. --EEMIV (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could someone explain to me what a sock is? I'm a frequent wikipedia user myself but brand new as a contributor, this is the first and only article I ever wrote, and was prepared by more than just me, but a number of gamers who put their experiences and memories together. I didn't much enjoy being called a sock puppet. :( I'm just the one doing the typing work. What would a good suggestion be for summing up gamer folklore? Perhaps a place for, say, EntropiaWiki could be in place? I'm seeing a lot of hostile rejection, so maybe people can point me in the right direction here. This article's primary audience is gamers. I understand I'm in the wrong place, I recall a game Shadowbane has its own MorlochWiki. How do you create a separate Wiki for a specific area of interest? Pure Pwnage also has an article in Wiki, but they have their own website. So as far as I understand I have to find or create a popular website that focuses just on the figure of Lootius. I could speak to Konrad about it since he already has a site. I heard there is a webcomic series that deal with Lootius, just haven't been able to find it. What do you think is a good way to proceed? Thanks. --Peterbabs —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This is not the right forum. See your talk page. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki!!! Second, "sock" refers to sock puppet, as in an account used for deceptive purposes, particularly through the usage of false online identities (cf. Wikipedia: Sock puppetry). MuZemike 06:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Hopkins[edit]

No notability established (and indeed, from the sounds of information the person is clearly not notable by Wikipedia standards), no reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; article subject shows no indication of passing WP:ENTERTAINER at this time. Note that in this request for editor assistance, the article creator, contributions admitted to being the subject's mother. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability concerns. ←Spidern → 03:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - obvious failure to pass WP:ENTERTAINER, spammy tone to an extent that in my opinion qualifies for db-spam deletion as well as db-bio. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that ((db-spam)) may apply, but there is certainly an assertion of notability in having been nominated for an award. But it's a moot point anyhow. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google shows he's had a variety of small movie roles. Not enough to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. For example, he played 'Strangled Deputy' in No Country for Old Men (film). Things might be different in a few years. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Summer EP[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted at AfD but at least five "Delete" votes were by sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. Therefore relisting. I am neutral. Black Kite 19:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first AfD had my nomination and only two "delete" comments from our sockpuppet. The two "keep" arguments were both made by the main author of the article and included notifications of sources he had added; sources which didn't meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources, IMHO.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 20:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Same reason as last AfD. Notable artist with sufficient information for an article. Also added press release from Earshot Media, NeverShoutNever!'s Press and Publicity Representatives. [9] --Russ is the sex (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing much has changed from the original AfD. The article still lacks any evidence of substantial write up in reliable third-party sources. The citation of the press release from the "Press and Publicity Representatives" is an improvement, but I still doubt it qualifies as a reliable third-party source. To quote from the notaility guideline: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." (emphasis added). So, I ask, where is the write up in Billboard or Rolling Stone for example? Astronaut (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete press releases or myspace aren't reliable sources Secret ^account 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:NALBUMS because of a lack of "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". Tim meh ! 23:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is only a "lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources" after the full-length was changed to an EP. There is a ton of information from reliable sources about the album itself. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] I will try to find some more.

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow Is Today (song)[edit]

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted at AfD but two "Delete" votes were by sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. Therefore relisting. I am neutral. Black Kite 19:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 20:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I guess more sources could be found, since this is a famous song about Joel's suicide attempt. No doubt that every book on Joel deals with this, as well as perhaps some magazine and newspaper articles of the past 35 years. What we need in cases like this is someone with access to 1970s or 1980s newspapers and music mags. Remember similiar discussions (Queen and Pink Floyd tour articles) that only could bring up a few articles on the internet (FUTON bias), but many cited in standard secondary literature. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 20:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as per above. --Loodog (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above two, but the article could use expansion. 24.126.26.133 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the article could use more sources but the one RS in the article is enough to establish notability. The song is an important chapter of Joel's biography and I agree that more sources could be found.(Wikipedia:There is no deadline)--J^mundo 01:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:HexaChord Rlendog (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad Globe FC[edit]

The subject does not appear to be notable. It contains very little substantial information and cites no references besides the club's own website. HJ Mitchell (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - here are some sources - about winning a trophy and confirming their place in the Hyderabad Premier League. However, are such acheivements notable? GiantSnowman 10:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no idea- wtf is the Hyderabad Premier League and is it notable? The article makes no effort to describe this. if somebody would clarify this...—Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ Mitchell (talk • contribs) 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can workout it is a team playing in the city of Hyderabad's premier league. I wouldn't say it is notable at all, however I can't find notability guidelines for sports clubs any where. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real assertion to notability. Giant Snowman 20:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The support for keeping this list from people such as Gwalla and Rigadoun seem reasonable enough, and have strong enough support in the community behind them to prevent a consensus from forming here. Objections based on WP:NOTDIR have been noted, and they raise some valid points, and some less convincing points:

Most concerning is the fact that most of the ensembles on the list are not notable, have no article, and probably deserve no article, which eliminates the "navigation" and "development" purpose of lists, and leaves "information", information on subjects which we generally deem not notable.
In contrast I found "based on a directory" arguments less convincing, because using a directory as a major source does not mean the list itself needs to be a directory.

The issue of the notability of entries would probably sway me to vote "delete" on this, but I cannot see that making a difference here. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of the debate, the "keep" voters point out that several of the sources cited in the article are independent, and that makes a reasonable argument that WP:N is met. In a case like this, where each side has received support from about half the participants, I cannot see enough support behind the view that this is a directory to call a consensus for deletion, nor is there an obvious violation of the fundamental policies of WP:V or WP:NOR that I can overrule the lack of consensus here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of gamelan ensembles in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted at AfD but 3 of the 6 "Delete" votes were by sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. Therefore relisting. I am neutral. Black Kite 19:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many people will find this reference useful in various circumstances. Scholarly research about the growth of musical communities will be facilitated by having it available. People who are interested in contacting groups in a particular geographical area can use it. It looks to me that the objections to this entry are technical; the positive comments are from people aware of its extreme value. The benefit of Wikipedia is that over time this article will be enriched by contributions of others, who can add depth and correct mistakes. Conscientia (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the article has "extreme value" is an opinion; not exactly a matter we take into consideration during deletion discussions. You are also aware that you are basically calling the article a directory, are you not? GraYoshi2x►^talk 02:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many lists have directory aspects to them. The guidelines are meant to discourage lists that are merely directories -- list of just links, lists of just addresses, etc... The issue is not as black and white as you present it. There are shades of gray, and personally, I think gray is good and should be left alone. I find most of the Lists of video games or List of Pokemon characters to be non-notable cruft but I let them be. Removing gray just alienates people as can be evidenced in this discussion. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a useful reference for me and for anyone else interested in gamelan. It has a body of people committed to keeping it current. It has potential for expansion and linkage. Weeboat (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only contribution made to Wikipedia by Weeboat. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is a contribution made by someone who just USES Wikipedia rather than someone who edits. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard practice in AfD's to identify new editors. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Keep Gamelan are sophisticated musical ensembles, each with a unique composition and tuning, playing significant historical and newly-composed repertoire. Though originating in Java and Bali, gamelan groups have become, in the past half-century, musical institutions throughout the United States, with some emsembles having more than fourty years of continuous performance, comparable to some orchestras in longevity. Furthermore, gamelan in the US have commissioned and performed important new works of serious music, for example those by Lou Harrison or Michael Tenzer. The reasons given for deletion are petty and bureaucratic, and completely disregard the content of the article. Dr. Daniel Wolf, composer and ethnomusicologist, Frankfurt, Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.119.64 (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This above comment looks awfully suspicious on further inspection. It certainly reminds me of Badagnani's manner of writing, and he has already "voted" below. I certainly hope this isn't an attempt to game the system or sockpuppet. GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I doubt that this ip is another editor voting here, it is the only contribution to Wikipedia from this ip. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear "Ronz", whoever you are. I am a Wikipedia reader with professional credentials in the field in question, not an editor and I signed with my real name and location. I also happened to have written about American Gamelan recently in my blog: http://renewablemusic.blogspot.com/2009/03/our-other-orchestra.html I have no connection to any "Badagnani" and, as I am easy to contact, verifying my comment before assuming something suspicious would have been the polite thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.69.163 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kindly strike the above comment, which is outrageous! Badagnani (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ip does resolve to Germany as the editor said. Dlabtot (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as yet another indiscriminate list. The sources are not third party and violates DIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE; the list itself is even credited as coming from a directory! A category would be relevant here as categories do not need the in-depth encyclopedic coverage that lists do. (copy/paste of my !vote in the last AfD) Them From Space 19:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the delete reasons are frivolous. indiscriminate has no bearing whatever on this list, a category can only contain existing articles (or redirects, and there are none that I can find), and the guidelines for lists specifically include such as List of minor characters in Dilbert where the items in the list are not individually notable. Occuli (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I deleted it in the first place. The nomination is valid. --Tone 20:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per previous AfD and WP:NOTDIR. The article was copied from a directory and is being maintained as a directory. The only source is a directory. All the other "notes" are just linkspam to official websites. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's take a step back here. The reasons we have guidelines about directories and links is to prevent pages from becoming spam magnets. That has never been a problem with this list, nor will it ever be. This list is comprehensive. I've endeavored to add every gamelan ensemble that exists in the US. Most of these ensembles are connected to educational institutions as part of their ethnomusicology programs. If each of these ensembles had a page about them, this list would look more like our List of symphony orchestras. However, Gamelan music is much more obscure than symphony orchestras so many of these organizations do not need an article about them. It makes more sense to combine them all here in one list, with the most relevant information about the ensembles. It also makes sense to use links to each organization to verify the existence and information about each ensemble. Using links to verify the basic facts of an organization is in keeping with our guidelines. So is this list to be faulted because it is comprehensive and includes all ensembles? Like many other lists on Wikipedia, this list has become more accurate than the original sources used to create it. Since Wikis collect information from many sources, and have the input of a multitude of contributors it is ideal at becoming a resource for these types of lists. Deleting them is cutting off your nose to spite your face. The guidelines that are being invoked to justify the deletion of this page are being invoked without applying the guidelines' underlying rationale. This list is verifiable, useful information that is not a spam magnet, nor a threat to the pillars of Wikipedia. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it currently stands, this artle is a spam magnet, as all of the ensembles are linked to directly. They should be linked through third-party sources. None of the links to their homepages are relevant in this list, as Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Furthermore, the list isn't discriminate as their is no inclusion criteria. Anybody can call themselves a gamelan ensemble and get a spot on here. As little or none of these ensembles have any articles, this would be documenting a nonnotable phenomenon. I can see how some ensembles can appear here if the majority have articles, but if none of them do, then odds are the collection of them as a whole don't either unless reliable, third-party sources prove otherwise. Them From Space 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "Anybody can call themselves a gamelan ensemble and get a spot on here", but in over three years nobody has. This is not the only list that has links like this. I've worked on List of largest suspension bridges which has links to the homepages of the bridges listed. If a transportation authority says that their bridge span is so many meters long, there is no reason to question that information with the requirement of a third party source. Nobody goes around independently verifying the length of bridge spans. If a gamelan ensemble says they perform on tradition Sundanese instruments, there is no reason to question this harmless bit of information. Sundanese groups do not misrepresent the use Balinese instruments and vice versa. There is no need to apply all guidelines to all articles with maximum orthodoxy. This list has an inclusion criteria, it includes ALL gamelan ensembles. It is comprehensive. I'd love to see articles about many more ensembles on this list. Just because they don't exist doesn't mean that they could not be written. I'd like to turn this discussion around. Do you have any reason to believe that there is any unreliable (not just outdated) information contained in this list? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Correct, there is not a problem with groups that are not actually gamelan ensembles in the United States attempting to "spam" Wikipedia by claiming that they are, and trying to get into the article. In fact, that is why we have specialist editors in the first place, who take an interest in improving articles on subjects they have familiarity with, and who act as a sort of "human BS detector"--one of the most successful aspects of Wikipedia, making it superior in many ways to print encyclopedias such as Britannica (which, unlike WP, I do not believe has an article listing gamelan ensembles in the United States). The sources we use are both secondary as well as primary, only using the latter when the verification of information such as the ensemble's date of establishment, Indonesian-language name, or current director can only be done in that manner. As per WP's very own, eminently reasonable policy, we use the best references possible. The policy is as follows:

“

Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

”

Badagnani (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the most successful aspect of Wikipedia is the ability to post spam? That statement in itself doesn't make sense no matter how you interpret it. You also say there are both primary and secondary "quality" sources. All I honestly see is first-party cruft. In addition, that quote regarding novel passages have little to do with this subject. GraYoshi2x►^talk 03:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We must have different definitions of spam. I see no spam on this page. Be careful what you call "cruft". I've spent over 30 years studying this subject. Tell me, what do you know about gamelan (if anything)? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep - Notable musical subject and well sourced; carefully maintained and much more detailed than the original article on which it was based as regards the individual gamelans' Indonesian names, dates of founding, current directors, etc. Badagnani (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding extra-dramatic verbiage isn't exactly going to make your argument any more important. This is not a vote. The subject may be notable, but certainly not any of the ensembles. GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As my previous nomination stated, it is no more than a linkfarm and directory, which we both strongly discourage on Wikipedia. At least several of the ensembles should have an article that meets all notability criteria for even considering having a list on this subject. Lists should, most of the time, link to articles, not external links. Also note the very bottom of the page; the article even shows that it is based on a directory! GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've now spent an hour or so converting it into a table (as I suggested in the last Afd). I think that makes it clearer how this is/can be an encyclopedic list.
The directory that this was based off of - [17] - hasn't updated since 2006 - except to add a note pointing to our more current listing.
I've also added a second main reference, the list from the official Embassy of Indonesia.
Contemplate how it could be a useful list, and discuss things from that perspective... instead of spending time thinking only of reasons to delete. The adversarial attitude encountered here is frustrating and retrograde. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This still needs independant sources for verification. Honestly I don't see why people spend so much time trying to "save" lists like this when no encyclopedic material exists on a collective group of Gamelan ensembles. I've looked for sources and can't find any to back up this article as an independant topic. Perhaps some of these groups are notable enough for their own articles, but the collective bunch isn't notable enough for a list. You can't create encyclopedic material when none exists to begin with, that's original research. Them From Space 03:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We use both secondary and primary sources, in line with our own WP policy:

“

Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

”

We must be reasonable in everything we do, and keep our users foremost in our minds, and adhering to this WP policy is eminently reasonable. Creating the best possible article listing gamelan ensembles in the United States necessitates using the best sources available, which we are doing. Thank you for your interest in this article and let's work together to make it the best possible article on this subject anywhere on the Internet--or anywhere else, for that matter. It's a point of pride that so many of our WP articles are the best articles on their subjects anywhere. Badagnani (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That policy is about content and not whether a topic should be included at all. Per WP:N a topic (like this list) must be covered in independant sources. We have to take from previously published sources in order to determine notability of the subject matter. If that can't be determined the article isn't fit for inclusion. That's what WP:N is all about. As for the content within the article, primary sources aren't the best tools for verification, but they will do if secondary sources cannot be found. That being said, entire articles cannot be sustained on primary sources, and it would be impossible to build up an encyclopedic article without them and without using original research. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that has ever existed. Lists like this must be discriminate. When the inclusion criteria is "anything goes" it turns from an encyclopedia article into an indiscriminate list and a directory listing. Wikipdia isn't the yellow pages. Them From Space 03:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the sources you cite are all primary sources, and directories at that. We do have to be reasonable in everything we do, and for one it is not pushing spammy links into Wikipedia. GraYoshi2x►^talk 03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a long-time and productive editor, and never add information that is not essential or notable to Wikipedia. Our policy on sources is eminently reasonable, and we use only the best sources possible. The subject of gamelans in America is quite notable and the page is properly sourced. However, it could always be better, so let's work together to make it the best possible article on this subject. Badagnani (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —-- Quiddity (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —-- Quiddity (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Directory of non-notable musical groups. Perhaps we should include phone numbers and addresses? This would be better served as a category, if there are even enough actual articles to justify a category. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Article is just like advertising. 207.233.67.8 (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
1. List of number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.) is entirely sourced from a single primary reference, the Billboard charts site. It was featured recently. In contrast, this gamelan list is mainly sourced from the secondary reference list maintained by the Indonesian Embassy in Washington DC - "[18]". ((cite web)): External link in |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)[19], and a list maintained by Dartmouth University (Ivy League!) and the American Gamelan Institute - [20]. The "Notes" section is to separate out the confirmation-citations, as were requested years ago, and primary sources are perfectly acceptable for confirming uncontroversial details - see the featured List of vegetable oils and the many discussions at WP:RS/N.
2. As has been pointed out, and agreed, not all items on a list need to be notable, and even none can be individually. It's nice if all or most of the items in a list are notable, but it is not necessary. See List of Caribbean membranophones and List of awards and nominations received by Coldplay and List of pipe organ stops and List of pipe organ builders and List of drum majors, commanders and directors of the Highty-Tighties and List of concerts at Parken Stadium as a sublist from Parken Stadium#Concert venue for some of the hundreds of examples.
3. I wonder if perhaps the nature of the list is being misunderstood? Most of these people don't even have anything to sell! and most of them are part of major University Music Departments... The few ensembles that do have albums for sale on major labels will be notable and have articles written about them in due time.
4. Or perhaps some of you haven't learned what a gamelan is yet? "A gamelan is a set of instruments as a distinct entity, built and tuned to stay together — instruments from different gamelan are generally not interchangeable." Look at the pictures. This is not like a "list of guitar ensembles" (which would be unmanageable and indiscriminate). These are instruments for groups, like church bells are. Impossible to play by oneself.
Does that help anyone see the goal and differences and relevant-contexts? -- Quiddity (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim that the notes are references of some sort seems to be a rationalization for keeping the links regardless of what they link to. From what I can tell, the links were simply copied to be used as official sites. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Official sites are perfectly allowable as sources for simple descriptive claims. It is only when NOR or NPOV become an issue that official sites are insufficient. See WP:NOR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." and WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: "While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." See all the examples of featured lists I gave above. See almost any article - we use official sites as references constantly. Ask at WT:RS or WP:RSN if you are still in doubt. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quiddity is quite correct in this, and eminently reasonable in his/her reasoning (as our policies are). Badagnani (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB concerning your claims about using them as sources.

More importantly, "From what I can tell, the links were simply copied to be used as official sites." In other words, the links aren't sources. If anyone bothered to look, they'd see that some of the links verify nothing at all. Given this, I think the claim that they are references is a rationalization. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What bothers me in these discussions is that nothing is proved or disproved by throwing around links to Wikipedia guideline pages. Guidelines and policies, however well they are written need to be applied and interpreted through careful discussion about their real merits and effects. If we create a policy to prevent unwanted spam, it does not make sense to apply it with such orthodoxy that it removes useful external links that are not added by drive-by spammers. Likewise, the need for a reliable source is essential for challenged information, but not as important for information that is unlikely to be challenged. If I created a stub for each of these groups, the guidelines recommended that a external link be added to each organizations home page. If we then decided that these organizations should be combined on one list, why then do the links go from being recommended to harmful? What is the real harm being done? There are precedents for using links this way. Even though a page has third party sources for the information, I am reasonably certain that the ultimate source for much of it is primary. Nobody goes around independently verifying most of the information that we use every day unless there is a good reason to doubt it. This is the nature of consensus reality. It would be extremely harmful to Wikipedia to apply a rigid orthodoxy about third party sources to all the information in every article and list. Such orthodoxy should be saved for pages that have real validity or maintenance issues. That is not the case here. Sure, some of the links could be better, but do you really think this page is plagued with misinformation? Also, if a third party source finds that people use Wikipedia for this information and gets lax on maintaining their own data, is that reason to delete the information from Wikipedia? If so, in a few years we'll have to delete thousands and thousands of articles and lists. As this project matures, we have to come to accept that we ARE the reliable third party source for the rest of the planet and act accordingly and modify our policies and guidelines to deal with this reality. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Software comparisons. We use "self-published" (official) sources constantly. Ask at WT:RS if you doubt this crucial fact.

References are often used to confirm-the-existence of a subject in a list. If an editor claims that an unreferenced entry is non-existent, a link to the entry's "official page" often gets added. They are frequently used to confirm simple specifications of everything from aircraft to software. Again, ask at the relevant policy/guideline/noticeboard pages. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication that the majority of the entries on this list are in any way notable. Dlabtot (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most/all entries in a list do not need to be notable. See List of Caribbean membranophones - Featured. See my comments above (point #3) about how the notable ensembles will eventually have articles written about them. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Caribbean membranophones is a list of notable, sourced information, therefore, it has nothing whatsoever in common with this WP:SPAM. Dlabtot (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is also highly notable and well sourced, and not any form of spam, as seems to be your opinion. Badagnani (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" does not mean maybe 5 people blogged about the subject, and "well sourced" does not mean "smack on a bunch of primary sources and we're done for the day." Well-sourced doesn't literally mean "many sources", it means that there are many various independent sources to verify the subject. The lists and categories Quiddity linked to above is a very weak argument. For one thing, software comparisons are comparisons, not lists. The mebranophone list is truly well-sourced with many independent sources and verifiable information. Simply converting everything to a fancy-looking table does not fix the root problem. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the entries in the List of Caribbean membranophones are not notable (or at least they have no article link, currently). That was dlabtot's deletion rationale. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is false. A good-faith error no doubt stemming from the fact that most entries like tumba don't link to their WP pages (Tumba (drum). At any rate, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, the state of the List of Caribbean membranophones article is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've said that ther is "no indication that the majority of the entries on this list are in any way notable." I've started adding third party sources that mention these groups, and that has not been difficult. Many of these groups have performed in major venues, and were reviewed in major newspapers. But let us assume that you are correct, and that a majority have not. Do you think it would be better to have a list of only those groups that have this third-party coverage? I do not. I think it is far better to have a comprehensive list of all the ensembles, and make it transparent that some of the ensembles information comes directly from their website. Including them all makes the list more useful, and makes it less likely that we would have to fight over which belong and which do not. Lists are often recommended as a way of handling entries that are not individually notable, but that collectively are. The topic of Gamelan in America has been discussed in Journals, Newspapers and Encyclopedia entries. These are in the list of references. If the topic is valid and many of the groups are notable, then what is wrong with having the list? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't publish lists of things that exist, we publish lists of things that are notable enough to include in Wikipedia. We don't need a list with three entries; if a sufficient number of US gamelan ensembles achieve such notoriety that they meet our notability guidelines, then this list would be appropriate; now, it is not. Dlabtot (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We publish plenty of lists of things that exist. There has not been a consensus on the meaning of "notability" since I started contributing to Wikipedia 5 years ago. In fact there are contradictory guidelines about this all over Wikipedia space. When I was working on getting a list about bridges featured, I was encouraged to create stubs for many bridges that I did not think worthy an article. Others have stated, just as emphatically that a better way to deal with less notable information is to combine them all in one list. The more that people zealously try to enforce their own orthodoxy by becoming deletionist, the more people are driven away from this project. All this effort is counter-productive. It would be much better to work on making things transparent. If someone looks at an entry on this list and sees information about a group from an article in the New York Times, they might trust it more than the website of the group. Ironically, information is often more accurate in the primary source. Either way, a reader should be able to understand the difference and make their own judgment. And really, all of this information is totally uncontroversial and not worth one percent of the energy that we are all putting into these discussions. Your efforts are not "saving" Wikipedia. They are having the opposite effect by driving away loyal contributors. I for one, spend much less time contributing than I used to because of this. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an excellent, and quite accurate assessment. Such efforts to destroy our content do tend to drive away valued editors. Badagnani (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying we should create whatever articles we want on some obscure subject. Sure, let's do that. In the end, we'll just be destroying Wikipedia. This encyclopedia didn't form from just eventualism; a mostly-"immediatist" (as you say) community helped it to grow. What will waiting for other editors to fix up this article do? AFAIK cruft does not fare very well on WP. It would be better to recreate the article at a later date when there are actually numerous independent and verifiable references to establish notability as well as not being entirely dependent on a linkfarm/directory to survive. GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTE (the one guideline that really matters as far as AfD is concerned) requires that notability be established by reference to reliable third party sources that are independant of the subject. This list is missing such sources. Hence, not notable. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been adding these sources. They are not hard to find, most of the groups are notable. Since the list is meant to be comprehensive, it is not be possible to find third party links for all of them. When creating this list, I didn't think most of the groups warranted their own separate article, so a list seemed more appropriate. Also, reliable sources are critical for information that is challanged. It is much less critical when information is not challanged. Nobody has challanged the accuracy of this list, just the lack of third party sources. Now that there are third party sources, do you still object? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to some sources you've added that establish the notability of entries on the list? For example, the NY Times link that you added, while it does mention Gamelan Semara Santi, Gamelan Semara Santi is not the subject of the article. We have specific criteria for establishing notability for musical acts - and a single mention in an article about someone else does not meet those criteria. (From WP:BAND - Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. ) Dlabtot (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND is for determining whether a musical group merits a stand-alone article. The standards for inclusion within a larger article have always been lower than those for being the subject of an article. This is why List of minor characters in *notable work of fiction* articles exist. Bib Fortuna isn't important enough to get an article, but it's fine to stick him in List of Star Wars characters, for example. — Gwalla | Talk 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20 or 30 non-notable ensembles don't become notable by being grouped together on a list. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is simply not a valid argument. Dlabtot (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has any relevance to this. I wasn't saying that this article should exist because List of Star Wars characters exists. I was saying that individual members of a list do not have to merit stand-alone articles, which is what WP:BAND is about, and using a minor Star Wars character as an example. This is hardly a controversial stance. The notability of the list's topic as a whole is what is relevant here, as well as whether the list can be more informative than simply listing contact info (it already is, so that shouldn't be an issue anymore). — Gwalla | Talk 16:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I acknowledge your failure to understand how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is relevant. I'm not going to engage in a lengthy off-topic discussion, so you can have the last word, but I will note that there is no difficulty in establishing the notability of Bib Fortuna. Dlabtot (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article says "Gamelan Semara Santi, an ensemble from Swarthmore College devoted to the study of the music of Bali." This confirms the information in this list from a third party. The article talks about them performing with the Philadelphia Orchestra at Carnegie Hall. The subject of the article was the performance at Carnegie. They performed. They weren't the top billing, but they were still one of the subjects that the article covered. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Not an indiscriminate list, and not WP:HOPELESS. While we couldn't have a list of garage bands, there seems to be sufficient overhead in putting together a gamelan ensemble that there are only ~100 in the United States, most of them sponsored by universities. Also the idea of listing them is not only considered important by The American Gamelan Institute/Dartmouth University, but a similar list is published by the Embassy of Indonesia itself (both are external links from the article). While we could simply link to these sites from our main article on gamelan, the WP list can be made encyclopedic. While line-items in a list don't each have to meet WP:N, I'd like to see at least a mention of each ensemble in some kind of source other than the band's website or the Darmouth or embassy lists. Each has almost certainly been mentioned in local or college newspapers, or publications of the colleges hosting each ensemble. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking your suggestion, I've started adding these cites. Of the dozen or so groups I did searches for, I found it fairly easy to find articles about almost all them. -- ☑ SamuelWantman
Comment in all of this marvellous discussion I have seen no reference to Gamelan_outside_Indonesia - which is inherently related. But then the issues seem to have grown over time - anyone with any curiosity beyond the immediate arguments here might want to see how the United States section looks in the article just mentioned. I'd love to see what the various eds and proponents of arguments above would do with the telephone number lists that exist Satu Suro 13:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gamelan outside Indonesia is not a list and although still links to primary sources, is in much better shape. At least there all we have to be concered about is the lack of proper references. This gamelan ensemble list is a directory supplying no useful tidbits of information, only some basic cruft (which I assume is directly ripped from the mentioned directory). GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly not indiscriminate, it supplements existing articles on Gamelan, American gamelan, and Gamelan outside Indonesia (which should probably be merged into the parent article, but that's a separate issue), along with Category:American gamelan ensembles. Also, not a mere collection of links: the bulk of the list is informative, with links relegated to a references section at the bottom. This is sourced from third-party sources: the Indonesian embassy, the Dartmouth list, and the American Gamelan Institute. Third-party references do not "drown" if presented among "too many" primary sources: either they are there or they are not, and in this case they are. This could not be replaced with a category, because categories cannot present additional at-a-glance information as this list does, or organize their contents in anything but alphabetical order (this list is geographical): this is the whole reason why lists are allowed to exist alongside categories. — Gwalla | Talk 18:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, All the articles (including this list) started as part of Gamelan. The links to this list were removed after the first AFD. --☑ SamuelWantman 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured as much. And some of the links are still there (or were re-added). — Gwalla | Talk 19:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be any additional "at-a-glance" information in the first place. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, and I can't make any sense of your reason. There must be verifiable and independent sources, not a whole bunch of primary directories. If there's no possible way anyone can get it out of directory format, then it is WP:HOPELESS and should be deleted. The list is also not any more informative than a directory; don't let the fancy looking table fool your eyes. It is also complete nonsense to have a list when we have a single article about a non-notable gamelan. The whole purpose of lists is to link to other Wikipedia pages that relate to it! GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that an ensemble that has been reviewed by the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, that recorded a soundtrack to a DVD, that was was the subject of a PBS documentary, is not notable? One purpose of lists is to link to articles that already exist. Another reason is to inspire people to write articles about could and should exist. Gamelan is an important part of the culture of Indonesia and taught in ethnomusicology programs around the world. Just because you know nothing about it does not make it non-notable. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of gamelan ensembles itself is notable, but this list provides no clue as to whether or not the individual ensembles are notable or not. The ones I've searched for barely reach the 100 hit mark on Google. You seem to be missing the point.

Also, what about the issue of this article being a directory? That is the defining issue right here and there's little you can do to change it. If this article can be recreated at a later date without entirely depending on a directory, sure. Now, no. GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Categories, lists, and navigation templates guideline explicitly states that annotations are one of the advantages of lists, so no, there is no reason why that data should not be there so long as it is informative. The information is mostly descriptive (such as the type of instrumentation, whether they play traditional or "new music", etc.), not contact info, so "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages" is irrelevant. It does have third-party sources—as I said before, the fact that there are lots of primary sources does not make the third-party sources nonexistent. As for "It is also complete nonsense to have a list when we have a single article about a non-notable gamelan", I'm not sure what you're talking about: just in Category:American gamelan ensembles there are two articles on gamelan ensembles that pass WP:BAND easily. The whole purpose of lists is to be informative; the guidelines on lists do not say that they must be used exclusively to list existing articles. — Gwalla | Talk 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I added info to the lede as I had no clue what a gamelan was, even though I've certainly heard the music. I think this list need to explain itself more how these ensembles are tied to preserving culture much as other folk arts do and showing they take part in community, music and folk art festivals that the main article does not. It may also make sense to incorporate List of gamelan varieties together with this into List of gamelan varieties and ensembles. There is a good article here somewhere and I feel we're on the path. -- Banjeboi 01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No sense at all - different domaions - Please do not - if you can help it - take this Afd/ circus into the Wiki Project Indonesia domain/project area - you folks are having your circus here about a list to do with things specifically in the 'US' - it would be appreciated if you deal with that specifically here at this Afd - please do not take it into modifying articles in the Indonesia project - if you wish to do so it is outside of this Afd and outside of the US project area - it is a different context and I would probably personally seriously dissalow almost all that has been written above as anything to do with editing within the Indonesian project or its articles - just deal with this one article/listy if you can please - with whatevewr AGF and civility you can grip on Satu Suro 06:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is it just me, or does this page seem to have some sock/meatpuppeting going on? The reasons made by Conscienta, the anon IP, and Weeboat look extremely similar, and they have hardly contributed anything else to Wikipedia. GraYoshi2x►^talk 02:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments removed. Why was this done? Kindly restore them. Badagnani (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've restored my comments, and User:Ronz has apologized on my user talkpage. It appears to have been an accident. — Gwalla | Talk 20:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lists are for enumerations of notable members of categories (notable in the sense that there should be articles on the members). There are Wikipedia articles on exactly two of the listed groups, and doesn't appear to be likelihood of the proportion increasing towards 100%. WP:NOTDIR. Bongomatic 07:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AOAL does not seem to back you up on that assertion. The guideline specifically states that redlinks and entries that are not on their own notable enough to merit full articles are acceptable. — Gwalla | Talk 20:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the article reads too much like a directory, but the subject of Gamelan bands in the United States is notable and there's nothing to stop editors from making the article more encyclopedic. And subjects that aren't quite notable enough for their own articles can be good to include in a broader subject as is done here. Deletion would make the encyclopedia less complete and less useful as this notable subject matter would be lost. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia policy and practice tends to discourage lists that are sourced only to the websites of the entries. (This constantly comes up in the realm of software, where the spam pressure is strong). The problem seems to be that these gamelan ensembles do not attract enough press coverage so that they can acquire individual references in reliable sources. The best-written article seems to be Gamelan. The American gamelan article is not so great now, but it deserves to be kept and expanded, since it tends to aggregate the press coverage which is too thin to cover all the groups individually. This does not rule out particular American bands, such as Gamelan Sekar Jaya and Gamelan Son of Lion getting their own articles when the coverage is sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the entries were sourced from the AGI (listed at the bottom). Third party cites are being added for many of the groups. Spam pressure has never been a problem with this list so you are solving a problem that does not exist here. There is no policy that requires that every entry on a list have its own article, nor should there be. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see the problem with the referencing, since it is mainly not from the self-published sites, but the AGI and Embassy lists. Perhaps the few entries which are not in any third-party citations should be deleted. As far as notability, there is no need for each group on this list to have the notability of its own article, that's one of the advantages of lists like this. The phenomenon of there being a number of gamelans in the U.S. of various types is certainly notable. This list then supports that claim and gives further information as to its geographical and stylistic spread. Most of the ensembles are connected with universities, so remember that their notability is established not exclusively WP:MUSIC, but rather related to their academic purpose (which I don't know any specific guidelines on). I would add another column for who directs the gamelan ensembles, which would have several people with articles. Another useful column would be the date established. You should make the list sortable by the different categories, too, so that one could more quickly see, say, how many Sundanese ensembles there are, or in what order they were established. Rigadoun (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take note of these good suggestions to add date of establishment and director columns, as well as to add sortability. Badagnani (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 07:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Protocol (video game)[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable video game with a single article/review in a reliable source (GameSpy). Even that is suspect because an editor identifying himself as Executive Producer of Dark Sky Entertainment (the game's developer/publisher) stated on Talk:Beyond Protocol (video game) that the game only gets reviews when they pay for advertisements. While it appears he intended this as an indictment on the game industry, it also serves to question the integrity of any reviews, reliable source or not. There are also ~~serious~~ COI issues here, as ~~at least several~~ one of the editors appear to be connected to the game in some way. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the executive producer. GameSpy was one of the edits that did not require advertising purchases. It is valid. Along with GrrlGamer.com and many others. The real issue here is defining a notable editor. Notable is defined as recognized to be a disinterested 3rd party. Well, then if that is the case, we have plenty of those. If you require our company to purchase ads from Gamespot, PC Gamer, etc for notable edits, then you have completely no idea how the game industry works.

If you can correctly identify a RELIABLE SOURCE without hiding behind the general definition of the wikipedia guidelines, we can see what we can do. In other words, be specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AureliusBP (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC) — AureliusBP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As for COI issues, I can state that I am the ONLY person associated with Beyond Protocol on this topic. I watch all sites for any content pertaining to our intellectual assets. I can attest that there are a number of subscribing players that have put the wikipedia entry together. If you understand anything about Beyond Protocol, you will know that our "credits" list is quite limited and I can state that I am the only person who could even begin to have a conflict of interest. You will find that I only post in the discussion as it is a direct relationship of our trademarked, intellectual property of which I give permission to use on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AureliusBP (talk • contribs) 21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC) — AureliusBP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- I have redacted some of my comments. I read your comments on Talk:Beyond Protocol (video game) again and noticed that you specifically mentioned the GameSpy review was published without you paying for advertisements. (I swear I read the opposite before, and I do apologize for my mistake.) I also regret the insinuation that there were other employees of DSE working on the page. I probably got that impression from the passionate replies on the Talk page, but that can be chalked up to their caring about the game. (Something I understand, believe me.) As for the definition of a reliable source, that is quasi-vague because it's always up to the Wikipedia community, which is why I always refer users to WP:V. The general consensus I've seen is that if there's an article on the source, then they are generally qualified to be used as references. I say "generally" because you'll always find sources which are notably for their sheer unreliability (The National Enquirer comes to mind). If you're looking for specifics, I'd throw out names like PC Gamer or Wired or something like that. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable, independent sources that discuss this in any non-trivial way? No encyclopedia article. Dead simple (don't care who wrote the article or who didn't write the article; it's not notable or verifiable by our standards no matter who wrote it.)Bali ultimate (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The articles at GameSpy and Ten Ton Hammer seem to me to just squeak in under the notability bar. I reread the user's talk page comments, and I'm not convinced that they clearly say that these articles were published because of advertising money- nor am I convinced that this would render the sources no longer usable for demonstrating notability. There is a serious conflict of interest problem, but the correct response to that would be a neutral rewrite, and for the people who work for Dark Sky to stop editing the article. There is one of those editors who has behaved badly and been blocked, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. I don't think this game is very notable, but I'm not feeling that I can make a clear call for deletion, either. Other wise editors better-schooled in the ways of such games may disagree with me, and could even persuade me to change my mind. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The GameSpy article definitely qualifies for me. The Ten Ton Hammer doesn't, though, because it's only an interview and it's not used as a source in the article. WP:N specifically calls for multiple reliable sources, and we don't have that here. Of course, that's just reiterating my $0.02. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was NOT written by anyone with a conflict of interest. The article was written by the PLAYERS of the game. Aurelius has made comments in the discussion page to support the article but nothing more. This is entirely a player driven project that has the support of DSE but is not being written or controlled by them in any way. I myself am an avid player of the game and am in no way affiliated with DSE. The only person who works for DSE that has commented on this article is Aurelius. The biggest issue here seems to be one of notability. If you should do a search on "MMORTS" you will find very little out there in the way of information or notable sources. The reason being is that the MMORTS genre is very new and the only games which currently occupy it are independently developed games that are not very well known. Aurelius made the valid point that in order to get a review from any major "notable" source such as GameSpot, PC Gamer, etc one must pay exorbitant fees for advertising. This is something that is not easily accomplished by an independent developer in this market. The simple fact that Beyond Protocol EXISTS should be notable (In this persons opinion) due to the unique nature of it's position within the video game universe. Again, I believe despite the lack of reviews from the big guys there is ample evidence that Beyond Protocol is worthy of mention in Wikipedia. CoreyDavis787 (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC) — CoreyDavis787 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment quoting: "the MMORTS genre is very new and the only games which currently occupy it are independently developed games that are not very well known." That's a strong deletion argument you know. No one should object that after sufficient time has passed (days, weeks, years... who knows?) that it has become well-known and notable, then we might have a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. But if there are no reliable sources yet then no article. WP:CRYSTAL might be a good one for you to read. Wikipedia is not here to help things become notable; in fact, using it in that way runs counter to what the encyclopedia is supposed to be about.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know about you, but I think that the fact user:AureliusBP threatened Wyatt Riot with legal action really smacks of WP:COI. -- Raziel teatime 17:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There IS at least one reliable source, so the point that there are NO articles needs to stop. User:Wyatt Riot's comment about the GameSpy article being suspect based on one editor's remark calls any article into question. I admit that this game may not be as notable as, say an EA published game (yet), however, in terms of its genre, it is a milestone. In contest to User:Wyatt Riot and User:FisherQueen's concerns about WP:COI, yes, again, AureliusBP is the only person directly involved in DSE who has commented on this article. Even so, he did not edit the page itself in any way. Most of the rest of us are just players (the remainder are just wikipedia users). If anyone wants to make the point that those who have played the game can not be impartial editors/writers of an article, then that disqualifies anyone with first hand knowledge of anything for any article.ZyXHavocXyz (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC) — ZyXHavocXyz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. A lack of references does not always equal a lack of sources. The size of the player or fan base does not determine notability; uniqueness is a better measure. A suspicion that the content of an article is biased calls only for someone to rewrite it, not to delete the whole article. — db48x | Talk 23:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, a lack of references doesn't mean there aren't any out there. But since Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth, we need those references in order to have the article. Having reliable sources is an inclusion criteria here on Wikipedia. Without them, there should be no article, no matter how wildly popular or innovative or significant the subject is. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the WP:V a reliable source would be based upon "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". The way this seems to be taken, at least for video games, is in the format of a review from a reliable source such as GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy, etc. I would like to point out that a "review" is not necessarily the only thing that these websites can do to verify the legitimacy of a game. For example, GameSpot has a landing page for most games regardless of whether there is a review. This page displays detailed information on a game regarding the release date, screenshots, news, patches, etc. Beyond Protocol has one such page on GameSpot here. This is not something created by the developers of the game or players but something that is done by GameSpot itself. I believe everyone here would agree that GameSpot is a reliable source for video games. As such I believe that the landing page alone should be considered a notable source. It may not be a traditional review or article per se but it is an unbiased statement of fact from a reliable 3rd party source. My point is that even though GameSpot does not have anyone reviewing the game, they still acknowledge the games existence and importance by establishing a section of their website devoted to the game. CoreyDavis787 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC) — CoreyDavis787 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Keep The game has a review at GameSpy, and is mentioned on several other notable gaming websites as well (IGN, GameSpot, ect). I think the article should be improved, rather than deleted. - Raziel teatime 19:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Delete. I haven't been able to find any reviews or coverage of this game from any reliable sources outside of the GameSpy review, which is not enough to build an article around. It should be deleted until it gets more coverage. - Raziel teatime 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noteability is adequately demonstrated. Jtrainor (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – Informal mediation has been requested by the users heavily involved with this article. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04/Beyond Protocol (video game). MuZemike 06:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – also reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard. MuZemike 07:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough independent reliable sources to support a verifiable and neutral article. The IGN reference is only a landing page which doesn't count as independent coverage. Beckett.com has no indication of their editorial policies, they do however explicitely disclaim any editorial oversight: "Content is not necessarily reviewed by Beckett prior to posting and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of Beckett. Beckett makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the Content or as to the accuracy and reliability of the Content or any material or information that a Member transmits to other Members. If at any time Beckett chooses, in its sole discretion, to monitor the Services, Beckett assumes no responsibility for the Content, no obligation to modify or remove any inappropriate Content, and no responsibility for the conduct of the Member submitting any such Content." (from their Terms of Service). Other sources cited, including Ten Ton Hammer, are not considered as valid sources under the scope of Wikiproject VideoGames's source list. I'm also extremely shocked by the pattern of abusive behaviour and the multiple violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA across several talk pages by some of the keep voters. MLauba (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. The sources have been pretty exhaustively explored above and on the talk page, and I agree that the only remotely good one appears to be from GameSpy. However, I should note that the GameSpy article is not a review; it's a preview written last year. The fact that it has since generated no new content on that site I would actually call an assertion of non-notability. This also isn't the first time apparent users of the site came to support a Wikipedia article on the game. Beyond Protocol was speedy deleted four times and salted last year. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Beyond Protocol was speedy deleted four times and salted, what has changed? Are there new third-party sources of sufficient quality to confirm notability? I don't see them. I don't believe that the GameSpy page alone is sufficient in quality or quantity of information, basically providing a few screen shots and a line or two describing the game but no real information about the game itself. Recreating the page under a different title is extremely troublesome and appears to be an attempt to sneak in through a side door after being refused admittance through the front dooor. I would suggest that an article be created and then placed under the proper, now-protected name Beyond Protocol by an administrator who is aware of the deletion history when there are reliable references available. The current article could be copied to the user space to preserve it until that time. I am sympathetic to the people involved but the subject of an article must be notable and well-documented. Too much of the current article is unreferenced simply because quality references are not available. Drawn Some (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the sources, at least the ones I came up with in my below keep rationale, came out after all four deletions and salting. In this case, if the sources like the ones I mentioned were used when this article was recreated, I would not consider said recreation disruptive editing. Furthermore, all the deletions were per WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#A3. In either case, this is exactly why deletion review was set up to address stuff like this. Someone should have put up a request there to unsalt and allow recreation of the article, citing the presence of new sources. However, I'll assume good faith that the creator did not know how to do that; after all, it was never deleted via AFD previously. MuZemike 15:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup – We got the Gamespy article as mentioned above. There is also an interview from IncGamers here talking about the game. There is also a review from Bright Hub here; I'm not sure if the site itself is reliable, but the credentials of the person doing the review gives it a good sense of reliability. We also have something from Softpedia here. There are other entries out there, but I wouldn't consider them reliable enough as far as verifiability is concerned. I think it barely skimps past the notability requirements – multiple reliable, independent sources, and a couple of them provide some decent coverage of the game. Needs some major cleanup, however, to maintain a neutral encyclopedic tone. The behavioral conduct should be left as a separate issue to work out. MuZemike 00:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree the only issues here are notability and verifiability. The incgamers interview is just that, and not third-party information, it is more akin to a press release. The brighthub article is a brief review of the beta test. The Softpedia article seems more like a valid third-party reference to establish notability--is there a precedence for accepting Softpedia as a source? Drawn Some (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Video games hasn't given Softpedia a positive or negative mention on their sources list, but it's a pretty trivial mention in any case. The Bright Hub link is also questionable considering their business model. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is that if Softpedia is universally considered a reliable source (it seems like they have editing departments, editorial oversight, etc., but that's only from a quick spot check), I would think it would be OK. I wasn't aware of the model of writing they use at Bright Hub. MuZemike 15:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game software is not my area of expertise but I would tend to go with Softpedia being reliable for the reasons MuZemike gives. The article is brief but it is beyond a trivial mention and discusses some of the structure of the game, although still the beta version, along with some of the changes. I guess it would be like discussing a book that had been sent out for review in galley, discussing the chapter structure and basic plot along with some of the changes the author had made since the last draft. I am still concerned that it discussed a beta version.

So in the end I still think the Wikipedia article is premature and that sufficient reliable third-party resources just aren't available on the final product. A Softpedia article on the final release would have more weight as would other reliable independent resources. The pay-for-play model of some of the potential sources does mean that they are not independent/third-party. I'm going to leave my opinion as "delete" and if further sources become available or are brought to light in this discussion that might change my opinion then I can be notified on my talk page. Drawn Some (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note A Google search for "beyond protocol" game yields 81,000 hits. --Zippy (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fly For Fun" shows 1,600,000 hits and its common abbreviation Flyff shows 663,000, but it's still not notable and has been deleted multiple times. Per Wikipedia:Search engine test, "Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none". It's really not a great method for determining whether to keep or delete. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up - What I'm seeing here is one user unprecendently going after one article out of spite. If you look at the other games of this similar MMORTS genre (which were made evident to wyatt already), the user has not been critical of them. Their wiki articles have existed much longer than this one, yet this one is already nominated for deletion after only a few weeks. Take a look at Saga or Mankind, MMORTs that has had wiki articles up for extended periods of time yet they are well below wiki standards. Again this article has barely been up for a month yet it already gets put up for deletion by Wyatt WHILE new users are diligently trying to improve it. Wyatt only continually deletes references and cites the vague WP guidelines with little input on how it can be improved. This article needs clean up and should not have been put up for deletion so prematurely, especially with the new users trying to contribute to this article. Under WP:Newcomer guidelines of not biting the newcomers, Wyatt should be helping to contribute to this article and is acting unfairly but putting it up for deletion. Due to this, I cannot see how one can assume good faith with Wyatt and it seems that others agree. Give the article a chance, I would also like to point out that Beyond Protocol went live in November and was a beta version before then. Due to this, it has been deleted several times during beta but now users are trying hard to mold this article into shape since it went live with as much coverage as this infantile genre receives. As for Raziel, if you are requesting to be a mediator, you should be working towards a consensus that the two sides can agree to and not making a judgment that will make your mediation bias in nature. As you have already made a decision, I do not see how you can say you can still mediate as you should have a neutral perspective with an opinion and not a position statement. --Btejada (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) — Btejada (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Well, please do assume good faith. Wyatt routinely makes good edits to VG articles and I assure you he has no grudge against genres of games. Online games tend to fall under heavy scrutiny because there's so many of them of no particular note. Marasmusine (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Marasmusine. The onus is on you to assume good faith, even if you don't agree with the nominator. Also note other stuff exists. Other articles will be taken care of in due time. Also, the verifiability policy and notability guideine are not vague; these are two common and important ways to gauge whether or not an topic or subject can stand as its own article. Finally, don't abbreviate as Wiki. While seasoned editors should take caution in not being mean to newcomers, the same editors can also become stifled when that abbreviation is used, especially when there are tens of thousands of other wikis out there. MuZemike 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - external links are just about satisfactory (other articles have been kept on less...) but I propose rewriting the article from scratch. (The first two sections are "Solving the technology issue" and "Strategy and Offline Issues"? Gggaaaaah. How about we start with a nice basic "History", "Gameplay", "Critical reception"?) Marasmusine (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve --- Hello, I'm an avid MMORTS player (mainly played Ballerium, Saga, and Beyond Protocol), really wanted to contribute to these articles as my first try at editing but I feel the need as a newcomer to give my input instead due to the current situation. I think I can see why some new users are questioning the integrity of the nominator when comparing the same genre wikipedia articles (Saga,Mankind, Beyond Protocol). If you look closely, not only is there a huge time gap difference between them, Beyond Protocol article has actual references and has several active users that are working on it. When compared to no references whatsoever and the complete lack of effort and activity of Saga and Mankind wikipedias, this Beyond Protocol article at least deserves a passing grade (however much more work it needs). As for the other articles being dealt with in due time… have you considered how long they have been up and haven’t been touched? Please take a look. I don’t see how this nomination for deletion can be justified in all honesty, especially when it is still quite active with new users asking how to make it better. Shouldn’t “seasoned” users be helping ~~instead of constantly deleting with little input (seems like Wyattriot is gaming the system when you take a look at the logs).~~ Also, WP guidelines in my opinion are vague and open to interpretation is it not? What meets the standards of others does not apply for someone else. That is why there is discussion in the first place. I believe all other avenues should have been completely exhausted before even considering nominating for deletion. In conclusion, I vote keep at the least as I don’t see how this can be justified for deletion with the time span it has been up, the effort and willingness of new users, and what seems like a bullying of the article. I am willing to give contributions myself to make these MMORTS articles better but it seems like a very hostile environment right now from a community that should be more welcoming. --Kheldara (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC) — Kheldara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I'll repeat exactly what I had said above (and I note the similarity in the two previous keep !votes): The onus is on you to assume good faith, even if you don't agree with the nominator. Also note other stuff exists. Other articles will be taken care of in due time. Please refrain from taking pot-shots at the nom. MuZemike 22:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ILIKEIT. Keep voters ought to really focus on this article's merits rather than attacking the nominator or trying to point out that other articles are in a worse shape. As for gaming the system, recreating a salted page under a slightly different name to avoid the permanent protection on Beyond Protocol would be a fair case of pot calling kettle black if we weren't assuming good faith. Last but not least, the policies are binding, in particular verifiability through independent reliable sources. I kindly suggest addressing this issue rather than pointing at other poor articles or continuing with the ad hominem against the nominator. MLauba (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apology I should not attack the nominator. Im merely pointing out a guideline from the same pool of guidelines that everyone is referencing correct? Its enlightening on the points of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ILIKEIT though. In my defense I've stated exactly my opinion from what I was able to gather from all the post here. But I do understand and will retract that part of the statement but the rest does address the article from my perspective. This article does not have an abundant amount of solid resources but the one solid Gamespy article and minor references. I'd still urge keep as one solid verifiable source is enough for this article to at least exist and urge continuous improvement. Kheldara (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. That is very appreciated. MuZemike 00:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was none; removing redundant AfD. Redundant AfD to the first one, which is currently open. (non-admin closure) Tim meh ! 00:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted at AfD but three of the four "Delete" votes were by sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. Therefore relisting. I am neutral. Black Kite 19:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quote from the last AfD:

Tour was reviewed in the Boston Globe and also in The Times, and was covered in Rolling Stone. The tour is notable for drawing record crowds in Argentina (The Washington Post). And I have no reason to doubt JulesH that even more press coverage exists from 1980 and 1981, but thanks to FUTON bias, it probably won't be found in a Google search. DHowell (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why was it deleted in the first place? For missing sources? Hello? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 19:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous AFD. Reviews alone generally do not denote notability. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says which policy? Also, could you describe a bit what you want for a tour to be notable? A book, a movie, 1 billion Ghits, a star named after, or what? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 20:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What!?? A tour by the Queens covered by reliable sources including the Rolling Stones, I don't know what else to say. --J^mundo 20:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this was deleted. If you take a look at the previous AfD, you'll see it is still open. I think we need to discard this nomination and move all comments to the other AfD. Tim meh ! 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see; and it was reopened because of the multiple delete comments made by a sockpuppet. Anyway, both AfDs are open for the same article. I'm going to close this one and move the comments to the previous AfD if that's OK with you. Tim meh ! 00:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just close this, I voted at the other one, mostly repeating my comments from here, plus setting a link to this page. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 00:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lazys[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted at AfD but all "Delete" votes were by sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. Therefore relisting. I am neutral. Black Kite 19:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still lacking in reliable third party sources to establish notability. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't have reliable, non-minor, media reports from what I can see. Two of the references are from the bands Myspace site, which (if memory serves) is against normal policy. They don't seem to pass WP:BAND. It's not impossible that this band 'will' become notable, but there's currently nothing on the article which suggests they are. Fol de rol troll (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of R&B musicians[edit]

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted at AfD but at least five "Delete" votes were by sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. Therefore relisting. I am neutral. Black Kite 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination reasoning, also list is too indiscriminate. Secret ^account 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a case where a category is appropriate and a list is not. WP:LISTCRUFT doesn't apply to categories, which are not articles in the mainspace, but it certainly applies here. Per WP:STAND, lists like this need to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This list fails WP:V as sources aren't present that show that these people are indeed R&B musicians. It is also nothing but a directory listing of information as it is only a laundry list without any further discussion or information about the participants. How are they R&B musicians, where does it claim that they are? Also, per the nom, this list is pretty indiscriminate as there is no working definition of "R&B" that applies here. The category works wonderfully, the list doesn't. (copy/paste of my !vote at the last AfD) Them From Space 19:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the articles on the individuals consider them R&B musicians, their presence on the list is justified, just as is their inclusion in a category. However, a good deal of work will be needed in providing the information here that a list ought to provide. I'm not sure there are any valid exceptions to a category for individual being justified and not a list. DGG (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the actual topic of the list isn't notable (by our definition), then it shouldn't have an article. A category will be sufficient if no other encyclopedic information can be explained about the topic. Also, as this is a discriminate encyclopedia, we can't have an infinite amount of lists about whatever topic strikes our fancy. We have categories of people born in XXXX, which clearly aren't notable enough for an encyclopedic list. Them From Space 02:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the list is clearly notable, per reliable sources such as Stars of Soul and Rhythm & Blues and All Music Guide to Soul: The Definitive Guide to R&B and Soul, with detailed listings of hundreds of notable R&B musicians. Also, we do have lists of people born in each year at the year articles; see, for example, 1939#Births. DHowell (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, a category exists, but it has been diffused into several subcategories. This list allows all members of the subcategories to exist on one alphabetical list. Can this list be improved? Yes. But this is a notable topic. If there were a Category:All R & B musicians, I'd have no problem deleting this list. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep lists of musicians, because they can be expanded with detail on which group(s) the musician has worked with, timeframe the musician operated in, etc, all of which make the list more useful than a category. That this list doesn't currently include much additional information (although it does include some) is irrelevant, we consider the article it has a potential to become. JulesH (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 14:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsRTime (talk • contribs)

Could you please explain you voted as thus? Remember, plain old !votes without reasoning do not contribute towards the consensus and thus are not counted. Cheers. I'^mperator 20:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there is nothing controversial or indiscriminate about being an R&B musician and it would be easy but time-consuming to transfer the sources from the individual articles. An intelligent bot could do it. The list could obviously be greatly improved by adding info not present in the categories but the various quibblers above would still assert that it was indiscriminate and perceive cruft; so why bother? Occuli (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-same as before- Strong Keep - The Articles hold the sources. non-R&B's sould be Edited out. if this is WP:LISTCRUFT the everything in Category:Lists of musicians by genre would also be, and I dont believe that for a second. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Reliable sources for this list include Stars of Soul and Rhythm & Blues and All Music Guide to Soul: The Definitive Guide to R&B and Soul. The topic is clearly notable; any perceived problems with this list can be solved by editing. DHowell (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I gave at the last one. This is pretty much WP:Listcruft. Spiesr (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Spiesr (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep but make it into a category. Jwray (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a category already exsists so are you saying we should keep the article or just have the category? Spiesr (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kendo. MBisanz ^talk 07:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Kendō[edit]

Recommending as it seems to contain nothing that the normal article Kendo doesn't have. They even use the same terms and photos to illustrate the points. Seems like a content fork to me, and I can't see why it needs to be a separate article. They are even spelt the same in Japanese. Canterbury Tail talk 18:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably an original research. The word kendo is not used before 1920s. See [21], [22], and [23]. The creator and all the references mistake some schools of Kenjutsu as the origin or old type of Kendo. Oda Mari (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 13:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems to be driven by a contributor/creator with a strong POV that is reflected in the writhing. There is nothing new, other than the references to unpublished thesis and braod references to well known budo writers/researchers, but with the POV twist, attempting to justify the the argument of the creator of the article.Kendo 66 14:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)
Merge and rd as a POVFORK. JJL (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep is it an article which has forked or a style which has forked? Some of the references seem to indicate the latter. --Salix (talk): 15:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or alternatively, cleanup and Merge into Kendo (and partially into Kenjutsu, if deemed necessary.)

I appreciate there are some people making efforts not to let the legacies of Japanese swordmanship end up survive only as a sport. However, I do not think it is a good reason to have an article on Wikipedia under this name.

There is no such universal term as "traditional kendo" or "classic kendo" to represent a style or form of kendo. Instead, it is (and has to be) explained each time it is referred to with such name, and the result is that it differs from person to person, orgnazation to organization. This is particularly an important reason why Wikipedia, as a project having to rely on externals sources, not to use the term as an article name. Right next time another editor adds some contents citing another source, it may as well be using yet another definition. This confusion certainly exisits, and it is actually described by Professor Friday in his book cited in the article. (Read the Introduction, that'll do.)

One thing that has to be yet stressed is that when master Donn F. Draeger (not Dann Draeger as seen in the article) referred to the "traditional" Abe ryu kendo, it was in this context:

"Neither classical kendo, as it was first designed and taught by the founder of Abe Ryu in the seventeenth century, nor kendo as it is practiced today is either a fighting art or a pure sport. The most experienced devotees of modern kendo consider it to be primarily a system of spiritual descipline...." Donn Draeger, Modern Bujutsu and Budo. (Quote from Kenyu Volume 7, number 5, May 1993 - for convenience.)

Read as we can, it was not to draw a solid border line between the swordmanship pursuers of Edo period and those of today, but instead, it was to emphasize they share the same spirit, regardless of whatever denomination they utilize. Thus my opinion as mentioned on top. --Mantokun (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any sourced content into Kendō. No justification for fork. Bongo matic 01:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church abuse[edit]

A classic example of original research. The lead, defining the subject, appears to come straight out of the author's head, as does the next section (with a little help from Webster's). The background section then relies on the Bible and other ancient texts, in violation of WP:PSTS. We then have a speculative section that cites examples of the phenomenon as defined by the author, and close with another burst of original research, this time dealing with the author's thoughts on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We already have the rather dubious Spiritual abuse and Religious abuse, as well as a slew of articles in Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. One more essay isn't to our benefit. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Weak Delete. The three articles mentioned are all, frankly, dreadful - but that isn't grounds for deletion in itself. I think it might be possible to put together _one_ reasonable article from the three (perhaps using Religious violence as a pattern?), and "Church abuse" is a reasonable search term. I would therefore suggest that any salvageable content be merged into one article - Religious abuse is _probably_ the best title for a combined article, so that would be my suggested merge target. Tevildo (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per Tevildo, although my personal preference for a title would be Abuse by clergy, which seems to me more easily understandable. John Carter (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merger and deletion are mutually exclusive outcomes. Please pick one. Uncle G (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge (move) content to another article, then Delete this article. John Carter (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I repeat: That is not actionable. Those two are mutually exclusive. Please pick one. Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - synthetic essay. Ladyof Shalott 22:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hopelessly OR. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cyber-shot. Cirt (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DSC-W35[edit]

Delete not a notable product; this is a poor start to an article even if it were. Fails WP:N Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cyber-shot. Not a notable camera in its own right, but a likely search term. Tevildo (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. — Jake Wartenberg 21:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Stedfast[edit]

Violates WP:BIO and WP:N; the only information I can find on this person is from message boards. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No info in any and all searches to establish Notability. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Per nomination. ukexpat (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a3 (no content once all the unsourceable content is removed, which is everything); WP:SNOW, article by Dre Rossi about an as-yet-unwritten book by, of course, Dre Rossi. Also see WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Robotic War[edit]

Article about a supposed science fiction book that hasn't even been written yet. All there is are a list of the characters (including the author's name) and a brief summary. There's nothing to show that this book is anywhere near notable, there's no reliable sources to back any of it up, any information here was read from a crystal ball, and it doesn't even pass a Google test. Unless any notability is asserted or sources are provided (and I highly doubt they will be), this article should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In addition, this user has a history or creating articles about him/herself, so I reported it at WP:UAA. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Per WP:CRYSTAL among others. ukexpat (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Note user has removed AfD tag from article - now replaced. Smartse (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete; vanity page about somebody's unpublished novel, note that the main character is a kid with the same name as the author, so probably a kid's work. Borderline speediable for vandalism if you ask me. JulesH (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Sophistic[edit]

This article reads like original research or a synthesis thereof based on existing sources, fails WP:OR; also reads like an essay or term paper. ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – based on the nominators own assessment: “…a synthesis thereof<sic> based on existing sources “shows that it is not Original Research but rather a combination of separate elements to form a coherent whole as shown by a quick Google Scholar search, as shown here: [24]. A well researched – written article, that has been around since 2004. Why bring to AFD now? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I chose my words carefully from WP:OR: ...any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. The subject may be notable but that's not the point. The article reads like a research paper/term paper. And since when has there been a time limit on bringing an article to Afd? – ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commnet - Well, I would argue the point to Keep on several levels. First, it is a notable subject, not currently covered by Wikipedia. Two, the article is well researched and cited. Finally, as there is no timeline on bringing an article to AFD, I believe, age does grant certain privileges :-). An article that has been around for 5 years, should be well vented at this point. Regarding orginal research. In that we cannot copy verbatim from any material, and there is quite a bit of it as shown above, thus violating copyright laws, all material has to be paraphrased. In that anyone can make a claim on paraphrased material is orginal research is a fine line between being technical correct and being realistic. Hope I explained my points a little better so you may understand my point of view. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query - you argue it is a synthesis. What position is being advanced that is not supported by the sources? Why can the problem not be fixed by editing? JulesH (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shoessss. One possible improvement that could be made would be the addition of some sources to show that the term itself is used by Classical scholars - without this, I can see why the article might appear to be original synthesis. It's not as obvious a term to the general reader as (say) Renaissance, and that article has adequate sourcing for this issue. Tevildo (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the article needs improvement, but this is a valid subject and RS are available (see Google Books Search). --J^mundo 20:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs work, but it's a clearly notable topic with numerous possible sources (whole books have been written on it). Deor (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK one more time with feeling. I am not debating the notability of the subject - I was a classics scholar many years ago so I am not a "general reader". My point is that the article is irretrievable in its current form - it reads like a term paper -- for example, encyclopedic articles do not have conclusions or posit questions. The whole thing needs to be scrapped and completely rewritten, it needs much more than "some work". – ukexpat (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - these are not grounds for deletion. Tevildo (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the subject is notable, then it's a keep; bad writing is not grounds for deletion -- unless the article is clearly gibberish with no hope of salvaging. If the article stinks, then either rewrite it or pare it back to a stub. Deletion is not a substitute for editing. -- llywrch (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as speedily as possible. The problems the nominator identifies are not valid reasons for deletion. In particular, its poor style means that it reads more like WP:OR than it is. And, indeed, we only delete articles for OR if they cannot be rewritten, as this one clearly can. This is a shockingly bad article, true. But I don't see how deleting it would improve are coverage of the topic, which as has been pointed out above is clearly notable and deserving of an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 bus routes in London. Cirt (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 225[edit]

Non notable bus route, have previously redirected this to List of bus routes in London as an alternative to deletion, but the original author keeps reverting this. Yes there are other route articles in existence, but most of which scrape some sort of notability, yet his one does not. Delete Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it back to the list, and ask the creator not to revert it with the 3-strike rule. Lugnuts (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- owing to the lack of content, information would be better placed as a note in the bsu routes article. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Lugnuts ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect and protect against expansion We do not need articles on bus routes. They are liable to change at frequent intervals and with little notice. Their articles are therefore essentially unmaintainable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The London Buses articles are generally well written and maintained. However, this one is way too basic and has no notability. I would say redirect, but that is disastrous as in the list it appears as though an article is there when it isn't. A red link is better. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 15:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is redirected, the link could be removed from the list page and any "see also" sections or templates. Leaving a red link would suggest that the article should be created again. —Snigbrook 23:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Peterkingiron above. We have articles on individual train lines because they tend not to change much; we are not a directory of bus routes and there's nothing particularly noteworthy about this one; the only pertinent facts are the destinations, the operating company and the type of bus used, both of which would be more appropriate as part of a list. – iride scent 18:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Lugnuts Chzz ► 23:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tea for Julie[edit]

Notability asserted, but not to the level required by WP:MUSIC WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, no assertion to notability, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- JamesBurns has been indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [25][26] is all I could find in two minutes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From seeing their name around town, my sense is that they probably meet the notability criterion, but I'm not sure how to best find the sources to support that gut feeling. Hope somebody can provide some good citations. -Pete (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I added a couple of sources just now. The band received a nomination for Album of the Year at the Portland Music Awards. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scant coverage. They appear to have no more than one non charting release to their name. Iam (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Indef-blocked sockpuppet of JamesBurns. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. It would be good to see the article saved but there are just insufficient WP:RS to justify an article. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've been going through a list of links that band member Michael sent me, and gradually adding to the article. The Willamette Week's in-depth review of the band's 2nd album, combined with the Mercury's review that was already cited, appears to satisfy the first criterion of WP:MUSIC. I believe there is more to support a claim of notability, which I'm working on; just trying to sort out which of the links he sent me would qualify as WP:RS. -Pete (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per substantial coverage in additional sources found.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hoare[edit]

One of many articles that has crept into Wikipedia on British prospective parliamentary candidates. WP:POLITICIAN does not attribute notability to candidates, and there is no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I42 (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Cardiff South and Penarth. Clear-cut case of notability as PPC only, no coverage found on GNews. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue for inclusion of this article and all other article regarding parliamentary candidates for reasons outlined here ZTomane1 (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of current notability. If he is elected, then he should have an article. Warofdreams talk 02:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No 3rd party references and nothing to suggest that person meets WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Valenciano (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo centre[edit]

Delete no indication that among the numerous shopping centers in Singapore that this one is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no notability, almost no content, no sources Kingpin13 (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete - not even a www page locatable for this place. Is there a language thing going on that prevents relevent GHits from finding anything ??? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 18:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Timurite (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Clear consensus to delete. The rewrite has not addressed the concerns that this bio picks out a small part of the subject's life. Kevin (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Fitzgerald[edit]

Essentially, this is a woman that was loosely alluded to in a handful of biographical works, and was another person's secretary, who was at one point accused by a handful of people of possibly maybe perhaps having an affair with someone, but this was never shown to be true, and is a political rumor/ploy from 1988 disguised as a Wikipedia BLP article.

Delete, for BLP concerns, and for simple lack of genuine notability on her own. At most this deserves a one or two sentence sourced footnote on the George H. W. Bush article, and not even a redirect in our MediaWiki system. rootology (C)(T) 15:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you beat me here. Yes, this should go, it is a record of a old rumour posing as biography. (See WP:COATRACK)--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I started looking at this last week. From my checking of the content and the sources, the article is not about her. It is about what other people think about her. Many of the people have not spoken on the record about her except to say that there were rumors about her. After looking into the issue, I don't think a move to rename is appropriate, either. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still delete. Lack of sources that discuss Fitzgerald life. The sources used are about Bush and discuss his relationship to her. This information should be presented in an article about Bush where proper context can be explained. Cobbling together bits of information found in pieces that primarily discuss Bush gives a distorted impression of her. When bits of information are plucked from sources that frame the person in a narrow way, then we are not writing a biography, instead the article is a piece about a sliver of the persons life. In this instance, I see no way that this can be fixed given the available sources. I continue to suggest deletion as the best way to address the undue weight issues. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this poses BLP issues with undue weight and the article appears to be a WP:COATRACK as noted above. I can see maybe mentioning this somewhere on the George H.W. Bush page and redirecting there, but even that is questionable; I consider myself fairly politically knowledgeable and had never once heard of this individual before now. Someone should also delete the fair-use image which calls her a "recluse" in its description. *** Crotalus *** 16:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this line is particularly maddening: Hillary Clinton mentioned Fitzgerald in an interview with Vanity Fair, but her last name was not used. (So she mentioned "a Jennifer"? Then why would we say she mentioned Fitzgerald?) –xeno ^talk 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article recently had loads of odd stuff. "Years later, Barbara Bush was still bitter when she complained to author Gail Sheehy that her husband had not even noticed that she had stopped coloring her hair." Last week I started trimming some of the oddest stuff. Most of the worst stuff has been removed over the past week by other users attempting to clean it up. But I can't see how it is salvageable since the article is based on sources that are discussing Bush, and mention her in the context of off the record rumors or other gossipy type comments. I can't see how bits of dodgy information like this can be the basis for an encyclopedia article about her. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No doubt. Though I believe only the choir is here at this point. –xeno ^talk 17:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hallelujah. Let's bolt the doors and call this a choral exclusive then. Can't have the tuneless in here, can we?--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still sortof lacks a solid assertion of notability ("worked for George H. W. Bush in several different capacities" is a little weak), but I suppose keep based on the elimination of the BLP issue and improvements by ARS and per DGG. –xeno ^talk 03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded with something to demonstrate notability (no, not that). Someone at this level could have achievements in her own right to warrant coverage, but at the moment there's no indication of it. – iride scent 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still delete. Although it's been expanded, most of the "notability" comes from claims by Kitty Kelley, who's an inherently unreliable source, especially when it comes to BLPs. The other references are one-line mentions in articles on other subjects (e.g.) – the only significant one (with the possible exception of the books, but neither look likely to say anything of substance about her) is "Jennifer A. Fitzgerald, technically Bush's assistant for scheduling but in reality a dominant figure who has much to say about where Bush goes, what he does and whom he sees" in Time. Yes, we have comparable articles such as Anji Hunter, but those are created from sources about the subject; this one appears to be drawn entirely from tangential mentions of Fitzgerald in articles and books on other subjects. Given the gaping gaps – this article is just a list of her job titles, with no mention of her personal life, any event in the first 42 years of her life, her political positions, family, even a date of birth – the article as it stands still isn't viable. – iride scent 19:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I came upon this article last week when I was categorizing BLPs for WP:UBLP, and I wasn't sure what to do with it. Considering the main author, I posted to the talk and to WP:BLP/N. As I said there, I don't believe this is appropriate for inclusion, as it's only allegations and rumor. A BLP nightmare, really. لennavecia 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sustained delete following the "improvements" by the ARS. Still fails multiple criteria, most importantly BLP. These are nothing but allegations. It's inappropriate. لenna vecia 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- should have been tagged for speedy on grounds of WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:N etc etc. The article is merely speculation masquerading as fact and has no place in an encyclopaedia! HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a rumour masquerading as a biography. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least merge some of the content into 1988 U.S. presidential election (Oh, I see it's already there). I wrote most of this years ago, before we had BLP. I can understand why we ought not to have a stand-alone article, but in the context of that campaign it is notable. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not opposed to that if there is anything actually reliably sourced that is of use to that article. ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub this down now (yes, locking the barn after the horse has long been picked up by Google, but still...) and delete at the conclusion of this AfD. Or sooner. ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above and also WP:ATP Martin451 (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If "what other people think of her" is found in RSs, she's notable. What's here shows a notable political figure. Earlier problems seem to have been solved. DGG (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you suggest that Wikipedia editors address the significant undue weight issue with this article since the sources used view her through the narrow spectrum of explaining Bush's relationship with her? Given that there is a scarcity of information that discuss "her" life, why is the information not best presented in an article about Bush where proper context can be given? I don't see this article as a biography of her life as written now but rather scraps of material cobbled together that touch on a tiny aspect of the person. It makes no sense to keep articles such as this one when they have known undue weight issues, have the potential to be chronic BLP problems, and are unlikely to ever be a thorough well written entry. It not sensible for Wikipedia to continue down the path of presenting information like this article as a stand alone biography when we know that it will keep Wikipedia from being know as an encyclopedia with high quality articles. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article has been rewritten from scratch by the Article Rescue Squadron. Though incomplete and likely to improve in the coming week, I believe the current version goes a long way to address early concerns. Early commenters are encouraged to review the latest version of the article and the closing admin is asked to interpret early !votes in the context of the state of the article at the time of commenting. Thanks, Skomorokh 02:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - it is still using the same sources that refer to the relationship not the person. So, the concerns are not met for me. This person is not notable, all that is (perhaps) notable is a rumoured and denied affair. That can be recorded on an article on Bush, or the election. We don't have biographies of people notable for alleged (and denied) rumours, and built from sources of the same.--Scott Mac (Doc) 07:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pathetic choice of tagging. The article is not uncited. The issue with the article is the content. It's not a biography, and she's not notable. There's been no meaningful "improvement" to the article. لenna vecia 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just read it now. Still fails BIO, N, with some BLP concerns about the affair rumors thrown in. Why doesn't the ARS partrol the thousands of uncited articles? THere's a category for that even.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Rewritten version is substantially improved and demonstrates her notability. Indeed, the draft I am looking at now makes apparently no mention of the affair accusation (which is almost certainly not good. UNDUE issues are important but if we are going to have this article it should probably get a sentence). In any event, Fitzgerald was as the executive assistant of the Vice-President a high ranking individual akin to say Betty Currie. The article as written does a good job of showing her successful career which has led to her discussion in many sources. Meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the comparison with Currie is inapt. There are sources profiling Currie - which are interested in her because of her notable position and there are interviews. Nothing like this exists with Fitzgerald. All the sources are there because of the rumour - if it hadn't been for the rumour there would be no sources at all. JF is not notable for here career, because the sources do not note her for her it. Can you provide any source that says otherwise?--Scott Mac (Doc) 07:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not accurate. Multiple of the sources given (such as Parmet's biography of Bush) discuss her independent of the claimed affair. The Time Magazine piece is focusing on her role in running Bush's staff. Moreover, even if her notability came primarily from the accusation of the affair then it would be arguably akin to that of Monica Lewinsky who we do have a separate article on. (Incidentally Better Currie actually came to public attention primarily because of her role in the Lewinsky affair). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a woman who has multiple references over several decades, for what was an significant and long-lasting series of political positions and roles, and referenced as such in multiple reputable sources dealing with the first Bush era and his career. In and of herself, this is enough for notability for me; for example anyone researching Bush's career (as a president or earlier) will come across her name very quickly. Multiple mentions in reliable sources exist back to at least 1982 (well before any reporting of an alleged affair), and reputable media such as the Times and Time describe her in quotes such as "a dominant figure who has much to say about where Bush goes, what he does and whom he sees" and "You cannot overestimate her influence on Bush". [Cites added to article]. The article was poor in tone, and I've edited it somewhat to fix that. It's missing some information that we should have (family, background, current retirement, etc), but it seems clearly to me to be a notable person.
Regarding its quality, and any mention of the purported liaison, these are fixable cleanup issues. We don't delete an article on an otherwise notable person for that. In fact since the liaison is treated by good sources such as The Times as being effectively confirmed, which is unusual for a major newspaper of that quality, there is a good case we should not whitewash. It need only be as brief as: "in 1992, and following the Lewinsky scandal, allegations of a prior affair between Bush and Fitzgerald appeared in some major newspapers." End of subject. (Source: "Bush’s relationship with Fitzgerald finally became public during his re-election campaign in 1992" The Times). That is fair, and neutral. If we can find a significant statement by her about the claims, consider noting that too (NPOV) though thats pretty much implied anyway. But either way, the bio itself seems a good keep, and mention of that issue isn't in it at this point. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FT2, are you seriously suggesting that Kitty Kelley (who you link to twice above) is "fair, and neutral"? – iride scent 19:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in this form, or similar; she is notable due to her career alone. However, rumors about her &, er, her boss (who is a very notable person) have existed for some time so, as FT2 pointed out, we will need to figure out how to handle them. -- llywrch (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after cleanup by Skomorokh. I see no remaining BLP concerns and the qutotes in Time and the Times are enough to ensure that a well-referenced, albeit stubby, bio belongs here. Any further additions should be made with caution and due respect for NPOV and RS. Them From Space 05:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect salient information to George H.W. Bush. I wonder how a person who worked with the U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom, and later as a presidential chief of staff, executive assistant and chief lobbyist -- all for the same president -- be completely irrelevant, especially with such sterling references/links? Rumour-mongering can be easily dealt with. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not notable career diplomat and aide to former president GHWB. At most a mention of her in the background sections on the president as an important advisor prior. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No matter which version I look at, I see a non-notable diplomat. Law_{type! snype?} 19:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

She is notable only in terms of her dealings with George Bush, not on her own.
The edit history of this article still contains WP:BLP vios. This article came about due to an alleged (and denied) affair with Bush, and most of the edits have been about this. If there was just a few spurious edis then fine, but not virtually the whole edit history.
The major reference used five times in the (current) article concentrates on alleged wrong doings, emphasising this reference is almost like writing the article about the alleged affair, which is why it was listed for AfD in the first place. Martin451 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see any reason for an article on this person whatsoever!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm afraid my original position still stands. This woman may or may not have had an affair with GHWB. If there was any solid proof, she'd be notable, but as it was she had an unremarkable career- we can't have every White House aide and his dog with an article. I disagree with a lot of WP:N, but we have to draw the line somewhere. HJMitchell You rang? 22:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My opinion hasn't changed, and I can't understand why this AfD has been re-opened. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reigndrop Lopes[edit]

No indication of notability. Yes, her late sister is notable. Notability, however, is not inherited. Her label? "TBA", so fails WP:MUSIC. No reliable sources provided or found, failing GNG. SummerPhD (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE- you cannot deny someone their accomplishments, just because they are related to there work. Reigndrop Lopes has proven herself notable time and time again, even putting her career to the side to focus on her sister's!! Executive Producing and Co-Producing all of her late sister's on-going projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reigndrop (talk • contribs) 11:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no attempt to establish notability not dependant on her late sister. Only external links are to myspace-fails WP:N and WP:RS HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails the GNG, WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. ukexpat (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African immigrants to the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/African immigrants to the United States

This article is outdated. The information is outdated. It's causing problems for people who don't know what it's about. There's no need for it to exist. Klonk (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If something is out of date, it should be updated not deleted. Do you have any additional reason for deleting the article? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Invalid reason for deletion. Not to say that the article is not outdated: its sections clearly say they are based on 2000 census. I don't know of any more recent one. Timurite (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep there is no time limit for notability. Ikip (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs updating, not deletion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as the nomination does not give a valid rationale for deletion. If nominator can't specify what information is out of date and how that "causes problems for people who don't know what it's about" I will change my position to speedy keep as a nomination "so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question." KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. --J^mundo 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notability is not temporary, though quite why Obama is on the list boggles my mind and I will take that up on the talk page. ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Outdated" is not a valid reason to delete an article. Also, could nom be more specific and indicate what exactly is outdated? Or even better, he could be bold and go on updating the article with latest data. Netrat (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course Wikipedia should have an article about immigrants from Africa to the US. The article has problems (it occasionally confuses "people with a certain skin color living in the US" with "people that were born anywhere on a very large continent, regardless of skin color, and later moved to a specific country"), but that indicates a need for some work from good editors, not wholesale deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course we should have this article. Update and clean it up. Ladyof Shalott 02:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename African immigration to the United States Wapondaponda (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep a most notable topic, if you need proof [27], [28], and [29] were found within less than a minute, many more sources are in existance that are more than sufficient for notabiliy. If a topic is notable than fixing the article is much better than deleting it. Them From Space 19:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fried earth[edit]

Delete clear promotion of a non-notable work of art by the artist Mayalld (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly POV, definite OR, no assertion of importance and borderline "tinfoil hattery." --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irrelevant and spammy article and mildly surprise it's not been tagged CSD. WP:SNOW? ~Excesses~ (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Iner22 (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt to establish notability, very poorly written and the article title is not even mentioned until the last line. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the creater is User: Hansdoller, the subject of the article, definite WP:COI. Also, a reminder to the above users, please give a reason for deletion, "per nom" is just filler. We are trying to reach concensus, not vote. Livewireo (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Toon05 per G11. ukexpat (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D-stone[edit]

Appears to exist only to promote the product, but not so blatant enough to qualify for a speedy deletion. Oscarthecat (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (G11) Blatant enough for my taste. MLauba (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam ~Excesses~ (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per G11, so nominated. ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Duplicate. duplicate AFD (non-admin closure) Mayalld (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twurkr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Neologism, by its article name of Twurkr and the later word twerkr also in article. Oscarthecat (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twurkr[edit]

Delete nn neologism per WP:NEO possibly WP:MADEUP Mayalld (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not even a neologism, it's a protologism. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, by its article name of Twurkr and the later word twerkr also in article. Oscarthecat (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC) (copied from duplicate nom)
Delete no evidence that the term or concept has widespread adoption or is otherwise notable. Racepacket (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable non-word, nonsense. ukexpat (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be part of the current fad for Twitter-related neologisms. It's POV and lack of citations also make it unsuitable for merge to Twitter. Cnilep (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Hillard[edit]

Unreferenced BLP. Looking through the Imdb credits I find little of note, mainly minor production roles. A look for sources just gave me film production charts, nothing on her in particular. Wizardman 14:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability; listing in credits does not constitute significant coverage. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a run through various sources, I can't find anything that establishes any substantial notability. Icestorm815 • Talk 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. News archive search (all dates) fails to generate anything indicating notability, as does web search. Bongo matic 01:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nothing in the GNews archive search that would help to establish WP:N notability, and I also checked a library database for newspaper and magazine articles that discuss this person, but I found none. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios[edit]

Contested prod. Prod reason was "Fails WP:NOTE. No claims to notability for this painter. Dimitrios plus Powerdot gives thirty distinct Google hits, no Google News hits, one article from the St Maarten Daily Herald, a small newspaper where the artists works as webmaster (so not really an independent source..." The since added sources are nationmaster (a Wikipedia mirror), the above mentioned Daily Herald article, PRweb (press releases, not an indpendent reliable source), and caribbean corners, a commercial site for Caribbean artists. The only somewhat independent and reliable one is an article in an inflight maazine for an airline by an unknown writer. I don't believe that this single article is sufficient to meet WP:NOTE. None of the listed expositions seem to be of any importance and have (if Google is reliable in this regard) not received any attention at all. The google count has changed to 33 distinct hits[30] and still no Google News hits. Fram (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to be encyclopedic material...Modernist (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on notability. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bandai Entertainment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime distributed by Bandai Entertainment[edit]

Unnotable and unnecessary list of titles; Wikipedia is WP:NOT a catalog, list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and fails WP:LISTS. Failed PROD with prod removed by an IP without any reason given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Create a category and redirect to Bandai Entertainment as was done with List of ADV releases per the discussion at Talk:List of ADV releases. Also, take the same action for List of manga distributed by Bandai Entertainment. Collectonian, you seemed to agree with that action for the ADV list, so if you still think that was an appropriate action, I would think this AfD could be speedy closed, as deletion isn't needed to create a redirect. I also want to mention that I don't see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to this, and I diagree that WP:NOTCATALOG applies, as this list doesn't list prices or even individual products (i.e. I think it would need to list products like "Series X disc 1" or "Series Y Complete Collection" for WP:NOTCATALOG to apply). I think the only thing wrong with this list is that it would be better served as a category. Calathan (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was a cat, but just rechecked and that was for the parent company, along with a sub for ones produced by Bandai Visual. Agreed, a cat is needed rather than a list. Will work on that this evening when I can use AWB to add the cat to all the appropriate pages. This list basically just lists the series they have, which is their basic "catalog" of titles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bandai Entertainment anime titles created. Populating now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as well as Category:Bandai Entertainment manga titles -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cat it. --Gwern (contribs) 20:43 20 April 2009 (GMT)

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of trivia contests[edit]

Incomplete and somewhat meaningless list ROxBo (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it as a trivial list of trivial contests. Alexius08 (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question Would this make more sense if it were a category, like Category:Trivia competitions? I was a fairly new contributor when I started this article as a way to organize a series of articles. Things have changed a lot. Royal broil 23:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By default; no valid "delete" opinions remain. Sandstein 05:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of jam band music festivals[edit]

Poorly defined list. Many of the bands that play at these festivals are questionable whether all of them are strictly "jam" bands. Jam festivals are already listed in the section "Venues and festivals" in the Jam band article. JamesBurns (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pointless list. Stubby information can be added to the existing Jam band article. TheClashFan (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This account is a sockpuppet of the nominator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I created this page hoping it would lighten the list making on the Jam band article. The lists persist regardless. - Steve3849 ^talk 09:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the situation under which this article was originally nominated for deletion I'm changing my vote to Neutral. - Steve3849 ^talk 21:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The article was recently undeleted and relisted by Juliancolton because of this ANI discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it may be able to stand on its own, or merge back into the larger article. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. He's not as notable as Susan Boyle, but he does have a career outside his appearance on Britain's Got Talent. - Brian Kendig (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Jafargholi[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns. Unlike Susan Boyle last week, Jafargholi has not made worldwide headlines, so this I really don't think satisfies notability guidelines, BLP1E could be applied as well. D.M.N. (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst both Susan Boyle and Shaheen Jafargholi do fall under WP:BLP1E, the worldwide attention Boyle has received resulted in an exception being made to the BLP1E guideline for her. Jafargholi hasn't received such attention, and I therefore do not believe this article should be granted an exception as well. I hold no prejudice against starting up another article on him if coverage increases in the future to warrant that. [[User:JEdgarFreeman|JEdgarFr(talk) 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. WP:BLP1E, and the 1E isn't even very remarkable (he sang well on a reality TV show). - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Worth an honourable mention in Britain's Got Talent (series 3) as there are enough good references to justify its inclusion. Definitely not worth having his own article though. 78.133.77.127 (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A one event personality if I can put it that way. Agree with JEdgarFreeman that I hold no prejudice against starting up another article on him if coverage increases in the future to warrant that.--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 19:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the light of the comments below 'one event' would not seem to be applicable but certainly coverage, whilst extensive, does seem to relate to his appearance on Britain's Got Talent (series 3) almost exclusively. I question whether there was any element of notability prior to this appearance.--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 11:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, comparable to Boyle in my view. —Nightstallion 21:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way, may I ask? Boyle has received extraordinary attention around the world to the extent that the article on her received an exemption from the WP:BLP1E guideline. Jafargholi's performance, and this isn't meant as a slur, has met a reaction typical of people who sing well on the type of show he performed in; great support from the long-term audience of the show, and some national attention, but nothing like the gathering around the planet that Boyle has garnered. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto Paste 's comments. SunCreator (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Why not check how many people visit the wiki article and base the decision on that. I wanted to find out more about this person hence visited wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.247.126 (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just as bad - if not worse - than bean counting AfD votes. People's interest does not automatically imply notability. S@lo (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't achieved enough notability. Susan Boyle was only famous for one event as well, but as others have mentioned, the immense impact that she's had worldwide (based on the thousands of news articles that have been written about her) makes her an exception to the rule. S@lo (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have added 5 independent references to prove notability of Shaheen Jafargholi as requested. CNN also talked about the boy for many times posing him as the main rival to Susan Boyle. He is notable as some also questioned the whole issue of amateur vs professional participants, as it was revealed later that Shaheen did have professional work earlier. WE added a note aboyt that on his profile as well werldwayd (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Boyle is a rare exception to 1E because of how famous that one event made her. Jafargholi, not so much (what about the bloke who did "Somewhere" on the sax?) Sceptre ^(talk) 17:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the few sources were all published within the same few days and are all about the same event, making it a WP:BLP1E.--Otterathome (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep I'm willing to hear arguments either way, but while he no doubt got an entry because of his performance on "Britain Has Talent" I don't see how his entry can be deleted under WP:BLP1E. He has performed professionally both as a singer and as an actor and has an entry in IMDB. Some might consider this insufficient, but again it certainly isn't a single event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcarter (talk • contribs) 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page gives info to know more about this boy, which is not found anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.128.251 (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a valid reason to keep; many articles have been deleted even though they were probably been the best sources of info for the subject on the Net. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as some of the reasons above have given, Susan Boyle is a unique case. The worldwide attention of her has not been matched by another Britain's Got Talent entrant. I fear if we accept this article too then a precedent will be created for ALL notable reality competitors at the audition stages, regardless of what they go on to do. Dundedia (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If wikipedia can have articles on consumer food products, this article (well sourced), is just as worthy of inclusion. HOWEVER, it could benefit from some decent cleanup to meet "our" standards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; just because other articles of what you consider to be similar claims to notability exist, doesn't mean this one should. Jafargholi is a one-event person, atm. So is Boyle, but the attention she has garnered is extraordinary and warranted an exception to WP:BLP1E. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, my point was that there is a strange dichotomy in what some consider notable and others do not, and this sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT needs be considered. Point here is that this fellow is not WP:ONEEVENT, as he was receiving acknowledgement for his stage work long before Got Talent diff. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the discussed reason. Susan Boyle just about qualifies, but is the exception to the rule. 81.153.219.75 (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Susan Boyle is a phenomenal Internet success, Shaheen Jafargholi is not. Delete for being non-notable. Tovojolo (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what is the point of having a page taken down when it will be remade in a few weeks anyway? Keep for a a pathetic nomination. He isn't American, is that the problem? Andrew RACK 15:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koshoes (talk • contribs)

We can't assume he will be more than a one-event personality, as per WP:CRYSTAL. Plus, nationality isn't anything to do with my delete !vote. I'm English, actually. Plus, your description of this nomination as "pathetic" is extremely uncivil. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- What I was trying to say was there are a lot of un-notable American people on this site. Someone the whole of the UK have heard of was, maybe tagged by an American who didn't have a clue who he was. He is actually more notable then some make out, and has been in more then one event, so that does not classify him under WP:ONEEVENT. If you dont see my point, see Ken Binns. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 15:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to have been known before this and been mentioned by the media for acting in numerous television shows and switching on Christmas lights? Surely enough to beat WP:EVENT? And hardly comparable therefore to Susan Boyle who is more recent? Or has all that just been added? I'm somewhat alarmed at the idea put forth by Tovojolo that someone can be deleted for not being "a phenomenal Internet success". --candle•wicke 18:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree with the user who suggested this be merged with the article Britain's Got Talent (series 3) and a separate article be written about him if he becomes more notable in the future. FurryPurryLove (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it does seem that this is not the beginning of his career at all... --candle•wicke 20:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Right now the article contains only one short paragraph about this person's musical career outside Britain's Got Talent. Those of you who assert that he is independently notable might do well to expand on that paragraph, with references. - Brian Kendig (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Candelwicke hinted at this in his post, but it should be emphasized: Shaheen's celebrity is not solely due to one event. The case can certainly be made that he is most notable from Britain's Got Talent. However he has performed at other notable events. The article page lists some of these: "Shaheen has previously acted in television shows Casualty, Torchwood and Grandpa In My Pocket, all on the BBC. Shaheen has also toured on stage as a young Michael Jackson in Thriller Live.[4] He also featured in BBC documentary Starstruck, where cameras followed him for six months. He switched on the Christmas lights in Swansea city centre in front of 30,000 people.[5]" The last mentioned event seems to be associated with celebrities. Thus 1E does not apply to this case.--Agha Nader (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is expected that the closing nom will rightly disregard any such delete opinions as being unsupportablein light of all evidence that he is most assuredly not WP:ONEEVENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete "He is a good singer, but not a notable one." The article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians. He is a mere contestant that has been covered in minimal sources. Alex Douglas (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a thought, but it seems to me, rather than discussing whether this meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, with Boyle being an exception and Shaheen being in the public eye before Britain's got talent - yet still being debated, maybe we should be discussing clarification of the notability guidelines themselves? Musicmantham 11:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not a Wikipedia regular or expert, but I came to the site for information on the kid, and noticed it was in dispute, and decided to have a look. So, as an average Joe (work: unix sysadmin; play: local musician), my two cents... MTV has reported on him (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1609565/20090420/index.jhtml), Entertainment Weekly has reported on him (http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/04/shaheen-jafargh.html). He's got an IMDB entry, as someone else has pointed out. The event which got us talking was his *audition*, not his only performance, so unless an anvil falls on him, we'll be seeing a lot of him in the weeks to come. I fear a sense of short-sightedness is surrounding this. Seems strange to argue against Susan Boyle's inclusion, for the same reasoning. If there's an entry for Puck from the Real World, surely there can't be an argument against either of these two bona-fide entertainers? Why is it even an issue? Coordinatezero (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Have just added Coordinatezero's 2 references and tidied up the page a little. I can see why the page was nominated, but now its been improved 1E clearly doesnt apply, we have abundant coverage in reliable secondary sources and we're getting thousands of hits per day on the page. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of hits on the article doesn't matter. (How are you counting the hits, anyway?) All that matters is whether the subject is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" (WP:BIO). - Brian Kendig (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The specific guideline for singers, WP:MUSIC says a person or band is worthy of being included (notable) if it meets any one of the following criteria: "1.Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" So the kid easilly passes by the first measure. We are allowed to take popularity into account to, I got the hit stats by going to the history page where there's a 'page view statitics' link near the top of the screen. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable for his own performances. WP:BLP1E is therefore quite inapplicable, being intended for those who are caught up in some larger event by happenstance. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His talent has only been noticed because of the popularity of Susan Boyle, which has then made the show more popular. Also, as previously mentioned he has not made worldwide news. Simply, one of the better acts, of one show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.202.170 (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete --89.242.30.151 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per Abcarter. I'm unconvinced that WP:BLP1E applies here, as although the article's creation may have been triggered by one event the article's subject is notable outwith that one event - he's appeared on Casualty and Torchwood, amongst other major UK TV shows. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He'll get a recording contract out of this and end up fairly famous, not to mention the fact that he's already an actor and will probably keep with that. There are already far less notable people about whom articles are written on WP. Kether83 (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable even if we ignore BGT and the small roles he had in Torchwood and Casualty etc. He plays an important role in Grandpa In My Pocket and toured at least 3 countries with the concert Thriller Live. The BBC Wales documentary Starstruck could add to that notability as well (depending on how much of it is focused on Jafargholi). He meets WP:ENTERTAINER: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". - Mgm|^(talk) 08:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the series article, but do not keep. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Shaheen is very much talked about at the moment, and many people like to know more about his background. For the moment, I see no reason to delete an article that has so many references and quite a good quality.

Conclusion[edit]

As a conclusion to this discussion, as many people are interested in this article, and as many others put a lot of effort in it, I removed the DELETION-Sign and close the discussion for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.21.80 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and I put it back. Please leave the tag in place until this AfD is closed. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...OK, I thought there has been enough discussion, so let's keep on and discuss ourselves to death instead of writing articles. ... Well, an offer for all those who want to delete Shaheen: The second argument has been: "Well, we could start a new article if interest in him stays alive". But the all information has to be re-written and re-researched. What about keeping the article and delete it in 6 month, if no interest will be in the article then?

Why do you so hardly want to delete this article about a boy who is already an actor and a singer, and now even widely-known due to Britain's Got Talent? It's one of britain's most favourite and most talked-about shows, and lot of viewers want to get background on the candidates as the show doesn't present any. Now you can either collect it from a lot of news sources, or you can go to wikipedia ... if it hasn't been plundered by wikipedia deletion activists. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.21.80 (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing stopping any of us writing articles while this AfD continues, so far as I'm aware. And your points would be better made up above, where they can be taken into consideration by the editor who closes the AfD. Incidentally, if you bother to check my !vote, you'll see that I !voted keep. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. :) (And where the hell is the the TILDE on the MAC? ;) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.21.80 (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied - it's Alt+n ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you man :) (still asking myself if a wikipedia account pays back if I edit only 3 to 4 pages a year -- but the first barrier ist taken now: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;) 85.197.21.80 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

by the way: Do you really think it's fair that shaheen has a deletion flag, and DJ Talent Doesn't? ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Talent ... well, nothing against DJ talent ... but compare him to Shaheen ... well, "life's not fair, is it?" ;) (Scar in The Lion King, 1994) 85.197.21.80 (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't really think "fair" is relevant - anyone can submit any article to AfD, all it does is start a discussion. If the balance of the contributors to the discussion put forward good arguments for keeping the article, then it will be kept. You could, for example, propose DJ Talent's article for deletion, but it wouldn't necessarily result in a delete. It's all healthy - it gets more eyes on an article, and often helps the article improve. In this case I'd like to think that at the very least, editors who wouldn't otherwise know about Shaheen Jafargholi have learnt something about UK TV! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamarcus Sanders[edit]

Hoax, the information fails WP:V, and WP:BIO, nothing in google, prod removed (after experation) by someone who didn't look at the links in the bottom of the article, which is either Myspace, Youtube, or nothing about the subject at all Delete and let's try to make this a WP:SNOW as well. Secret ^account 12:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Copyright violation of this site:[31]. So tagged, that should take care of the snow. Thanks 13:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment — that article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution license, so it's not technically a copyvio. ... discospinster _talk 14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Freebase mirrors Wikipedia content. There is no copyvio there. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding my previous comment, delete for lack of notability. ... discospinster _talk 14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Dlabtot (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (partial speedy, per clear consensus, NAC). TheAE talk/sign 05:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Touch the Truck[edit]

Common publicity stunt. The fact that it received publicity isn't notable. Rklawton (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – against better judgment :-). As pointed out by nominator, it is an extremely common publicity stunt/fundraiser. As such, does not that in and of itself qualify it as Notable ? ShoesssS ^Talk 12:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much in the article, and focuses on a specific contest. It is not about the more general stunt of "being-last-to-touch-the car-and therefore-win-it"ROxBo (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is not about a generic publicity stunt but rather a TV show which was broadcast nationally in the UK. Programmes broadcast on national channels/networks are usually considered notable. Coverage in major national newspapers included this, this and this, and here is something from a book..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - keep - I didn't realize this article was about a TV series (a bit of re-wording would help). It looked more like a one-shot publicity stunt. Rklawton (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We can't do a speedy keep based on a nominator's withdraw since someone else has recommended deletion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. Ikip (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is sourced and the reason for deletion is not longer valid. --J^mundo 18:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apollarium[edit]

I doubt this exists - I can find on Google an exact replica of this page, in Webster's dictionary. But which came first? Jackclubs (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~but move first to Wikitionary where it belongs, so tagged. The term does exist as shown here [32]~~. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That damn Webster's dictionary (Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases) is more trouble than it's worth. Notice that the definition ends with "(WP)", which means that it's a direct copy of the Wikipedia article. Fooled me the first time I tried to cite it as an independent source, too. Deor (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No non-WP-based hits on Google Web, Books, or Scholar; unless someone can come up with a valid paper source, this fails WP:V. The word has already been deleted recently on Wiktionary, so I don't think transwikiing is the way to go here. Deor (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 15:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence that the term exists. And it wouldn't work in practice, in any case - the glass part of the roof would have to be moved up and down throughout the year, unless the building was on the equator. Tevildo (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not in the two Dover architectural dictionaries I have (Sturgis, Harris). —Tamfang (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain–Hungary relations[edit]

another random country pairing with no evidence of notable trade or diplomatic relations. should be deleted and being non controversial is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; bilateral relations are not inherently notable, and there's no evidence this one is. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this does not appear to be notable. See my standards. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this list. These countries would be the only ones I would consider keeping. Tavix | Talk 23:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Biruitorul. Non-notable intersection of countries, and in this case we can't even say anything about embassies. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing that would raise this over the notability threshold.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X–Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I'm not opposed to this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. Disc space is cheap. Human time and effort are not. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your keep vote seems mainly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with a "free disc usage" argument. These are both false arguments. This is a wiki, the disc usage has nothing to do with what is on it, because remember when things are "deleted", administrators still have access to the deleted history, which means that the size will remain the same, if not grow larger with a deletion. Tavix | Talk 22:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a Mbhiii sockpuppet — another sockpuppetteer that attempts to stuff nonexistent ballots at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If these weren't ballots, there would be no need to strike out sockpuppet contributions because there would be no point making them. Mergellus (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotrus. The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[33]. Martintg (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Snow[edit]

Does not meet notability guidelines Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Needs substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – without prejudice at this time. Not enough independent coverage on web – no awards – no coverage at all in printed publications. Sorry. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, even the article itself says "Copyright claim pending". ~Excesses~ (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 15:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (perhaps SNOW) per above. TheAE talk/sign 20:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ente Upasana[edit]

Only just enough content to avoid being tagged for speedy. Contains nothing but an over- elaborate plot summary. HJ Mitchell (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - IMDB entry, which is the one external link on that article, suggests the lack of notability. Possible notability to Malayalans, but this isn't established in the article. ~Excesses~ (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently notable film. I have added a couple of sources. Salih (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcable notability. Since AfD is not Cleanup, let's tag it and improve it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

In closing this discussion, I discount the "keep" opinions of Wikifan12345 (so as not to encourage the battleground-style conduct exhibited in the first comment) and Shuki (no policy-based argument). I also discount the "delete" opinions of Grace Note (argumentum ad hominem) and Bali ultimate (overly brief), as well as the "merge" opinion of Dlabtot (just a vote).

This leaves us with a rough headcount of delete 7, delete/redirect 2, merge/redirect 3, move 1 and keep 3.5 (0.5 being the "weak keep"). Reviewing this count in the light of the arguments presented, I find a consensus against retaining an article dedicated to this man at this time, because most here feel that all coverage of him relates to the report he wrote, as does almost all of the article, which makes an article about him inappropriate per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK.

Several editors have proposed merging (and hence redirecting) a part of the content to UNRWA, but this seems to already have been done to some degree. Accordingly, I am deleting the article, but will make the content available in the event that there is serious interest in merging additional content to UNRWA (subject to consensus there, of course). Sandstein 08:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James G. Lindsay[edit]

Almost the entire article is devoted to Lindsay's opinions of the UNRWA, no claim of notability outside of having published a critique of the UNRWA is made. Everything in the article could go in to the UNRWA article; the entirety of the biographical information in the article is the lead and the single line on military service and education. Nableezy (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom Nableezy (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Nableezy (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merging any useful material to UNRWA first). Doesn't seem notable enough for own article (and by the by bio info is dangerously close to copyvio of the sources). Rd232 ^talk 13:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems more than just a run of the mill clerk BUT I might be wrong. In any case, undue weight given to that report in this BLP article. Make more consise and move that to UNWRA. --Shuki (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, Strong, Strong Keep LOL. Heads up everyone: Me and Nableezy are currently in a dispute over Charities accused of ties to terrorism. The dispute has been roadblocked with both of us accusing each other of edit warring and POV-pushing. Nableezy has seen the James Lindsay before, never edited it, and never voiced any concerns at [34]. Therefore, I personally consider this a violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If there are specific concerns about the article, it should be first addressed in talk. Going straight to AFD (especially considering our relationship Nableezy) is beyond suspect. Obviously the AFD will be 50/50 because bio in question is by a person who isn't a fan/supporter/fencer of Hamas or Palestinians in general. All answers and questions should be argued in talk. Not in AFD, at least not yet. I am wiling to discuss any and all disputes, but again that's for talk. I encourage a strong "no consensus" and/or immediate close so we can solve issues in talk. If problems remain, and nothing is changing, AFD seems like a logical conclusion. But it is my opinion Nableezy has no concern about the article and the timing of our feud cannot be a coincidence. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed extended logical fallacy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment- WF, one thing has nothing to do with the other, you need to stop making this about me and you. I don't care enough about you to plan my moves around what you may think. Let it go, make your points and leave my username out of it. I stated why I think it should be deleted, thats it. Nableezy (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Nab, you're not fooling anyone. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I have wanted to delete this article since it was created, I gave you time to bring it up to standards, which I feel you have not done as you have not established notability, and then proposed deletion. This has nothing to do with anything else. Nableezy (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Well sorry, but I don't stalk every edit you make on wikipedia. I know why you want to trash this article, which explains your utter failure for going to talk or heck, even editing the article. Other editors such as Ceed, Cerejota, and Tundra had no problem doing so. C-o-l-l-a-b-o-r-a-t-i-o-n. Not, "delete articles that violate my POV." Even so, timing is key. I doubt many will buy the idea that you were AGF. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed extended logical fallacy

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- Comment- WF, one thing has nothing to do with the other, you need to stop making this about me and you. I don't care enough about you to plan my moves around what you may think. Let it go, make your points and leave my username out of it. I stated why I think it should be deleted, thats it. Nableezy (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Nab, you're not fooling anyone. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have wanted to delete this article since it was created, I gave you time to bring it up to standards, which I feel you have not done as you have not established notability, and then proposed deletion. This has nothing to do with anything else. Nableezy (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry, but I don't stalk every edit you make on wikipedia. I know why you want to trash this article, which explains your utter failure for going to talk or heck, even editing the article. Other editors such as Ceed, Cerejota, and Tundra had no problem doing so. C-o-l-l-a-b-o-r-a-t-i-o-n. Not, "delete articles that violate my POV." Even so, timing is key. I doubt many will buy the idea that you were AGF. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Information pertinent to the UNRWA has been merged with the article and Palestinian refugee. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep and Expand. Lindsay is appropriately categorized among American academics, American foreign policy writers, American legal writers, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Writers on the Middle East, & University of Missouri-Columbia alumni, and probably more. Many academics are single-issue people, and Lindsay's knowledge and opinions on his issue is unique, since he has been a participant; not an outsider. There is no question regarding notability. The way to improve this article is by expansion, not deletion. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't seem to pass WP:ACADEMIC, not least because he isn't one (the Institute is just a thinktank). And categorisation is irrelevant to notability; what evidence is there that he passes WP:BIO? Rd232 ^talk 03:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Wrong. James G. Lindsay passes the following guideslines

6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.

Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a major force in the I/P conflict and general Middle Eastern issues. Dismissing it as it's "just a thinktank," is dare I say, incredibly ignorant. If preferred, remove the Academic category. I won't fight.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

If we consider the "thinktank" an "academic institution" (bear with me here), his involvement outside far exceeds. Being the head attorney of the UNRWA is major, especially when that head leaves on a bad note. Perhaps my logic is flawed, but yours is misguided. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, these kinds of complaints a rather minor. Your concern boils down to a "dubious" category. Solution? Remove it. Guess where these kinds of complaints are expected to go? TALK. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, multiple noes. From Washington Institute for Near East Policy: a "Washington, DC-based think tank". Not only that, but it was founded by "Martin Indyk, a research director for AIPAC" - not exactly a university spinoff, is it? Ergo he's not an academic. His position at UNRWA preceded his Institute appointment, so it can hardly be an impact "in his academic capacity". And I don't care about the categorisation at this point, we're discussing whether the article should be deleted or not. In any case, even if we were to accept him as an academic, he would still fail notability on that point - see WP:ACADEMIC note 13 clarifying the meaning of the Criterion 6 you quote above: "a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution". Finally, per Scopus he has no academic publications that I can see. Rd232 ^talk 04:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still disagree, however I suggest the dispute be merged with talk to avoid derailment of AFD. If this is your argument for deletion, I rest my case. I agree the article hardly resembles the typical-academic bio, so a removal of the category "American academics" seems logical pending a more thorough discussion. But, again, this has little to do with the AFD. In fact, it has nothing to do with it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense: the article is proposed for deletion on grounds of notability. It is countered that he is a notable academic. I'm explaining he is not an academic and certainly not a notable academic. How exactly is that not relevant to this AFD? Rd232 ^talk 13:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article [35], for example, in the Jewish Standard speaks to the issue of making "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." He is interviewed as an expert on UNWRA in this article, in relation to enforcement of the U.S. 1961 Foreign Assistance Act. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above he's not an academic (he has no academic, peer reviewed publications). He could still be considered to meet the general notability guidelines if there was substantial coverage of him. There doesn't seem to be. Rd232 ^talk 13:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move. Given his report has received answer from the UNRWA itself, it has become notorious. It is even stated it should received new ones. More, it seems that this person is notorious (maybe not reliable but that is not the point) concerning this organisation. I would suggest to slighlty modify to content and to move to James Lindsay's report about UNRWA. Ceedjee (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The report plays a pivotal rule in the article, but it isn't the article. I don't see how we could possibly craft an article like "James Lindsay's report about the UNRWA." It seems extremely silly when what we have is basically the same thing with relevant character info and relationships beyond the UNRWA. Plus, the major parts of the report which explicitly judge the UNRWA are currently in the UNRWA article (linked above). It makes no sense to create a new article that would likely end up being just a content fork of the UNRWA section. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I think more information should be found/added about Lindsay because he is on the edge for what concerns his notoriaty... Eg, his predecessors and successors at his posts don't have articles (have they ?). If he is notorious only his report, that makes things hard... Ceedjee (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed failure to comply with policy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
By virtue of being one of the few employees (former or otherwise) of the UNRWA to criticize the organization establishes notoriety. That is the hook, factor in UN response, etc...it paints a nice pretty picture of reasonable notoriety. The lead speaks for itself. And if I recall, claim of notoriety was made the moment of creation. We had a thorough discussion in talk which resulted in a general consensus. Since then, the article has been edited and improved. If there were concerns about moving/merging/deleting, it should have been made in talk. Frick, why am I even responding. Nab should be blocked for crap like this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] If you want to propose a Wikipedia:Notoriety guideline, feel free. For now, we have Wikipedia:Notability. Rd232 ^talk 13:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] For nominating an article for deletion that I do not think meets the standards? Please keep the discussion on topic, if you have a problem with me take it to an admin noticeboard. Nableezy (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] How about no. You don't like what I say, get an admin. I've responded to each and every little "concerns" here, something you haven't done. I'm just too lazy to send you off to the noticeboards, and to be honest this is actually kind of entertaining. If you plan on solidifying your efforts to disrupt and complete your quest to obtain Boss-level status, I suggest asking for the opinion of admin User:William M. Connolley. He really likes me. A lot. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] That attitude is extremely unhelpful. Leave your personal dispute out of this, it is disrupting an AFD, which regardless of eventual outcome, is nominated for concerns not prima facie unreasonable, even if you disagree with them. Rd232 ^talk 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed failure to comply with policy

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- - By virtue of being one of the few employees (former or otherwise) of the UNRWA to criticize the organization establishes notoriety. That is the hook, factor in UN response, etc...it paints a nice pretty picture of reasonable notoriety. The lead speaks for itself. And if I recall, claim of notoriety was made the moment of creation. We had a thorough discussion in talk which resulted in a general consensus. Since then, the article has been edited and improved. If there were concerns about moving/merging/deleting, it should have been made in talk. Frick, why am I even responding. Nab should be blocked for crap like this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you want to propose a Wikipedia:Notoriety guideline, feel free. For now, we have Wikipedia:Notability. Rd232 ^talk 13:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For nominating an article for deletion that I do not think meets the standards? Please keep the discussion on topic, if you have a problem with me take it to an admin noticeboard. Nableezy (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about no. You don't like what I say, get an admin. I've responded to each and every little "concerns" here, something you haven't done. I'm just too lazy to send you off to the noticeboards, and to be honest this is actually kind of entertaining. If you plan on solidifying your efforts to disrupt and complete your quest to obtain Boss-level status, I suggest asking for the opinion of admin User:William M. Connolley. He really likes me. A lot. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That attitude is extremely unhelpful. Leave your personal dispute out of this, it is disrupting an AFD, which regardless of eventual outcome, is nominated for concerns not prima facie unreasonable, even if you disagree with them. Rd232 ^talk 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Rd232 ^talk 13:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed failure to comply with policy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment This AFD is unreasonable. I will add just once, I believe this has been attempt to distract myself from the on-going dispute at Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Anyways, You didn't seem to have a problem with Nableezy's behavior and disruptive tactics. I suggest you take a look at Nableezy's recent history and read this: Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Back to the AFD: Your claims of academic notoriety are reasonable. Yet they are hardly a putting excuse for deletion. There is one reference to him being an academic, and that is in the category section. I cannot believe we spent 3 paragraphs arguing over the simplest of concerns. Minor disputes like those should be dealt with in the talk discussion. The question of notoriety was already discussed in the talk section. Any other concerns? Have we not italicized enough keywords? Maybe we should delete the article because of that....: ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] The AFD is not, per se, unreasonable, regardless of the context of personal disputes I neither know nor care about. Your "prior discussion" link is essentially you arguing he's notable because of UNRWA, a point you haven't made here and which I doubt flies past WP:N without WP:RS; and others not agreeing with you. PS Your sarcasm is not helpful, and the issue is not "notoriety" but "notability". Show it, instead of rejecting/disrupting the AFD process. PPS Deleting a bio for lack of notability of the subject has little relevance for any other articles that may rely on reports written by the subject. Many, if not most references used on WP are authored by people who don't have WP bios. Rd232 ^talk 21:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] The article is...per se, unreasonable. I believe you really don't understand the article, because this was your first claim: "(merging any useful material to UNRWA first). Doesn't seem notable enough for own article (and by the by bio info is dangerously close to copyvio of the sources)." A) Information petinent to the UNRWA (directly) is in the UNRWA article. As is his commentary on Palestinian refugees. Following this concern, you said he wasn't an academic and inferred that is why the article should be deleted. A) That is silly, because the article is not written based on whatever academia he has been involved in. And B) The only 100% provable reference to academia is in the category section. So, now you want to go into a long pointless debate into notability which has been exhausted? Please. Nableezy and you should have gone to talk. No concerns were made, his submission for this to be deleted started right after our feud. Like, 20 mins later. You as an admin should at least recognize that and failure to do so reflects your objectivity. Sorry. Hope I didn't hurt anyone's feelings here, but it seems people can get away with a lot of crap before something happens. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] For the last time: articles that do not demonstrate notability of the subject may be deleted. This is what the AFD process is for. If you want to keep the article, then argue for the subject's notability, with relevant sources. If you're unable or unwilling to do so, your participation here is a waste of everyone's time. Rd232 ^talk 21:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment Since you've willingly ignored your actions, I'll continue. Here's Nableezy's rationale, I'm breaking it down for simplification: "Almost the entire article is devoted to Lindsay's opinions of the UNRWA." Incorrect. Lead provides info of his leadership role in Multinational Force and Observers. Also includes information in his relationship with Washington Institute for Near East Policy. First section is typical stuff, education, military experience...not particularly notable. 3rd section. Definitely defines the article. Section relates to a report we all know and want to put under the rug. Report is extremely notable, having been influential towards recognizing the Palestinian refugee problems. Report was notable enough to warrant a from the United Nations Article is sourced by several reputable references, such as BBC, United Nations, CNN, and the Jerusalem Post. A nearly similar convo took place here: notability, talk. I don't see your or Nableezy's name there. If you want to drag this out even more please do. I just love roadblocks that disrupt collaboration, especially ones that are supported by administrators. no claim of notability outside of having published a critique of the UNRWA is made. Everything in the article could go in to the UNRWA article; the entirety of the biographical information in the article is the lead and the single line on military service and education. Basically same complaint but longer. Clearly you have under-stated the importance of the UNRWA and how it provides notability. Here is a closely-related person, Peter Hansen (UN). Does that lack notability? Aside from his involvement with the UNRWA, everything else is irrelevant...:D Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Most of that is repetition of irrelevance and point-missing which I'll ignore, having more than adequately addressed it before. I'll respond to your comparison with Peter Hansen (UN) by pointing out that Hansen was Commissioner-General, which is considered a diplomatic post, while Lindsay was merely general counsel. Rd232 ^talk 22:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Apologies, I missed another point you buried in there, which seems to be Report Is Notable So He Should Have A Bio. But see WP:BLP1E. Rd232 ^talk 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nice dismissal. Of course, "merely general counsel." You've also had a pre-determined response, so I will no longer spend (waste) my time to generalized criticisms. I proved why the article is notable and why the claim regarding academics was totally over-stated and completely irrelevant to AFD. I've discovered a couple spelling errors. Shall we delete the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] OK, nice. Helpful. Rd232 ^talk 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Update Nableezy has accused me of canvassing in regards to this AFD. I didn't. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I can see why. But your subsequent explanation to him sounds reasonable (Wikipedia:Canvassing). Rd232 ^talk 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Seeing as how unaware you have portrayed yourself in relation to this AFD and the articles in general, it's not surprising. Notifying all major editors involved in the article is not canvassing. Picking and choosing Palestinian/Israeli editors exclusively is. Ceed wouldn't be here if not for my notice. Whatever, this AFD has acted as a badge of shame for far too long. Nableezy is no longer involved and should feel lucky he will likely face no consequences for his persistent disruption and hounding. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Posting on a number of talk pages looks like canvassing (WP:DUCK). Your explanation is reasonable that it wasn't (per distinction with friendly messages in WP:CANVAS). Good grief, you can't even let it go when I agree with you! And is there any chance that you might delete your Nableezy-related comments from this AFD as an irrelevant distraction? Rd232 ^talk 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mis-read your response. This entire AFD is a joke, so no. Since you are an admin I'm sure there is some rule you could whip out that would force mt to remove the comments. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] LOL. There is actually (well, to justify me doing it for you, anyway): WP:IAR. Rd232 ^talk 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] When Nab strikes his malicious/false/irrelevant posts, I'll respond in kind. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] BTW, since you seem so concerned about notability...I suggest you check out 2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair. You've been involved in the talk from what I understand. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Involved"? I made one comment (someone asked me too, I forget who or why), saying it was a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS, i.e. should really be deleted/merged. What's your point exactly? Rd232 ^talk 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Proportionally speaking, your concern is suspect. It's pretty obvious Lindsay is not a strong candidate for deletion, yet you've taken a fairly hardline in making it happen. But in the IDF article you showed little intention or willingness to get involved in the AFD. Trying to connect the dots here...Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Read my comment there, it should be clear. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And if you want to nominate that other article, I'll probably support delete/merge. Rd232 ^talk 01:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm familiar with that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] To end this, you've made a strong effort to over-state minor issues (academic question) while dismissing major ones (He was "merely" general counsel of the UNRWA") which don't seem like compelling arguments for delete. Anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm trying to address the issue at hand, which is whether the subject is notable enough to have a separate bio (WP:N). I can't help it that you've already made up your mind and that my failing to agree with you upsets you. Rd232 ^talk 03:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment It may not be against the rules but I think it's really inappropriate to couch in secondary responses/claims above an editors response. It makes it very difficult for me to keep up and is poor editing manners from my POV. Here is a response I missed because of that: Apologies, I missed another point you buried in there, which seems to be Report Is Notable So He Should Have A Bio. But see BLP1E. I think we've become highly dependent on rules to provide rationale while avoiding actual argument which ironically meet the standards of Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. In response to your point, it is your interpretation that Lindsay's notability solely rest on a "report." This is extremely unfair categorization. Lindsay isn't this person. Lindsay has been covered by BBC, CNN, UN, JP, etc. He has had a long career in the US government and UN programs aside from the UNRWA. Please, my rationale extends for paragraphs while you simply continue with refuted guidelines. Methinks this AFD is ideology driven rather than concern for the article. What's next? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] How about not making claims as to others motives and actually respond to the issues. All the coverage is on one thing, or one event, the report on the UNRWA. Can you show how being general counsel for the UNRWA meets notability guidelines? How about not clogging up this discussion with pointless nonsense? That would be a good idea for what's next. Nableezy (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Much of the substantial discussion relates to whether he's a notable academic or not. Conclusion: no. Now if you want to elaborate something based on general notability (WP:N) then you need to show substantial secondary media coverage of him (not of the report). Rd232 ^talk 03:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment Again, another couched comment. Almost missed it Rd. This "substantial discussion" was initiated by you. The academic argument is valid in its own right, but it is not a major concern in terms of the AFD. You over-stated its importance, which I exposed several times. While this AFD is loaded with fallacies, yours is most obvious. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed failure to comply with policy

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment This AFD is unreasonable. I will add just once, I believe this has been attempt to distract myself from the on-going dispute at Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Anyways, You didn't seem to have a problem with Nableezy's behavior and disruptive tactics. I suggest you take a look at Nableezy's recent history and read this: Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Back to the AFD: Your claims of academic notoriety are reasonable. Yet they are hardly a putting excuse for deletion. There is one reference to him being an academic, and that is in the category section. I cannot believe we spent 3 paragraphs arguing over the simplest of concerns. Minor disputes like those should be dealt with in the talk discussion. The question of notoriety was already discussed in the talk section. Any other concerns? Have we not italicized enough keywords? Maybe we should delete the article because of that....: ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD is not, per se, unreasonable, regardless of the context of personal disputes I neither know nor care about. Your "prior discussion" link is essentially you arguing he's notable because of UNRWA, a point you haven't made here and which I doubt flies past WP:N without WP:RS; and others not agreeing with you. PS Your sarcasm is not helpful, and the issue is not "notoriety" but "notability". Show it, instead of rejecting/disrupting the AFD process. PPS Deleting a bio for lack of notability of the subject has little relevance for any other articles that may rely on reports written by the subject. Many, if not most references used on WP are authored by people who don't have WP bios. Rd232 ^talk 21:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is...per se, unreasonable. I believe you really don't understand the article, because this was your first claim: "(merging any useful material to UNRWA first). Doesn't seem notable enough for own article (and by the by bio info is dangerously close to copyvio of the sources)." A) Information petinent to the UNRWA (directly) is in the UNRWA article. As is his commentary on Palestinian refugees. Following this concern, you said he wasn't an academic and inferred that is why the article should be deleted. A) That is silly, because the article is not written based on whatever academia he has been involved in. And B) The only 100% provable reference to academia is in the category section. So, now you want to go into a long pointless debate into notability which has been exhausted? Please. Nableezy and you should have gone to talk. No concerns were made, his submission for this to be deleted started right after our feud. Like, 20 mins later. You as an admin should at least recognize that and failure to do so reflects your objectivity. Sorry. Hope I didn't hurt anyone's feelings here, but it seems people can get away with a lot of crap before something happens. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time: articles that do not demonstrate notability of the subject may be deleted. This is what the AFD process is for. If you want to keep the article, then argue for the subject's notability, with relevant sources. If you're unable or unwilling to do so, your participation here is a waste of everyone's time. Rd232 ^talk 21:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since you've willingly ignored your actions, I'll continue. Here's Nableezy's rationale, I'm breaking it down for simplification: "Almost the entire article is devoted to Lindsay's opinions of the UNRWA." Incorrect. Lead provides info of his leadership role in Multinational Force and Observers. Also includes information in his relationship with Washington Institute for Near East Policy. First section is typical stuff, education, military experience...not particularly notable. 3rd section. Definitely defines the article. Section relates to a report we all know and want to put under the rug. Report is extremely notable, having been influential towards recognizing the Palestinian refugee problems. Report was notable enough to warrant a from the United Nations Article is sourced by several reputable references, such as BBC, United Nations, CNN, and the Jerusalem Post. A nearly similar convo took place here: notability, talk. I don't see your or Nableezy's name there. If you want to drag this out even more please do. I just love roadblocks that disrupt collaboration, especially ones that are supported by administrators. no claim of notability outside of having published a critique of the UNRWA is made. Everything in the article could go in to the UNRWA article; the entirety of the biographical information in the article is the lead and the single line on military service and education. Basically same complaint but longer. Clearly you have under-stated the importance of the UNRWA and how it provides notability. Here is a closely-related person, Peter Hansen (UN). Does that lack notability? Aside from his involvement with the UNRWA, everything else is irrelevant...:D Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that is repetition of irrelevance and point-missing which I'll ignore, having more than adequately addressed it before. I'll respond to your comparison with Peter Hansen (UN) by pointing out that Hansen was Commissioner-General, which is considered a diplomatic post, while Lindsay was merely general counsel. Rd232 ^talk 22:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I missed another point you buried in there, which seems to be Report Is Notable So He Should Have A Bio. But see WP:BLP1E. Rd232 ^talk 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice dismissal. Of course, "merely general counsel." You've also had a pre-determined response, so I will no longer spend (waste) my time to generalized criticisms. I proved why the article is notable and why the claim regarding academics was totally over-stated and completely irrelevant to AFD. I've discovered a couple spelling errors. Shall we delete the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, nice. Helpful. Rd232 ^talk 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update Nableezy has accused me of canvassing in regards to this AFD. I didn't. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why. But your subsequent explanation to him sounds reasonable (Wikipedia:Canvassing). Rd232 ^talk 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how unaware you have portrayed yourself in relation to this AFD and the articles in general, it's not surprising. Notifying all major editors involved in the article is not canvassing. Picking and choosing Palestinian/Israeli editors exclusively is. Ceed wouldn't be here if not for my notice. Whatever, this AFD has acted as a badge of shame for far too long. Nableezy is no longer involved and should feel lucky he will likely face no consequences for his persistent disruption and hounding. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting on a number of talk pages looks like canvassing (WP:DUCK). Your explanation is reasonable that it wasn't (per distinction with friendly messages in WP:CANVAS). Good grief, you can't even let it go when I agree with you! And is there any chance that you might delete your Nableezy-related comments from this AFD as an irrelevant distraction? Rd232 ^talk 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-read your response. This entire AFD is a joke, so no. Since you are an admin I'm sure there is some rule you could whip out that would force mt to remove the comments. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. There is actually (well, to justify me doing it for you, anyway): WP:IAR. Rd232 ^talk 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Nab strikes his malicious/false/irrelevant posts, I'll respond in kind. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, since you seem so concerned about notability...I suggest you check out 2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair. You've been involved in the talk from what I understand. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Involved"? I made one comment (someone asked me too, I forget who or why), saying it was a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS, i.e. should really be deleted/merged. What's your point exactly? Rd232 ^talk 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proportionally speaking, your concern is suspect. It's pretty obvious Lindsay is not a strong candidate for deletion, yet you've taken a fairly hardline in making it happen. But in the IDF article you showed little intention or willingness to get involved in the AFD. Trying to connect the dots here...Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comment there, it should be clear. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And if you want to nominate that other article, I'll probably support delete/merge. Rd232 ^talk 01:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To end this, you've made a strong effort to over-state minor issues (academic question) while dismissing major ones (He was "merely" general counsel of the UNRWA") which don't seem like compelling arguments for delete. Anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to address the issue at hand, which is whether the subject is notable enough to have a separate bio (WP:N). I can't help it that you've already made up your mind and that my failing to agree with you upsets you. Rd232 ^talk 03:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may not be against the rules but I think it's really inappropriate to couch in secondary responses/claims above an editors response. It makes it very difficult for me to keep up and is poor editing manners from my POV. Here is a response I missed because of that: Apologies, I missed another point you buried in there, which seems to be Report Is Notable So He Should Have A Bio. But see BLP1E. I think we've become highly dependent on rules to provide rationale while avoiding actual argument which ironically meet the standards of Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. In response to your point, it is your interpretation that Lindsay's notability solely rest on a "report." This is extremely unfair categorization. Lindsay isn't this person. Lindsay has been covered by BBC, CNN, UN, JP, etc. He has had a long career in the US government and UN programs aside from the UNRWA. Please, my rationale extends for paragraphs while you simply continue with refuted guidelines. Methinks this AFD is ideology driven rather than concern for the article. What's next? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about not making claims as to others motives and actually respond to the issues. All the coverage is on one thing, or one event, the report on the UNRWA. Can you show how being general counsel for the UNRWA meets notability guidelines? How about not clogging up this discussion with pointless nonsense? That would be a good idea for what's next. Nableezy (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the substantial discussion relates to whether he's a notable academic or not. Conclusion: no. Now if you want to elaborate something based on general notability (WP:N) then you need to show substantial secondary media coverage of him (not of the report). Rd232 ^talk 03:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, another couched comment. Almost missed it Rd. This "substantial discussion" was initiated by you. The academic argument is valid in its own right, but it is not a major concern in terms of the AFD. You over-stated its importance, which I exposed several times. While this AFD is loaded with fallacies, yours is most obvious. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this coatrack. Pretty standard lawyer with a gripe and no wider notoriety. Oh and LOL that heading a wingnut thinktank makes one an academic! Grace Note (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"head" the institute? He's not even a permanent staff member! [36] Calling it "wingnut", though, is hardly helpful. Rd232 ^talk 03:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to say I agree with Wikifan's argument re notability. I believe there is also something in WP about not shutting out minority views, not sure where exactly. The concept must hold across WP, not just within articles. There are plenty of highlighted "general counsels" and other academics that support the common narrative regarding Palestine & UNWRA. Lindsay is important because he does not. Notoriety is a form of notability. See for example Jack the Ripper & Boston Strangler or Lyndon LaRouche. Lindsay is sought as for expert opinion by reliable sources such as the Jewish Standard above. (I also support Wikifan's take that Nableezy did this as an attempt to punish him for his position in that article, but that's another issue) Also want to distance myself from any suggestions of bad faith in relation to Rd232. While I may not always agree with him, I don't see bad faith here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

collapsed further discussion between the same editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If there are other bios that don't pass notability, then AFD them. We do not have bios on people of one persuasion because there are bios on people of another; WP:NPOV doesn't work that way and WP:N doesn't either. Views should be represented in the articles for which they are relevant (which for Lindsay's views is already the case). Rd232 ^talk 15:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] The view should be represented, which is why I said the information about the report should be placed in its appropriate article (the UNRWA article). But does having a minority viewpoint make someone notable for an article about that person? I am not going to respond to beliefs as to my motives except to say you, nor anybody else besides me, knows why I do what I do. If you have a complaint about me take it up in the appropriate venue. Nableezy (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment Who says this is a minority view? It certainly is within the UNRWA, if that is what you are saying. Notability has been proven and this "minority viewpoint" is yet another detraction from thorough rationales. If I have a complaint about you, I'll put it right in front of your nose. Someone else can do the tattle-telling. Count your blessings, man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Question Rationale behind Wikipedia:Coatrack accusation? I've spent (wasted) a lot of time responding to every law/guideline users have listed in support of deleting the article, so I say we change sides. I think another defining gasp law-violating quality should be substantiated beyond editor "high-fives." Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] How has notability been proven? You just saying it does not make it so. "Minority viewpoint" were tundra's words arguing about "shutting out minority views". Nableezy (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Notability has been proven. See here for discussion. I agree with the minority VP but I don't endorse your rationale of it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I really dont know if you are being purposefully dense or not, but how has notability been proven? You have said he is a notable academic, fails (not even an academic, and even if he were still fails WP:ACADEMIC), you have said he has been covered in lots of places (fails per WP:BLP1E). But just linking to this entire page to show 'proof' of notability where none exists is kind of meaningless. Nableezy (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Lol, I never said he was a notable academic. I said the idea that him being a notable/non-notable academic isn't pertinent to the AFD, and is a classic Red herring. The BLP1E was discussed thoroughly. You were absent in that discussion, but feel free to add a comment if desired. Your insulting generalizations and dead-end dogmatic approach is extremely frustrating. You ignore valid points, demand more details, ignore those points, then simply turn on recycle mode and start again. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] You are right on one thing, it was tundra who said he was a notable academic. You have not showed coverage of him is of more than one event (and I actually made a comment there as well) so it being thoroughly discussed and you actually proving something are 2 different things. I'm done here though, you want be able to use seeing my username as an excuse to continue your disruption. Nableezy (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] One thing's for sure: He isn't notable according to your objective, neutral standards (I.e, not characterized by thinly-vieled anti-Israeli and propagandic tirades) see Juan Cole for more. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

collapsed further discussion between the same editors

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If there are other bios that don't pass notability, then AFD them. We do not have bios on people of one persuasion because there are bios on people of another; WP:NPOV doesn't work that way and WP:N doesn't either. Views should be represented in the articles for which they are relevant (which for Lindsay's views is already the case). Rd232 ^talk 15:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The view should be represented, which is why I said the information about the report should be placed in its appropriate article (the UNRWA article). But does having a minority viewpoint make someone notable for an article about that person? I am not going to respond to beliefs as to my motives except to say you, nor anybody else besides me, knows why I do what I do. If you have a complaint about me take it up in the appropriate venue. Nableezy (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who says this is a minority view? It certainly is within the UNRWA, if that is what you are saying. Notability has been proven and this "minority viewpoint" is yet another detraction from thorough rationales. If I have a complaint about you, I'll put it right in front of your nose. Someone else can do the tattle-telling. Count your blessings, man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Rationale behind Wikipedia:Coatrack accusation? I've spent (wasted) a lot of time responding to every law/guideline users have listed in support of deleting the article, so I say we change sides. I think another defining *gasp* law-violating quality should be substantiated beyond editor "high-fives." Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How has notability been proven? You just saying it does not make it so. "Minority viewpoint" were tundra's words arguing about "shutting out minority views". Nableezy (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has been proven. See here for discussion. I agree with the minority VP but I don't endorse your rationale of it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont know if you are being purposefully dense or not, but how has notability been proven? You have said he is a notable academic, fails (not even an academic, and even if he were still fails WP:ACADEMIC), you have said he has been covered in lots of places (fails per WP:BLP1E). But just linking to this entire page to show 'proof' of notability where none exists is kind of meaningless. Nableezy (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I never said he was a notable academic. I said the idea that him being a notable/non-notable academic isn't pertinent to the AFD, and is a classic Red herring. The BLP1E was discussed thoroughly. You were absent in that discussion, but feel free to add a comment if desired. Your insulting generalizations and dead-end dogmatic approach is extremely frustrating. You ignore valid points, demand more details, ignore those points, then simply turn on recycle mode and start again. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right on one thing, it was tundra who said he was a notable academic. You have not showed coverage of him is of more than one event (and I actually made a comment there as well) so it being thoroughly discussed and you actually proving something are 2 different things. I'm done here though, you want be able to use seeing my username as an excuse to continue your disruption. Nableezy (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing's for sure: He isn't notable according to your objective, neutral standards (I.e, not characterized by thinly-vieled anti-Israeli and propagandic tirades) see Juan Cole for more. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move/Merge. The guy wrote a report critical of a group, how many people have done that? WP:ONEVENT, anyone? The material may be appropriate for Wiki in an article about the report or about UNRWA if its notability can be separately established.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and Paste Response This point has been stated dozens of times in spite of thorough rationales: Here is one of them from a previous discussion: "I think we've become highly dependent on rules to provide rationale while avoiding actual argument which ironically meet the standards of Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. In response to your point, it is your interpretation that Lindsay's notability solely rest on a "report." This is extremely unfair categorization. Lindsay isn't this person. Lindsay has been covered by BBC, CNN, UN, JP, etc. He has had a long career in the US government and UN programs aside from the UNRWA. Please, my rationale extends for paragraphs while you simply continue with refuted guidelines. Methinks this AFD is ideology driven rather than concern for the article. What's next? Also - Same IPer is involved in disputes at Charity and has taken an opposing stance, as is Rd and Nableezy. Just an update. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

collapsed argument to delete
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
section break The article James G. Lindsay is proposed for deletion on the grounds that subject fails to meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. Arguments for notability have been: He's a notable academic. Rejected as he is merely a visiting fellow at a thinktank, and has no academic publications He's notable for his legal position at UNRWA. Rejected - position is not in itself that notable; it is merely an administrative position. He's notable for a report he did. Rejected on grounds of WP:BLP1E. He's notable for his views; other bios exist on people of similar importance but other views. Rejected - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. He's notable for the general coverage he has received independent of the one report: insufficient evidence presented ~~(only one link to a regional weekly paper).~~ Actually that link relates to the report too. OK, so only the last of these seems to have potential. Those who want to keep the article should present evidence of substantial coverage in secondary reliable sources. This coverage will need to be independent of his report. Failing such evidence, the article fails notability and should be deleted. Rd232 ^talk 15:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

collapsed argument to delete

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

section break

The article James G. Lindsay is proposed for deletion on the grounds that subject fails to meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. Arguments for notability have been:

He's a notable academic. Rejected as he is merely a visiting fellow at a thinktank, and has no academic publications
He's notable for his legal position at UNRWA. Rejected - position is not in itself that notable; it is merely an administrative position.
He's notable for a report he did. Rejected on grounds of WP:BLP1E.
He's notable for his views; other bios exist on people of similar importance but other views. Rejected - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
He's notable for the general coverage he has received independent of the one report: insufficient evidence presented ~~(only one link to a regional weekly paper).~~ Actually that link relates to the report too.

OK, so only the last of these seems to have potential. Those who want to keep the article should present evidence of substantial coverage in secondary reliable sources. This coverage will need to be independent of his report. Failing such evidence, the article fails notability and should be deleted. Rd232 ^talk 15:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

collapse "argument for keep"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment on motivations for deletion The article James G. Lindsay was proposed for deletion as a result of a personal feud between User:Nableezy and I. Yes, we all know this doesn't exclude it from the AFD but user Rd has continually dismissed this happening as irrelevant. It is not. It is in extreme bad-faith to move a clearly unsettling and almost vicious dispute to AFDing an article created by a fueding editor. I know my language may seem hostile but it is nothing short of true. Lengthy arguments can be found, here.. See User:Nableezy participation in talk here. Nableezy has continually initiate edit-warring "to the line" and then reported and/or warned others for responding. I've been blocked 2 or 3 times for confrontations with Nableezy. Disruption. The timing cannot be ignored, almost immediately after our dispute occurred and no resolution was clear (and no user was being punished), Nableezy sent this article for deletion. It is truly disturbing how the admin involved has yet to even recognized this, perhaps because he endorses deletion. That is fine. Rationale for Keep Rd's crunched and simplified keypoints resemble that of a strawman. I'll do my best to avoid such fallacy here, but we've been doing this for over 4 pages so bear with me: "He's a notable academic. Rejected as he is merely a visiting fellow at a thinktank, and has no academic publications." This was Rd's argument. It was initiated by a lengthy paragraph authored by user tundra. I don't feel like rummaging through the history so I'll paste and copy his exact wording: "Keep and Expand. Lindsay is appropriately categorized among American academics, American foreign policy writers, American legal writers, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Writers on the Middle East, & University of Missouri-Columbia alumni, and probably more. Many academics are single-issue people, and Lindsay's knowledge and opinions on his issue is unique, since he has been a participant; not an outsider. There is no question regarding notability. The way to improve this article is by expansion, not deletion.." Rd latched on to that single word and based his entire argument off of it. I repeatedly made the claim that it is entirely irrelevant to the AFD and is hardly a valid reason for deletion. His argument meets the profile of a typical red herring . Review full discussion for more info, I prefer not to engage in repetition-for-argument as it is unfair and downright malicious if continued intentionally. I endorse Tundra's rationale. "He's notable for his legal position at UNRWA. Rejected - position is not in itself that notable; it is merely an administrative position." Again, extreme generalization. I made the comparison to Peter Hansen (UN), who is only notable for his high position at the UN. You rationalized that because his position was higher, it was superior and qualified as notable. You dismissed Lindsay's employment as "merely legal counsel." Correction: Lindsay was the administrator of all legal affairs within the organization. His duties included negotiating personally with the states of Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority. (copy and paste from the article, sorry this is getting boring since I already said). Far from "merely an administrative position." He was formerly "seconded" to the Multinational Force and Observers and was also part of its legal department. And he has a career in the federal government blah blah..who cares. I know the comparison to Peter Hansen relates to OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but both articles are so closely related I think it was an appropriate comparison. Bolded according to importance. "*He's notable for a report he did. Rejected on grounds of WP:BLP1E. " again, unsettling generalizations. He's not simply notable for a report he did. He's notable for several reasons, but one includes a sharp critique of the UNRWA dealings with the Palestinians and other countries involved (namely Jordan), as well other stuff that is not more related to the UN (I read the report awhile ago). Here was Tundra's rationale which I agree with: "Keep and Expand. Lindsay is appropriately categorized among American academics, American foreign policy writers, American legal writers, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Writers on the Middle East, & University of Missouri-Columbia alumni, and probably more. Many academics are single-issue people, and Lindsay's knowledge and opinions on his issue is unique, since he has been a participant; not an outsider. There is no question regarding notability. The way to improve this article is by expansion, not deletion." Your exact response: "He doesn't seem to pass WP:ACADEMIC, not least because he isn't one (the Institute is just a thinktank). And categorisation is irrelevant to notability; what evidence is there that he passes WP:BIO? Rd232 talk 03:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)" It seems the discussion has a habit of lengthy, thorough posts responded with short, generalized arguments. I.e, he is notable for x, x, x, and x. Respond: No, he isn't notable for x. The discussion has bordered wikilawyering which like everything else that has occurred lately, is extremely disturbing in the midst of an administrator. "*He's notable for his views; other bios exist on people of similar importance but other views. Rejected - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. " Similar rationale provided above. "*He's notable for the general coverage he has received independent of the one report:" General coverage? Again, suspicious generalization. Coverage generated a response from the United Nations. It was covered by several newspaper, one of which is the Jerusalem Post. It is in my opinion this discussion has relied too much on guidelines and several users failed to address the article outside of the courtroom. The fact that none of these complaints were forwarded to talk, many of which could have been solved there, is notable. The original rationale was short and sweet, but after continuing responses Rd just listed more and more rules until it would overwhelm users like myself. Something is definitely wrong here, though I'm sure some of you disagree. I hope I've been specific enough. "You didn't proof notability!" Yeah, I did. Read the discussion. Maybe you disagree because the article is kind of forkish in that it is basically slap to the UNRWA (and by extension the Palestinian "cause" in general.) Dogma and ideology as a motivation for deletion cannot be ignored. Oh, I almost forgot. Argument for merge has been addressed. Pertinent info is in the Palestinian refugee and UNRWA article. I would hope sincere, truly concerned editors would rely on talk and dispute resolution before pushing for a delete. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

collapse "argument for keep"

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment on motivations for deletion The article James G. Lindsay was proposed for deletion as a result of a personal feud between User:Nableezy and I. Yes, we all know this doesn't exclude it from the AFD but user Rd has continually dismissed this happening as irrelevant. It is not. It is in extreme bad-faith to move a clearly unsettling and almost vicious dispute to AFDing an article created by a fueding editor. I know my language may seem hostile but it is nothing short of true. Lengthy arguments can be found, here.. See User:Nableezy participation in talk here. Nableezy has continually initiate edit-warring "to the line" and then reported and/or warned others for responding. I've been blocked 2 or 3 times for confrontations with Nableezy. Disruption. The timing cannot be ignored, almost immediately after our dispute occurred and no resolution was clear (and no user was being punished), Nableezy sent this article for deletion. It is truly disturbing how the admin involved has yet to even recognized this, perhaps because he endorses deletion. That is fine.

Rationale for Keep

Rd's crunched and simplified keypoints resemble that of a strawman. I'll do my best to avoid such fallacy here, but we've been doing this for over 4 pages so bear with me:

"*He's a notable academic. Rejected as he is merely a visiting fellow at a thinktank, and has no academic publications."

This was Rd's argument. It was initiated by a lengthy paragraph authored by user tundra. I don't feel like rummaging through the history so I'll paste and copy his exact wording: "Keep and Expand. Lindsay is appropriately categorized among American academics, American foreign policy writers, American legal writers, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Writers on the Middle East, & University of Missouri-Columbia alumni, and probably more. Many academics are single-issue people, and Lindsay's knowledge and opinions on his issue is unique, since he has been a participant; not an outsider. There is no question regarding notability. The way to improve this article is by expansion, not deletion.."

Rd latched on to that single word and based his entire argument off of it. I repeatedly made the claim that it is entirely irrelevant to the AFD and is hardly a valid reason for deletion. His argument meets the profile of a typical red herring . Review full discussion for more info, I prefer not to engage in repetition-for-argument as it is unfair and downright malicious if continued intentionally. I endorse Tundra's rationale.

"*He's notable for his legal position at UNRWA. Rejected - position is not in itself that notable; it is merely an administrative position."

Again, extreme generalization. I made the comparison to Peter Hansen (UN), who is only notable for his high position at the UN. You rationalized that because his position was higher, it was superior and qualified as notable. You dismissed Lindsay's employment as "merely legal counsel." Correction: Lindsay was the administrator of all legal affairs within the organization. His duties included negotiating personally with the states of Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority. (copy and paste from the article, sorry this is getting boring since I already said). Far from "merely an administrative position." He was formerly "seconded" to the Multinational Force and Observers and was also part of its legal department. And he has a career in the federal government blah blah..who cares.

I know the comparison to Peter Hansen relates to OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but both articles are so closely related I think it was an appropriate comparison. Bolded according to importance.

"*He's notable for a report he did. Rejected on grounds of WP:BLP1E. "

again, unsettling generalizations. He's not simply notable for a report he did. He's notable for several reasons, but one includes a sharp critique of the UNRWA dealings with the Palestinians and other countries involved (namely Jordan), as well other stuff that is not more related to the UN (I read the report awhile ago).

Here was Tundra's rationale which I agree with: "Keep and Expand. Lindsay is appropriately categorized among American academics, American foreign policy writers, American legal writers, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Writers on the Middle East, & University of Missouri-Columbia alumni, and probably more. Many academics are single-issue people, and Lindsay's knowledge and opinions on his issue is unique, since he has been a participant; not an outsider. There is no question regarding notability. The way to improve this article is by expansion, not deletion."

Your exact response: "He doesn't seem to pass WP:ACADEMIC, not least because he isn't one (the Institute is just a thinktank). And categorisation is irrelevant to notability; what evidence is there that he passes WP:BIO? Rd232 talk 03:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)"

It seems the discussion has a habit of lengthy, thorough posts responded with short, generalized arguments. I.e, he is notable for x, x, x, and x. Respond: No, he isn't notable for x.

The discussion has bordered wikilawyering which like everything else that has occurred lately, is extremely disturbing in the midst of an administrator.

"*He's notable for his views; other bios exist on people of similar importance but other views. Rejected - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. "

Similar rationale provided above.

"*He's notable for the general coverage he has received independent of the one report:"

General coverage? Again, suspicious generalization. Coverage generated a response from the United Nations. It was covered by several newspaper, one of which is the Jerusalem Post.

It is in my opinion this discussion has relied too much on guidelines and several users failed to address the article outside of the courtroom. The fact that none of these complaints were forwarded to talk, many of which could have been solved there, is notable. The original rationale was short and sweet, but after continuing responses Rd just listed more and more rules until it would overwhelm users like myself. Something is definitely wrong here, though I'm sure some of you disagree.

I hope I've been specific enough. "You didn't proof notability!" Yeah, I did. Read the discussion. Maybe you disagree because the article is kind of forkish in that it is basically slap to the UNRWA (and by extension the Palestinian "cause" in general.) Dogma and ideology as a motivation for deletion cannot be ignored.

Oh, I almost forgot. Argument for merge has been addressed. Pertinent info is in the Palestinian refugee and UNRWA article.

I would hope sincere, truly concerned editors would rely on talk and dispute resolution before pushing for a delete. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to UNRWA. Would those editors who're spamming this AfD until it's hard to find the issues among all the rhetoric please stop?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As described in my argument for Keep, notable information has been merged already. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh good. In that case redirect to UNRWA.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect what? James Lindsay? If so that means you endorse the belief that James Lindsay is 100% synonymous with the UNRWA and an individual article is not justified. His leadership roles, influence in and outside of the UN, etc...all irrelevant. I prefer clarification over 1 sentence rationales (especially when against the pages of arguments, much of which was dedicated to the merge/move argument.) I encourage you to read through that. Not sure if your collapsing edit might prevent editors from reviewing, so I hope it does not. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I do mean that after considering the arguments, I feel we should redirect James G. Lindsay to UNRWA. I feel this obscure american lawyer does not have sufficient notability to merit his own article on Wikipedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Uh? Obscure lawyer? I rest my case. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is odd how none of the supposedly "concerned" editors who initiated the AFD did not refer to talk. Many of the concerns made here could have been solved there, so the AFD is suspect. Nableezy's behavior cannot be ignored. If this deletion review were to succeed, it would be a grave injustice to the whole process which exists solely to prevent actions like these. Truly tragic. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only tragic thing is that you don't seem to understand this process. Demonstrate notability using verifiable reliable sources. It's not always easy, and if it's not possible the article will be deleted; but it's really quite a simple proposition. Rd232 ^talk 00:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've demonstrated notability plenty. You've continually cited policy after policy when things didn't go your way. Then you relied on insulting generalizations which lead me to believe you've never read Wikipedia:Deletion policy as most administrators involved in AFD should be familiar with. Your use habitual use of fallacies which have consumed the majority of arguments make the likelihood for a clear and thoughtful discussion practically zero. Notability is verified by his leadership role inside and outside the United Nations, specifically the UNRWA, and includes but not limited to addressing the problems within the UNRWA through a widely-covered report that influences opinion to this day. You dismissal of Lindsay as "merely legal counsel" while supporting Peter Hansen (UN) (which is comparable in both notability and sources) is suspect. No, it isn't suspect. It's pretty clear you want this article deleted for ulterior reasons outside protocol. Or else you wouldn't have relied on such out-of-bounds debating tactics, that has gone unabated and responded with indifference aside from myself for whatever reasons. At best, the article should be expanded, improved, and those who hate it should invest time in talk like every other editor who wants to collaborate. You seem dedicated, almost righteous in your quest for deletion, but like Nableezy provided no concerns or suggestions in talk. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good summary of your position, with an extra helping of breaching WP:AGF. I don't "hate" this article, how ludicrously emotional of you. If his position and media coverage is so significant, then it won't be hard for you to demonstrate enough secondary coverage outside of WP:BLP1E (i.e. not just in relation to the one report). Do that and I'll vote keep. I don't know if you assume I'm not debating in good faith and open to persuasion because you're not, or because you're too emotionally involved with the topic. Either way, take a deep breath and focus on the policies and guidelines which make WP work, and how they apply to this article. Finally, a reminder: if this article is deleted, it has no bearing on the use of the report as a source elsewhere in WP, which I have the impression is your main concern. (Otherwise, I just don't see how a potential delete/merge of this article could angry up the blood so.) Rd232 ^talk 01:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long response Right, so now this is an AGF issue. Sorry, but Nableezy's posting of this AFD defiles all that is assuming good faith. He transferred what was basically an irrational and classic I vs Per argument into a personal vendetta, by posting an article I've worked relatively hard on (in collaboration with several editors, with the exception of you and Nab) for deletion. As an admin, that should have been recognized off the bat. But you didn't, no. In fact, you encouraged it. Please, your argument for BLP1e is weak, as is your absurd reliance on fallacies. Between you and Nab, the following rule-spamming has occurred with little rationale for most: WP:Coatrack, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTORIETY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:ONEEVENT, and now WP:AGF. What now? WP:DoAsISayOrIllThreatenYouWithMoreRules1111!! :D I've carefully responded to most of the claims, even ones that without substantial rationale and were eventually supported with fallacies as I've mentioned and proved previously. But, let's go back to your rule BLP1e. This is basically a rehash of Nableezy's original argument for deletion. I'm going to paste and copy the entire section from the rule so there is no confusing:

"Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.

If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources."

I hope I'm representing your POV fairly. You've mentioned that rule several times but mostly end with, "violates x, x, and x...". First off, you continually ignore Lindsay's participation in activities outside of the report. As I said, he was second to UN observational force, played leadership roles in high government positions, and was a chief-legal adviser to the UNRWA, a $100,000,000+ per annum organization, though I think it was more during Lindsay's service. He happened to have written a scathing report on the UNRWA's dealings, which generated a response from the United Nations. His actions have influenced perception of the organization on a global scale, an organization that is crucial in the on-going Palestinian-Israel conflict. You have understated Lindsay's notability outside of the report, with statements like..He was "merely legal counsel" while at the same time having no problems with an equally notable Peter Hansen (UN). This isn't an example of OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but a flaw in your objectivity. Oh, and he is a member of a powerful "thinktank" (which apparently means nothing these days...) Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to UNRWA per one event. he's no hinckley.

point #2 above is actually my argument as well: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options." untwirl(talk) 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate his notability, not based on what you think makes him notable unless they meet one of the notability guidelines, but based on reliable 3rd party sources, covering him and not the report? Nableezy (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read my rationale and ask the question again? I've listed BLPE1 and included explicit and simple examples that relate solely to the subject matter. I spent an unreasonable amount of time writing that and for you to dismiss it as merely opinion/conjecture/rhetoric might be considered a comprehension error on your end. I don't want you to derail the post like you've done in the past so only respond if you have something truly unique to say. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see a single source in that rationale, much less a single reliable third party source covering him and not the event. That is what proves notability, that is all you need to be able to do. If that is not possible then the article should be deleted. Nableezy (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument between Rd and I in this instance was not about sources, it was regarding BLPEI and notability. Sources can be found in the article. BBC, UN, JP, CNN, and bio site (thinktank) are solid references. Your stonewalling and willful dismissal of pages of extensive, thorough, and detailed arguments is dare I say...insulting. I encourage you to make a new section or something because I do not want you derailing this. Similar, no, exact questions have been asked above and all have been responded to. There is an argument-by-repetition fallacy out there but I'll have to find it lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go, enjoy: Ad nauseam. Notice how it fits your approach...almost perfectly! : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are covering the event, the bio isnt a third party source. I guess you cannot find 3rd party reliable sources covering him and not the event. Nableezy (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? We have sources that cover the bio, sources that cover the UN report, sources that cover the UN response, and sources that cover the Hansen reference. Many of the BBC, Jpost, CNN, etc... all verify various details of Lindsay's career. Like the Jpost has a piece on his experience with the UNRWA etc... Please Nab, no one can convince you. To be honest I do not care. You'll write everything off no matter what, leave the partisan debates for another time. Feel content you likely not be punished for your unprecedented disrupting and hounding. To continually dismiss notability appears to be a a programmed response rather than an objective, qualified request when compared with the available information and arguments provided. Hopefully a decision is made soon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is simple, to demonstrate notability you need reliable 3rd party sources covering him and not the event. Nableezy (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd party sources cover him. Again, repetitive fallacy. Tundra wrote a thorough yet simple rationale, but as I said your POV is a sharp and tragic confliction. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list here all the 3rd party WP:RS sources which cover the life and work of Lindsay - excluding those which relate to the one UNRWA report. A few of those and then BLP1E probably won't apply. That's all. Stop asserting that they exist, and provide them. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 01:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "rationale" you seem to rely on is what Tundra wrote somewhere (far) above: "Keep and Expand. Lindsay is appropriately categorized among American academics, American foreign policy writers, American legal writers, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Writers on the Middle East, & University of Missouri-Columbia alumni, and probably more. Many academics are single-issue people, and Lindsay's knowledge and opinions on his issue is unique, since he has been a participant; not an outsider. There is no question regarding notability. The way to improve this article is by expansion, not deletion." I've responded to this before, but (a) categorisation is not proof of notability (b) he's not an academic (I think we agree on this) so it's irrelevant whether he's single-issue (plus red herring anyway); (c) it's irrelevant for notability whether Tundra thinks Lindsay's knowledge and opinions are unique - we rely on WP:RS, not on editors' opinions. Those WP:RS only cover Lindsay in the context of the one report, so per WP:BLP1E we cover the report in its own article if it's important enough, or merge elsewhere if it isn't. Rd232 ^talk 04:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is addressed in a lengthy post above (you have yet to respond.) Respond to it, or don't I couldn't care less. This is Nableezy's section. Discussion must involve mutual and fair cooperation. I've been thorough and precise yet you continue with the broken-record. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You may continue to think that you have addressed the issue, but you have not. Can you provide a reliable third party source covering him and not the event? And its not 'Nableezy's section'. Nableezy (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink... Rd232 ^talk 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, to make it really easy for you: go as far down this Google search as you like, excluding non-WP:RS and sources relating to that single UNRWA report. If you find any, add them to the article. Rd232 ^talk 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are now editing the article. Thank, collaboration is much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)

Well you mentioned BBC and CNN sources, so I checked in the article. BBC doesn't mention Lindsay and CNN is about the report (now deleted and replaced with Jerusalem Post, which was the correct attribution for the quote used). I've googled a bit and can't find any WP:RS not relating to the report; perhaps you can do better. Rd232 ^talk 02:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteSubject is non-notable and the article is mostly a quote dump. An article mostly consisting of carefully selected quotes from a polemic isn't encyclopedic. Therefore, this article won't be a great loss once deleted. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed distraction from AFD
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not surprising. You removed a cited quotation claiming it wasn't in the report. It was, and then went off on various accusations in talk. These kinds of disputes can be solved should be avoided. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Could you please stop with the ad hominem complaints? Nableezy (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Uh, he DID removed cited material and when I caught him (he still denied) he came here. I truly truly truly am tired of this persona Nab. You know as much as I do what's going on here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 0::3:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC) You did not "catch" him. There was an issue of attribution of a quote, which may or may not now be settled, but in any case does not need hashing out here in addition to on the article talk page. Rd232 ^talk 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Apologies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed distraction from AFD

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Not surprising. You removed a cited quotation claiming it wasn't in the report. It was, and then went off on various accusations in talk. These kinds of disputes can be solved should be avoided. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop with the ad hominem complaints? Nableezy (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, he DID removed cited material and when I caught him (he still denied) he came here. I truly truly truly am tired of this persona Nab. You know as much as I do what's going on here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 0::3:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You did not "catch" him. There was an issue of attribution of a quote, which may or may not now be settled, but in any case does not need hashing out here in addition to on the article talk page. Rd232 ^talk 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails bio.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to reach notability threshhold, academic or otherwise. Being a critc in itself is not a notable or defining characteristic. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Limited notability. Can't find this guy in Google News archives at all. There's a James Lindsay at the University of Texas at Austin, but that's someone else. --John Nagle (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed article complies with policy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
section break Keep. The article is well sourced and establishes notability. Any other problems can be resolved through the normal editing process. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Would you care to note which criteria of WP:BIO that this article meets? Tarc (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hi Tark. (I see all the regulars are assembled for this vote.) Its all in the refs. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hi Malc, still having trouble telling the difference berween a "k" and a "c", eh? No, it isn't in the refs. What is "in the refs" is trivial, generic biographical entries and brief mentions of involvement in the overall single event/issue that he is connected to, neither of which meets notability requirements. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Those refs show notability well above the minimum requirement for for WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Repeating the same thing without actually backing it up is not really a valid position. Tarc (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] What is there to prove? The notability is certainly way above WP's current minimum standard. Take, for example, this impressive article [37] or this [38] (I admit she looks better than Lindsay). The fact is that WP has standards of notability that allows in stuff of much lower notability than James G. Lindsay. The real problem in the case may be that a group of editors just don't like what he has to say, ie WP:JDLI. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Invoking WP:WAX is hardly a good answer to a request for specific sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] That is bullshit. The article meets every point in WP's General notability guideline, as can be seen. The sources themselves are in the article, and I do not need to duplicate them here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Two paragraph-sized bio blurbs and a few name-drops in articles about UNRWA itself do not satisfy notability guidelines, which is all that is in the article currently. That is why I asked you what else is there to establish notability. It really wasn't all that difficult of a question. And for the record, porn actors have a different set of criteria. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Special notability guidelines supersede the general ones - in this case, WP:BIO, most relevantly WP:BLP1E. However even under the general guidelines, the secondary sources are covering the report, not the subject of this article (Lindsay). Rd232 ^talk 22:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] That is not the way it actually works. The notability guidelines are just guidelines. In practice, which any editor knows who has watched AfDs, the standard applied for notability is far more flexible than some here claim. You are pretending that there are stringently applied guidelines when that is not the case. I know for certain that if I wanted to waste time gong through edit histories, I could find cases of editors who object to this article, supporting articles far more problematic. This article should make the cut, and any remaining problems should be resolved through the normal editing process. Anyone who knows the cast of editors participating in this AfD knows the voting brakes down along the usual Israel/Palestine dispute faultline. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I didn't say the guidelines were stringently applied, and indeed guidelines aren't supposed to be. Policy, on the other hand, is, and WP:BLP1E is policy. Of course this being Wikipedia consistency is not something you'll find for the application of either policy or guidelines - but that is not an argument for keeping an article, any more than WP:ILIKEIT, which is what the keep arguments seem to boil down to. Faultline is irrelevant, as is personal history - the weight of argument is clearly on one side of the issue, and you're on the wrong side, judging by !votes from non I/P editors. Rd232 ^talk 23:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed article complies with policy

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

section break

Keep. The article is well sourced and establishes notability. Any other problems can be resolved through the normal editing process. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to note which criteria of WP:BIO that this article meets? Tarc (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tark. (I see all the regulars are assembled for this vote.) Its all in the refs. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malc, still having trouble telling the difference berween a "k" and a "c", eh? No, it isn't in the refs. What is "in the refs" is trivial, generic biographical entries and brief mentions of involvement in the overall single event/issue that he is connected to, neither of which meets notability requirements. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those refs show notability well above the minimum requirement for for WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the same thing without actually backing it up is not really a valid position. Tarc (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to prove? The notability is certainly way above WP's current minimum standard. Take, for example, this impressive article [37] or this [38] (I admit she looks better than Lindsay). The fact is that WP has standards of notability that allows in stuff of much lower notability than James G. Lindsay. The real problem in the case may be that a group of editors just don't like what he has to say, ie WP:JDLI. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking WP:WAX is hardly a good answer to a request for specific sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is bullshit. The article meets every point in WP's General notability guideline, as can be seen. The sources themselves are in the article, and I do not need to duplicate them here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two paragraph-sized bio blurbs and a few name-drops in articles about UNRWA itself do not satisfy notability guidelines, which is all that is in the article currently. That is why I asked you what else is there to establish notability. It really wasn't all that difficult of a question. And for the record, porn actors have a different set of criteria. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special notability guidelines supersede the general ones - in this case, WP:BIO, most relevantly WP:BLP1E. However even under the general guidelines, the secondary sources are covering the report, not the subject of this article (Lindsay). Rd232 ^talk 22:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the way it actually works. The notability guidelines are just guidelines. In practice, which any editor knows who has watched AfDs, the standard applied for notability is far more flexible than some here claim. You are pretending that there are stringently applied guidelines when that is not the case. I know for certain that if I wanted to waste time gong through edit histories, I could find cases of editors who object to this article, supporting articles far more problematic. This article should make the cut, and any remaining problems should be resolved through the normal editing process. Anyone who knows the cast of editors participating in this AfD knows the voting brakes down along the usual Israel/Palestine dispute faultline. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the guidelines were stringently applied, and indeed guidelines aren't supposed to be. Policy, on the other hand, is, and WP:BLP1E is policy. Of course this being Wikipedia consistency is not something you'll find for the application of either policy or guidelines - but that is not an argument for keeping an article, any more than WP:ILIKEIT, which is what the keep arguments seem to boil down to. Faultline is irrelevant, as is personal history - the weight of argument is clearly on one side of the issue, and you're on the wrong side, judging by !votes from non I/P editors. Rd232 ^talk 23:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO/WP:N. No evidence of his notability has been presented and there seems to be none to found. Tiamut^talk 17:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Dlabtot (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to UNRWA per WP:BIO1E. There's a small sourced factual core of the article (that he was general counsel for UNRWA) but this part does not support notability; the bulk of the article is a coatrack for his criticism of UNRWA rather than being about him. I'm seeing this because of its listing on the deletion sorting list for academics, but I don't think he passes any criterion of WP:PROF: not #1 because his criticism of UNRWA is not an academic work and its impact is not academic, and not #5 because a think tank is not a research university. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the alphabetical organization that this obvious coatrack article is actually about. P.S. I am neither an 'I' nor a 'P'. I'm a 'WB'. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how important this is but I would like to point it out: It seems the keep/delete "votes" are split between the obvious P's and I's (with the exception of R2). Epstein was involved in a prior dispute with me over a Noam Elkies and accused me of promoting "blood purity." I remember that one lol. Just making sure everyone understands the background. The listing of academic was in the category. No where in the article is it said or proved that he is an academic. I think a user asked it to be sorted because it was a possibility, perhaps they confused him with another James Lindsay who is a professor. Epstein, all your valid points have been addressed to death in the crowded responses above. I know it's hard to navigate, but all rules...BLP1E, ACADEMIC, COATTRACK, OTHERCRAPEXISTS....have experienced intense debates. The policy shopping was at times became unbearable, but reasonable arguments were provided from both sides and cans till be found. Someone could paste and copy previous posts to make it easier. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What does your past history have to do with this AfD? Regardless, I consider your assumption of partisanship among the participants here to be a personal attack and a I request that you refrain from making or expressing such bad-faith assumptions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R2 mentioned something about P vs I vote count and he woefully overstated it. From my count, we have maybe 1 or 2 who are sufficiently outside hostile territory. Then again, voting isn't part of the process. Disputes aren't particularly unique aside from affirming points and arguments made above. Not trying to o distract from the actual argument (regardless of POV), but I just wanted to make that correction for R2 and anyone else who is curious. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have way too much time on your hands. It was a passing comment that those uninvolved were falling clearly on once side of the debate. Rd232 ^talk 04:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've just edited with almost all of these users before. By "uninvolved" do you mean uninvolved in the article or uninvolved in terms of Pal/Is? If it's the latter, than not really. Of all the people "voting", I see 3 that I've never collaborated with and don't know their editing style/POV. You're one of them. ;D As I said, not particularly relevant to actual arguments but it was an inaccuracy I had to correct, if only in a passing comment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to what i say please. I wasn't commenting on the number of people uninvolved, I was commenting on the views of those uninvolved. Obviously who is uninvolved is debatable, but it makes no difference whether you construe the group widely or narrowly, a matter I obviously have no interest in debating, thank you very much, not least because it's irrelevant. (Hence my comment about you having too much time.) Rd232 ^talk 12:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—subject appears somewhat notable outside the UNRWA controversy, even if it is difficult to establish notability. Of course, he gained much notoriety following the UNRWA incident, which is in itself a notable incident, covered by numerous news sources, political blogs, etc. etc. Since the incident does not have an article, there is no reason to delete this one. A move like Ceedjee suggested would be an acceptable solution for the time being, as I concede that Lindsay's individual notability is borderline and by now too tied to the UNRWA indicent. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 05:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be a POV fork? If it is just about the report then the information should be, and is in the UNRWA article. Nableezy (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork of what? It has to fork from another article or published POV. Does the article suffer from a lack of neutrality? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A POV fork is an article that is inherently POV/biased because of the subject matter it covers (e.g. List of killings done by Jews in 1955, or something), especially if it's part of a larger neutral topic. An article about an event is not a POV fork. The UNRWA letter should be described in context, and due weight should be given to all notable opinions on the matter. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was thinking the article would be dedicated to the report itself, which I think would be a fork from the UNRWA article where the material is covered in its proper context. Nableezy (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per David Eppstein -- not notable outside UNRWA issue, this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ynhockey.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Seems like a coatrack to talk about UNRWA. If someone can point to more sourcing about Lindsay it might make sense. I have no objection to merging relevant content into the UNRWA article but most of that seems to already be there. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the managing administrator: Apparently by mistake, my vote was collapsed onto the last collapsed section above. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I collapsed the discussion because it paired well with the "does not comply." I'd imagine it would be easier for an admin to sift through the collapses instead of trying to pick out scattered and repetitive arguments. You could write "Keep, commentary in x collapse" so there is no confusion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is a coatrack, and Lindsay does seem to derive his notability from one event, and there's no way he meets WP:PROF. That said, ynhockey makes a very fair point that this is precisely the sort of person with sufficient credentials, whose entry into a charged political debate makes it likely that people will be interested in him, and coverage clearly sufficient for WP:BIO will emerge (it's currently borderline, IMO). We've clearly not heard the last of him, and enough material for a stubby bio exists. That said, the current article clearly needs to be pared down, and I think the suggestion of forking the content about the letter is a good one. Ray^Talk 06:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Brooks Grant[edit]

Disputed prod. Actress has only extremely minor roles, best known as child in a movie that gets killed off right away. No reliable, independent sources with nontrivial mentions to demonstrate notability per our standards. DreamGuy (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actress meets the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. I have added to the article her filmography which establishes that she has significant roles had multiple notable films and television productions. Wordssuch (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And which of those roles handful of minor roles listed there would be "significant" in any way? Certainly not "additional voices" and etc. If you can come up with an example of a significant role, by all means give details. DreamGuy (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, TWINKLE stopped working on me in the middle of that one for some reason. Tried to fix it as best I could. DreamGuy (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a "cute" child actress in What Dreams May Come (film) is likely to have been spoken about in the hundreds of reviews of the film. Just a matter of digging. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical assumptions that short mentions within reviews about the film itself must exist is not anything like an indication of individual notability. You don't even bother to prove trivial mentions exist when nontrivial mentions in reliable sources is what is needed. A child actress playing a role that gets killed at the start of the movie to drive the plot isn't anything like a notable role, and we need multiple notable roles to justify a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a safe bet such exist for a child actress in key scenes in an award winnnig/nominated film. Opinining otherwise is the "hypothetical assumption". In the film, it is the death of ALL major characters and their subsequent interactions as spirits/souls that MAKES the film, so her death is the beginning of this person's role, not the ending. And having looked at the article, I do happen to see multiple roles in a youngster's new career... minor at first as with all actors, but growing into larger parts as her career advanced. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability must be demonstrated, not assumed. The argument above is simply nonsensical by our notability standards. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs to be improved, but in my opinion she is an actress in movies that have been released to the public and deserves a page. Quistisffviii (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOTS of people are actors in movies released to the public. That doesn't mean they all get Wikipedia articles. It'd be nice if the people voting took the time to follow the actual criteria for notability instead of just making side arguments. DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin – Wordssuch (talk · contribs), who has !voted above, has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of Azviz (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz/Archive. MuZemike 16:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a single reliable source describing her; bear in mind that this is a BLP. All of her roles are relatively minor bit parts. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with AMIB. Delete. Eusebeus (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Closedmouth per WP:CSD#G11, blatant advertising. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MidlandHR[edit]

The article appears to be nothing more than spam and an attempt at free advertising- previously tagged for COI. HJ Mitchell (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete HJ Mitchell (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sure looks like an advert to me. ~Excesses~ (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odeyil Ninnu[edit]

Very little encyclopaedic content- merely an excessively long plot summary. HJ Mitchell (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Content/writing problems should be resolved by editing and improving the article, not deleting. I have removed the Plot section as a copyvio of this, which existed before it was added to the Wikipedia article in June 2007. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The movie Odayil Ninnu, based on a famous novel by P. Kesavadev, is a part of history of Malayalam cinema. See here and here. Besides, 1210 Ghits for a 1965 Malayalm movie is pretty impressive. Salih (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per asserted and sourcable notability. AfD is not for Cleanup. Tag it for such and let's move on. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 KP Snacks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roysters[edit]

CSD was contested/removed. A non-notable snack food. The article (and some of the g-hits I checked) also seem to imply the brand is becoming more difficult to obtain, also showing lack of notability. Matt Deres (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiability. And, for the record, I'm British. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I assumed Twinkle would do every step; I should have double-checked. Matt Deres (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

This is a long-standing and irritating occasional bug in Twinkle. Don't worry about it - that's why the Bot exists. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established - as above, I'm British too and had to Google just to find out what they were. ~Excesses~ (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to KP Snacks (subsidiary of United Biscuits, subsidiary of Blackstone Group) the makers of Roysters [39]. The Roysters brand received a bit of press coverage ([40], [41]) for an incident involving a metal shard found in a bag of their chips, but that's probably not enough to justify a stand-alone article. A redirect is appropriate as this is a plausible search term. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per LinguistAtLarge. Seems the best course of action to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect option seems best to me now. Should I simply create the redirect now or should I wait for this to run its course first? I'm not familiar with protocol for this situation. Matt Deres (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SES cognitive processing and public policy media[edit]

Appears to be an essay fragment. I freely admit that I can't make sense of either the text or the title of this article. A request on the talk page for information has met with no response thus far. Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once you work out that SES = socioeconomic status the article becomes a bit more meaningful. But it is essentially an unreferenced student essay. The subject is already covered at knowledge gap hypothesis and knowledge divide and the title is not redirectworthy. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smudge[edit]

Non notable, page should probably redirect to Wiktionary page for "smudge" . — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 09:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this links to an article about a band, not a word. Has the correct article been nominated? (WP:COPYVIO though, tagged) ~Excesses~ (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When there's a non-infringing version in the history, revert the copyright violation. See the instructions.
  And the nominator is probably saying that the band is non-notable. Although it's not clear what band xe was talking about, because at the time of nomination this article had been heavily vandalised. (Although not as heavily as at some points during its history, such as the point where it was a treatise on someone's cat, for example.) I've reverted the vandalism, too. Uncle G (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Smudge, if you read the Allmusic listing you'll see that the band have had a number of international releases on US and AUS labels, they have toured Europe and Australia. If you do an internet search you'll also find there are a significant number of independent references to the band on Australian and UK websites. The band's founder, Tom Morgan is notable musician. All of which clearly indicate that the band satisfies the criteria for notability. Dan arndt (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Smudge, appears in Ian McFarlane's Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop, see on-line copy available at Encyclopedia entry for 'Smudge'. This entry supports much of the existing content of wikipedia article. The band had produced five albums/eps by 1999. Due to all of the above they are notable enough.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add a ((cite encyclopaedia)) to the article. Uncle G (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done by Dan arndt (talk).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terowongan Casablanca[edit]

The article provides insufficient context on the subject, cites no references and may not meet the criteria of WP:N or WP:MOVIE. It appears to have been abandoned by the original authour, who has created several, similar, very short articles, many of which have been nominated for deletion. HJ Mitchell (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements (expansion, copyedit, & sourcing) and the numerous (WP:AGF) news sources available that will need attention from an Indonesian Wikipedian. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NB As the original nominator, I retract my original opinion that this article should be deleted, in light of contributions to said article by MichaelQSchmidt, with whom I am now working in order to improve the article. However, I defend my good faith nomination of this article as it was when I did so. HJ Mitchell (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement with the nom being made in good faith, as different editors have different search techniques when investigating articles about non-English films. That being said, I have found a great deal of in-depth non-English coverage, but hesitated to add them based because my finds were deciphered by Google translator. Gatra, Lampung Post, Bisnis Indonesia, Malaysia Star, Kapan Lagi, and many others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkiya Pratibha Vikas Vidyalaya[edit]

Not notable - not enough reliable sources out there Guy0307 (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I added notability statement, cited and referenced. In addition, I believe there is enough coverage to warrant inclusion here at Wikipedia, as shown here [42] and given the fact that most secondary education facilities are normally included here at Wikipedia as standard policy. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 11:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article needs some more content but is a perfectly valid stub. pablo_hablo. 11:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would say weak delete except for the comment above about it being a secondary-level facility. The article seems salvagable, there should possibly be something in the article to establish that it's a secondary-age school and thus large enough to warrant inclusion. (At the moment it refers to it as a "System of schools" so I'm not clear what it really is) ~Excesses~ (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I just added a reference concerning that point. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Thanks Helenalex. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Records[edit]

A non-notable record company who's lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources means it fails to meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - notability not established, it doesn't look like they've released anything since 2006, a fact supported by their website. I don't know anything about the music industry so I don't know what makes a "big label" but the number of releases makes it look like they were never very big. ~Excesses~ (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 04:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Described by the Herald as 'one of the stand-out success stories of a thriving music scene' (here). Also have two of the biggest hip hop stars in New Zealand. --Helenalex (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, NZ Herald article satisfies WP:N. XLerate (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya–Turkey relations[edit]

hardly a notable relationship. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkey_s-political-relations-with-republic-of-kenya.en.mfa LibStar (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the relationship does barely more than exist, and that alone is not enough to be notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - like most bilateral relations, more than meets the standards of WP:N. I see no reason to treat this as a highly irregular case. See [43][44][45][46][47] - Turkey is leveraging its relationship with Kenya to enhance its status in Africa, and gain access to African markets, while Turkey is an important market for Kenyan goods and a major investor in Kenya's economy. I wouldn't have guessed it. WilyD 13:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First, Turkey's trade ties with all of Africa are $12 billion, which isn't too much out of a GDP of $937 billion. Still, it's not nothing, but since the Kenya-Turkey relationship is basically an economic one, why not cover trade with Kenya and other African partners at Economy_of_Turkey#External_trade_and_investment? Seems much more logical than this artificial exercise. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Err, that's backwards compared to what I said. But it is not about Turkey, or about Kenya, but about how they inter-relate. Hence an article to cover how they inter-relate. WilyD 19:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The inter-relationship only intersects in notable fashion at the economic level, and thus can be covered elsewhere, both eliminating a stub that is bound not to grow beyond the trivial, and adhering to WP:PI. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Like most bilateral relations..." You been asleep lately? --BlueSquadronRaven 16:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing established in this "relationship" is that the two countries are aware of each other. Dahn (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely unsourced article, no assertion of notability. I can find no sources that might establish notability for this article.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fully agree with WilyD. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 00:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have already established there is a notable economic relationship, now the only question is where to discuss it, which is not a deletion issue. Process is important, people. TheWilyFox (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading: "Turkish President Abdullah Gul visited Kenya recently where he and his Kenyan counterpart Mwai Kibaki witnessed the signing of a visa abolition agreement for holders of diplomatic passports." [48] TheWilyFox (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. As usual, stated "sources" indicate events, or economics, not diplomacy, or highly staged appearances. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely. Also, gathering together disparate bits of news and proclaiming "notable relationship!" is a violation of WP:SYNTH - we need multiple sources studying the relationship as such, not one Wikipedian's opinion that various news reports put together constitute evidence of a notable relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the research WilyD has performed. Deleting this article would be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What WilyD uncovered are bits of trivia he considers constitute notable features of the relationship; there are no sources documenting the relationship as such, and without those, we have a WP:SYNTH breach. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd hardly consider them "bits of trivia", they all fit together with a minimum of syntactical interpreting: Turkey wants to build up a market in Africa & started in Kenya -- links 1 & 2. This is not just something Turkey was talking about, but actually took steps to accomplish -- links 3 & 4. The last link is that this relationship is still ongoing. I find no WP:SYNTH here. -- llywrch (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, your perspective is a different one, but it still seems to me that no source deems the relationship itself worthy of study and that for us to pick what we consider notable about the relationship constitutes synthesis. Additionally, a) there's probably scope under Economy of Turkey for discussing this; b) consider whether we would ever be interested in this material for its own sake, or whether this is even being considered as notable in order to "fill in" this article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - a) Yes, & there's also probably scope under Economy of Kenya to discuss this -- your point is? b) Who cares about motivation if it leads to an article with useful content? -- llywrch (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- a) My point is simply that it may well be possible to structure this more intelligently by working on those articles. b) Merely the manner of an article's creation is indeed not reason for deletion, but it can provide insight: without the mass-production, it's doubtful anyone would have felt the need to bring this up, because it is, if not trivia outright, then at least something that can be handled a little differently. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. You have ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[49]. This behavior is rather disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Piotrus. Martintg (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing more to say about this than the two countries acknowledge each other's existence. No need to wait on a centralized discussion for this. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Turkey in Budapest[edit]

there seems nothing notable about this embassy, can easily be covered in Foreign relations of Turkey . LibStar (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, it could be listed elsewhere, but it shouldn't. Wikipedia is not an address book. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This can be mentioned in the articles about Turkey and Hungary. Mandsford (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; not a viable search term. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weather poverty[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Q ^{T C} 07:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this should be speedily deleted as nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porturology (talk • contribs)
- Comment It does not qualify for g1 deletion as the following does not apply Pages consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. Q ^{T C} 07:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed but what of "implausible theories, or hoaxes; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases" as well as wp:snow
Delete A neologism which can easily be remedied with a suggestion to the article author that a tanning bed would probably reinvigorate you and take you out of the blahs. Nate • (chatter) 08:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article's creator, who is also the inventor of the notion, tells us outright on the talk page that this is abuse of Wikipedia to publish a previously unpublished idea that hasn't gained traction in the world at large, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per Uncle G. Wikipedia articles must be supported by secondary reliable sources, of which none exist for this subject. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR or nonsense --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree, it's ridiculously close to freezing here in Finland compared to what it should be at this time of the year, but really, this is an unencyclopedic neologism. JIP | Talk 16:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ged UK 14:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Conneally[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Originally deleted at the first Afd, but more sources were brought up at this DRV that should be further considered here. I am personally neutral on this nomination. Aervanath (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I think) The original entry did not shoe hardly any of the stuff that's come up in the deletion review log - with a thorough update and restyling it should stay as he probably meets notability on a number of fronts - I've just added some of the stuff coming up from the deletion review with some stuff culled from the web. The stuff I've put in so far is a bit 'untidy' 'unwiki-style' so perhaps someone could take a look at it. There are references and links to put in (including some from the deletion review log)but I haven't had time to add them yet. I removed the Exeter College bit but perhaps I shouldn't have as he maybe went there as well as Brookes Oxford - there are references to him as being part of Oxford band Wow Federation that were based at Exeter College but would someone go to Exeter College and Oxford Brookes? I'm new to editing stuff so feel free to change anything I did wrong. BruceR1 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong Keep' Now the article has been substantially updated (and seems to be being edited ongoing) with many references added establishing notabilty on more than one front it's gone from a delete based on the original entry to a definite keep. Good work by those editors who have revised the entry so far. Could do with a style tidy at some point? Hollowinsideandout (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edging towards keep but not there yet. I proposed the original AfD on the basis of lack of notability, not lack of info or references. It would help persuade me (and I believe other editors) if those who advocate a keep specified where in this raft of new info and refs the notability lies, with reference specifically to WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. --Yumegusa (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What significance (if any) should be read into the fact the only two keep editors so far registered only after this 2nd AfD for Paul Conneally was listed?--Yumegusa (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In terms of WP:CREATIVEcriteria the development of thought / theory around haibun particularly in the referenced good secondary source of the paper on Developing Schools of Haibun published by British Haiku Society notability is met and reinforced by the references to his definition of haibun in Contemporary Haibun Online. Also here http://haibuntoday.blogspot.com/2007/12/haibun-defined-anthology-of-haibun.html BruceR1 (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edging away. This doesn't stand up. Edgecombe's article in Blithe Spirit mentions Conneally just once, and merely says that Conneally and Edgecombe both refer to a pre-existing writing style by the same name. The author makes no claim that Conneally developed "thought / theory around haibun", and refers only to private correspondence with him - not even a publication - no notability there.
  On the Contemporary Haibun Online website, Conneally's six-line definition of haibun is included among four others, all of them considerably longer. Conneally is described only as Haibun editor at WHR - no notability there.
  The Haibun Today blog merely repeats the text of Conneally's CHO definition. Blogs are hardly the place to be looking for notability. You're going to have to do better than this.--Yumegusa (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment A photograph of some of the work he created around Hawkesley (incorporating poems people and children wrote locally under his direction into the landscape) will be added soon, so I hope you consider the article once it's benefited from it.:) Sticky Parkin 21:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Sticky, please explain how addition of such a photo makes the subject more notable. I'm disappointed that the response to this 2nd AfD has been to throw huge swathes of text at the article, without any attempt to focus on notability per se. The fact that such text can be supported by citations (though some have been found wanting in that respect see Talk:Paul Conneally) does not in itself confer notability. I've done my best to help in tidying the recent updates, paring, trimming and formatting, but I find myself floating in a sea of repetitive trivia. I'm not saying there's no notability in there, but if there is, it's so diluted and camouflaged by the banal and unremarkable, that it's lost. "Never mind the quality, feel the width" doesn't cut it on Wikipedia. --Yumegusa (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because if an AfD is borderline, (which this may have been prior to the blockings) sometimes it just makes an article look that bit more presentable.:) I've not added any text recently as far as I know, my only major contrbution to the article was to the previous version during the previous AfD, when I added some refs from WP:RS (which might have been removed in the current version as not all the content of the articles linked to was accessible, but it was the best I could do in the way of finding reliable sources.) The current article is made by newer users who wouldn't know how to make an article exactly as we would wish, but AfD is not for cleanup, if we don't like the style or content of the article, we can always fix it. All that's important at AfD is whether he meets WP:NOTE. I've not cast a !vote in either of the AfDs, just commented, because I've met the bloke so it would be inappropriate slightly for me to vote either way. Sticky Parkin 00:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked account comment - Further to my comment above re "the only two keep editors so far registered only after this 2nd AfD for Paul Conneally was listed" (this was before Sticky Parkin's post and does not refer to her), I note that Hollowinsideandout (talk) has been ~~banned~~ blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. --Yumegusa (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked, not banned. Is User:BruceR1 definitely the same bloke? That account isn't blocked. Sticky Parkin 00:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that. If you've no reason to suspect it, may I suggest you edit it out of your comment, out of courtesy to the editor.--Yumegusa (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I were saying. Kindly don't 'have a go' at whatever I say:):):) I meant that as he isn't blocked, his vote shouldn't be discounted. Sticky Parkin 20:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't having a go, Sticky, I just thought about how Bruce might feel after your comment, that's all. Plain text is dodgy, as we all know. --Yumegusa (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Yumegusa is probably right about the style and perhaps there is too much content now. The banality is probably my poor edits and writing but I think that there is enough to conclude that the subject has notabilty especially in this, at the moment, somewhat small field of haiku in English and art forms built out of that and renga. The Japanese are generally and rightly, quite proud and protective of their culture and I think that the fact that the Japanese Embassy funds some of his work (referenced in the article) and that he has run workshops directly for them infers / confers notability especially as he isn't Japanese. So (taking into account Yumegusa's concerns) the article is a bit long winded in places but there is notabilty and I still think keep and someone strip it down a bit. Perhaps keep and review in a certain length of time? Sticky - the photo that someone has put up (wass it you?)is good. Where exactly is that and what work does it come from? Is it from 100 Verses work? BruceR1 (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We're over the hump here, thanks to a lot of hard work by BruceR1. There's still a few citations wanting, but even if we delete the relevant text, we still have a notable subject. The description of that image, btw, is "Haiku by Paul Conneally on North Worcestershire footpath" --Yumegusa (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like the article now. I think it reads very well, like a proper article, but didn't trust my own judgment. Sticky Parkin 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article reads better than many here people have no issues with. As Yumegusa says, we're over the hump. This AFD should be closed now. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep, per Speedy Keep applicability#1: nominator votes keep. Lenticel ^(talk) 12:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Sulkin[edit]

Proposed deletion was removed without reason, actor is not notable. Hekerui (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With a lead role in both Sixty Six (film) and As the Bell Rings (United Kingdom), Gregg meets WP:ENTERTAINER rule 1: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." Since Google News can confirm this and has some critical comments as a bonus, I think this should be kept. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed. Hekerui (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now referenced the article, I can't verify the last paragraph, so if everyone wants to have a go feel free. Anyway, the minimum requirements are now met. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icewedge (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blow jogs[edit]

Delete per WP:NFT, nothing but spam hits from Google. Q ^{T C} 07:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEO at best, probably WP:NFT as per the original prod ~Excesses~ (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't verify this at all. A Gsearch indicates "blow jog" is largely a typo of "blow job". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Come on, seriously? eaolson (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My Gsearch came up the same as Linguist's did. Only non WP hit is an entry in the Urban Dictionary. We document internet memes we don't start them. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–North Korea relations[edit]

no evidence of any notable trade or diplomatic relationship Google news LibStar (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 06:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability. Stricken my vote, number of sources provided below. Squash Racket (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there are no signs at the moment, that's not surprising, but remember that there would have likely been plenty of ties before 1989. I can't provide sources, so I'll not say "keep", but I'll be surprised if there weren't significant relations. Nyttend (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, just provide some sources. No need to write the article, just indicate notability. Squash Racket (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - true, there might have been a notable relationship pre-1989, but we don't have the sources to establish that. If they surface at a later date, I have no prejudice against re-creation. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The relations of N Korea with essentially any substantial nation is likely to be notable. asserting "unsourceable" in this case requires a check of print sources. DGG (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of things that might help to develop this article:

Hungary was the first Eastern Bloc nation to establish relations with South Korea (see Hungary–South Korea relations; sources there); obviously this led to a downturn in relations with the North, who recalled Kim Jong-il's brother from Hungary as a result
Participation of North Korean exchange students in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956; see for example this Barry Farber column: [50]; also here's one in Korean "<헝가리 혁명 50주년> ④ 북한 유학생도 참가했다" (50th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution #4: North Korean exchange students also joined) [51]; also not a direct relation but one scholar claims that the Hungarian Revolution diverted the USSR's attention and gave North Korea the opportunity to purge reformists in their own government [52]
Modern defections of North Koreans in Hungary [53][54]

Cheers, cab (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CaliforniaAliBaba (thank you for the research!)--Caspian blue 00:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A totally disruptive nomination. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable in the usual way. I see no reason to treat this article in a highly irregular way, it does not seem to merit unusual considerations. See [55][56][57][58][59] and so forth. Wily D 13:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per CaliforniaAliBaba's research. I'm not surprised that a Google search would return few significant hits: as pointed out by DGG, almost all of the material would be offline in print, most likely in non-English sources. -- llywrch (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How About You (Staind song)[edit]

Non-notable album (though of notable band). SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, one song is not notable, much as I disagree with WP:N, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

delete- though some material might be better placed in the main article of the album. HJ Mitchell (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 06:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The song charted, so meets notability. I quickly found and added at least one reliable source. The name is a perfectly proper title per WP:DAB and a perfectly plausible search term to anyone familiar with WP conventions and WP:DAB. Rlendog (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 14 Shades of Grey: Although the song has charted, WP:NSONGS states: Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable. (my bolding) However, it also says: All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. and Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. I have searched for reliable sources which cover the song in detail, but can't find any. Nor is the article likely to grow beyond it's current stub status. With regards to being an "implausible search term", I feel that anyone who is aware of Wikipedia's WP:DAB or WP:MUSTARD#Disambiguation guidelines would be likely to use it. --JD554 (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain–Malta relations[edit]

non resident embassies. google news search reveals no real ties [60] , certainly shouldn't be kept as non-controversial article as some might say. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question I supposed you sourced per WP:BEFORE to see if there were any relations that could also be included? DGG (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google news search as above. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that this is any different from the mass numbers of others that have been deleted. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as random pairing with no hint of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems we were a bit late to the party, as it was already listed (and deleted) through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta-Middle East relations. Request speedy close. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marz (rapper)[edit]

Poorly-written article on a rapper of very minor importance (was briefly a member of a notable group and signed to a notable label, but has done little else of significant importance). Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – The above user has been blocked for sockpuppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non notable to the Nth degree. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received plenty of coverage, and being poorly written is no reason for deletion. See, for example, this Goole News search, and these: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68].--Michig (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If being a member of a notable group doesn't make the artist themself notable, they'd still be a good choice to merge or redirect and poor writing isn't a deletion reason. In short: no valid reason for deletion was given. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dark Lotus, a quick overview of Michig sources is associated with the famous band, not Marz himself, also NNE isn't a reliable source. Secret ^account 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's this 'NNE' then? If you mean NME, the content there is taken from The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, which is most certainly a WP:RS.--Michig (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even without that, I'm unsure why a nationally available music news magazine which has been published weekly for nearly 60 years isn't a RS. That's like saying Rolling Stone isn't a RS -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ There's probably enough out there to satisfy notability criteria but no-one has put their hand up to work on the article. Hazir (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's enough out there to satisfy notability criteria, then the article should stay. Judge the subject, not the article.--Michig (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. The article is much improved btw, nice work. Hazir (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources mentioned by Michig only seem to be passing references. This doesn't look notable. Iam (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Sockpuppet of JamesBurns who already commented above. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have done some work on the article - perhaps those who have !voted delete would like to take another look. In addition to the sources already used in the article the Google News search above includes significant coverage in the Hartford Courant, Lancaster Newspapers, and Guitar Player.--Michig (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At least three Marz tracks have been included in major film soundtracks. This easily passess WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, established notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolismania 3[edit]

This is an article for something that does not exist. All of the information provided is invented. There is no reference to this game on the developer's webpage. There has never been any coverage of this game. The one cited reference does not refer to this game. Googling this game gives the Wiki article as the only relevant result. The article has been uncited since middle of last year. The only talk page discussion is a poster wondering if this game exists. It doesn't. This is one of those examples of inaccurate information that has been festering for so long that it gives the Wikipedia community a bad name because it's gone uncorrected. Stump (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page can be created if the game ever materializes. Until then... Turgan ^Talk 06:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MLauba (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's more, even if it will yet be created, having an article about an upcoming event is crystalballery unless it has references. No references = no article. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gleaners[edit]

No notable reason for inclusion. Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG in any form. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google even narrowed down to ‘gleaner food bank indianapolis 2009’ yields over 4000 results. There are scores of articles covering this org , ive added one to the article. Hunger is an increasingly notable issue due to the recession and recent trends in agriculture. The Colonel will be hearing about this! FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'gleaner food bank indianapolis 2009' shouldn't yield anything for this Gleaners food bank in Jackson, Mississippi as Indianapolis is a long way from Jackson, Mississippi. In fact, Google hit only has 1 reliable news source, that being a local based television station. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 11:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that, i've changed the vote from strong keep to keep, i still think charities should be teated lenianty. Maybe we should move the artilce to Gleaners (Jackson, Mississippi) to make way for the more noteable Gleaners? FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with moving it if it is kept but I do disagree with "charities should be treated leniently" because our policies for inclusion (WP:NN, WP:ORG, etc.) don't end with "...except charities". - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 11:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. However IMO its not clear that only wlbt should count as a reliable secondary source. Even if it were, WP:ORG says the occasional exception is allowed and gives an alternative meaning of notable as "worthy of being noted". The org isnt a sexy front line service provider which perhaps explains the lack of abundant coverage in secondary sources and yourself not being aware of it. But it does provide important support to over 60 front line service providers who help vulnerable people. Its with cases like this that our encyclopaedia can be especially valuable by aggregating data on worthy subjects to create articles providing information that cant be found in one place anywhere else. So for a number of reasons , now the articles been improved following the ADF nom, there seems to be a good case for keeping it? FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My ears are burning. :) This organisation does indeed seem quite notable and their work seems laudable - like the ARS of food charity. We shall have little difficulty improving the article so deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as easily passing WP:ORG per available sources for citing and expansion. Not being fully sourced is no reason for deletion if such are available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources? There's only 1 notable source found. Can you point to some? Yes, if you do a Google search just for the term "Gleaners", you do come up with many.. but they are all for a foodbank of the same name in Indianapolis, Indiana - not this one in Jackson, Mississippi. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe we simply have different search techniques. The article has now been cleaned up and further sources added. thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You added 3 "new" sources. One of them is nothing but a Dun & Bradstreet business listing. As for the other 2, are you saying you have the paid access for the newsbank source and the accessmylibrary source and that both of them speak of this Gleaners? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dun & Bradstreet added as proper WP:V of WP:ORG status, per policy. Are you saying you will not or cannot visit a public library? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What I'm saying is that this organization is not notable. Using 2 "must pay for to access" sources, and only 1 free local TV station report as a source does not a notable organization make. As to the Dun & Bradstreet ref, it does nothing but verify the organization exists. It speaks nothing to their notability. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I understand you're of the opinion that this organization's being pro-active in feeding the less fortunate for 23 years is non-notable. Please note: "access-my-library" is free to anyone with a library card, which is why I asked my question above. Information available through public libraries is emminently usable on wikipedia, even is one does not wish to themselves use their services. And did I not just write that the D&B entry was used for WP:V of the organization's existance? Verifiability is a CORE POLICY, one that acts to control all interpretations of guideline, and I strive to never ignore it. And I am sorry that I am not able to be as dismissive of an in-depth report from a nationallly syndicated television station as you. There would be little point for Reuters to report in Bombay about an organization in Jackson, Mississippi. The notability and coverage is given where the event takes place: Mississippi. And of course it was "free"... all proper news sources are "free". If it were "paid" it would be a commercial. And in being dismissive of other gleaner groups, one fails to recognize the spreading of this notability accross the nation and world.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable now. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying, as well, that you have the paid access for the newsbank source and the accessmylibrary source and that both of them speak of this Gleaners? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pay to access sources are, of course, valid. Consider that books are also "pay to access". We can do research the old fashioned way, y'know. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granite thump (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay–Vietnam relations[edit]

another random country pairing. the one state visit can easily be covered in [[Foreign relations of Uruguay]]. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question I assume you have made a reasonably thorough search, according to WP:BEFORE? DGG (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched google news, not much there, this shows a limited relationship [69] LibStar (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - a Google search of Uruguay Vietnam doesn't turn up anywhere near enough to meet WP:N ([70]) and there's no reason to assume that these countries would have a notable relationship. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - random pairing, no evidence of notability, one state visit is just news. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. You have ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[71]. This behavior is rather disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Piotrus. Martintg (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–Belgium relations[edit]

another random country pairing with no evidence of notable trade or diplomatic relations. should be deleted and being non controversial is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - I'm surprised to be saying that, too, but this one might actually pass muster. From this article and a few others, Belgium appears to be Armenia's biggest EU trading partner and there has been a recent meeting of heads of state in Belgium to specifically discuss Armenian-Belgian relations.DSZ (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching is superior to guessing in considering what should be nominated for deletion. It has the side befit of possibly improving articles, which I assume everyone here thinks important. DGG (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good guess, but a stopped clock is right twice a day, and this is actually one "random pairing" that might have hit on something. A cursory Google News search turns up quite a few relevant articles. Graymornings_(talk) 04:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the articles indicating notability. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google News turns up this, this, this, and this. There's clearly enough here for an article. Graymornings_(talk) 09:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, there have been the usual warm handshakes and friendly words, and yes, some economic ties (already covered at Economy of Armenia, and by the way, it seems Germany trades slightly more), but overall, in terms of strategic and cultural importance, and potential to be expanded into a full-fledged article, not so much. These stories document the routine happenings of international relations - news, if you will - and lack encyclopedic notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotrus. The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[72]. Martintg (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Usual story; random intersection of two countries with nothing to say about them and nothing written about them. A centralized discussion need not delay us from clearing out cruft. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Tajikistan relations[edit]

another random combination with no evidence of notable relationship. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noncontroversial. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's hardly a reason Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.LibStar (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And four "delete" statements surely mean that it's somewhat controversial...

Every single comment for delete except you means its totally uncontroversial. LibStar (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no sources are given and the only link is to a page about Kyrgyzstan's relations with Hungary, not Tajikistan's. I can't find anything relevant that would necessitate yet another of these random pairings.DSZ (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find anything significant. This could certainly be covered in Foreign relations of Tajikistan, but there's not enough material for its own page. Graymornings_(talk) 03:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There is less than nothing to say about relations between this pair of countries. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely the presence of an accredited Tajik ambassador in Austria is something to say :-) but it's not enough for notability. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - random pairing, no sources to indicate notability to the relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I didn't see any notability either. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a very pretty way of saying nothing. Non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this notability of this subject is bellow zero. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus is achieved at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Martintg (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - There are sources per this search, however most is a onetime ordeal between some foreign minister and Hungary. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doornails (song)[edit]

Non-notable song. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Wolves in Wolves' Clothing: the album's Allmusic review verifies the song's topic. --JD554 (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator as a non-plausible search term about a song which does not meet WP:MUSIC standards. JBsupreme (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. No objections to anyone creating a WP:NPOV, general article about this subject, but it will have very little to do with the currently discussed and deleted article. Fram (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli propaganda[edit]

POV fork and essay. Any salvageable portions should be added to Hasbara. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
omg delete Personal essay, pointless fork. Definitely should be deleted (rather than just merging and redirecting), because a redirect from this title to Hasbara could be seen as malicious (along the same lines as Miserable failure). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better off being rewritten in the future; I don't see any salvageable content here. This should be deleted without prejudice toward creation in the future. — Jake Wartenberg 02:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I love a good propaganda article, but I don't care for this essay, and it certainly doesn't meet the requirements for a WP article such as, eh, NPOV. In the modern usage of "propaganda" every application of the term to current politics is POV. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should have an decent article on this, but this is not helpful in making one. Better to start over than try to rescue this one. DGG (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with DGG, this article does not provide even a decent starting point for an encyclopedic article on the topic. Nableezy (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does make an effort to provide sources, but solely as a means to present a blatantly one-sided view of Israel and its communications efforts and those of its supporters, in clear violation of WP:NPOV. Alansohn (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after moving anything worthwhile to Hasbara. A redirect Israeli propaganda -> Hasbara is a necessity in my view simply because Hasbara fits neutral definitions of propaganda. I suppose it's true that such a redirect 'could be seen as malicious' by some people if they aren't aware of what propaganda actually means. Not having a redirect serves to further the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the term propaganda. We shouldn't be doing that. Furthermore describing the propaganda produced by country X isn't a violation of NPOV at all. That's a complete misunderstanding of both NPOV and propaganda. Israel has produced some outstandingly good propaganda posters for example as part of their propaganda efforts over the years. Describing those in an article for example would be entirely appropriate, encyclopedic and neutral. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a good point, but I am still a bit concerned—like Drmies points out, nowadays "propaganda" is pretty much always a negative term, and redirecting it to Hasbara makes it look like WP is taking a stance against Hasbara. It's a sticky situation, writing about a topic when almost everyone can agree it's a terrible thing but you're still stuck having to be NPOV about it (I came across similar problems working on Re-education through labor). In this particular case, if a reader searches for "Israeli propaganda" and no redirect exists, then Hasbara is still the third search result, so I think readers will still be able to find it, and we wouldn't look like we're trying to make any subtle points. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have quite a nice article about propaganda if people are confused. For me it's a simple question, "is Hasbara propaganda ?" according to neutral academic definitions and the answer is a clear yes. The question doesn't touch upon whether Hasbara is morally-ethically-good/bad or truth/lies etc because those attributes don't define whether something is propaganda even if many people think they do. The Wikipedia's narrative voice 'subtle point' argument works both ways I guess since both the presence or the absence of a redirect might make a subtle point to different people. The difference for me is that Hasbara actually is propaganda in the neutral sense just like evolution can be neutrally described as a fact even if people don't like it. Furthermore Hasbara is explicitly referred to as propaganda by cited sources in the article. Even the Ambassador's Course itself as cited in the article uses the term propaganda. Of course they're referring to Palestinian propaganda. :) If something is propaganda according to neutral academic definitions and we don't call it propaganda because some people (yes, I'm looking at you wikifan)will be upset we have a problem. Consider it an opportunity to restore the word propaganda to it's rightful status. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 09:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete inherently a POV fork and I don't see anything salvageable to merge to Hasbara Sceptre ^(talk) 05:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even need a rationale. I do not endorse the re-directing of Israeli propaganda with Hasbara. That screams POV-pushing. We might as well link "Modern US military propaganda" with Public affairs (military). Can't help but expose the ideological motivations here...:D Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- oh noes, the propaganda article includes US military propaganda...the horror. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article for "Modern US military propaganda." I was giving an example in regards to Public affairs (military). Propaganda in the United States is hardly comparable. Glad you caught that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. What a piece of drivel. okedem (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete At this point, any "Delete" input is strictly pile-on. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close—it's SNOWily obvious that everyone wants this deleted, and the only point of contention is whether it should be left as a redirect or not. How about we just manually blank the article and redirect it (since that doesn't require any admin help and there is already consensus to blank it), procedurally close this AfD, then take the new redirect to RfD? That will be the only way to gauge consensus well, since at AfD we're not all talking about the same thing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adama Keita[edit]

Biography of an African football player which is at best non-notable and at worst a hoax. De-prodded with no reason given by article creator.

Google for "adama keita" (with quotes) gives a rubbish collector [73] as one of the top results which is not encouraging (and no relevant results, of course). Worse still, Google returns no relevant results for either "Adama Keita" "Africa Sports" or "Adama Keita" "Denguelé Sports d'Odienné" (swapping surname and first name gets even worse results).

Furthermore, the creator of this article has confessed on the talk page of the article and my user talk page that no sources are forthcoming - the only way to verify this player exists is to call the club, which is not allowed for Wikipedia articles. Given this blatant confession it makes no sense for this article to survive any longer. Unless sources are added, my opinion is strong delete. Kimchi.sg (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNo notability. I searched the internet and found no references. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even if the guy does exist, verifiability, not truth. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia isn't a place to publish unpublished information. Nyttend (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:N. JohnCD (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 13 days with nobody but the nominator arguing for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prodigal Sunn[edit]

Non-notable rap musician. Lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Member of the notable rap group Sunz of Man as well as a solo artist. Could be merged into the group article but shouldn't be deleted. A Google search found these: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79].--Michig (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Prodigal Sunn to Sunz of Man and delete Return of the Prodigal Sunn, the article for the rapper's sole album. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Michig. Kimchi.sg (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Luca Mazza[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Non-notable article subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wether B (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage, non-notable artist. JamesBurns (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He's Italian and Asian notable pop new age artist. He's producer Love Orchestra too: Tribal dance, I am, Let it pray and more again (TV signature Piccole curiosità della natura). Saxophonenotes (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC) — Saxophonenotes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: More rock sensitive and notable Italian artist.Oldyoungrockgeneration 13:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC) — Oldyoungrockgeneration (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rampant puppetry, no evidence of third-party coverage; member of two equally non-notable groups. Kimchi.sg (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not passing the WP:Music or the WP:N bar. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete me...please.

I'm very happy who someone writed about me and my music career. I'm really honoured who someone think I'm ready to be in wikipedia world... but never I can think it's a problem this for someboby. If some people don't know me it's normal. I'm not a musicians who produdec 1.000.000 of radio single but only 20.000. Very special thanks to everybody who believe in my music, really thanks. Have a nice days. Gian Luca "Luke" Mazza. 11:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.183.84.233 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burnsville Fire Soccer Club[edit]

Non notable 'community team'. Prod removed after 5 days. One reference was added- the website of the team's sponsor. news search turns up some local news ads requesting recruitment. google offers about 500 sites, none offering any degree of notability. Stu.W UK (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Kimchi.sg (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial media coverage Google news LibStar (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable team. Giant Snowman 13:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. --Angelo (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–Vietnam relations[edit]

another random country pairing , no resident embassies and as article states "There are around 8 people of Armenian descent living in Vietnam. " LibStar (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article even says "There are around 8 people of Armenian descent living in Vietnam." There have been no major events in relations between the two countries, and any small amount of information that could be found on these relations could be put into either country's article. Timmeh! 00:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For all the 200+ countries in the world, there is not room enough in the Foreign relations of... article of any country. --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure there is. one of our basic principles is NOT PAPER. Doesn't mean all of them are worth doing, necessarily, but if they were to be, we have room for them -- and anything else for which sources can be found as well. DGG (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Another random intersection. See also Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. JJL (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As non-controversial. --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's hardly a reason Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I managed to add a sentence or two to the article (and removed one); I suspect that sources ought to be available, esp. on ties during the Soviet era and perhaps more recent ones that follow up on the 2002 meeting between the two foreign ministers. If only I spoke some of those languages--and if only more of this kind of info were available on the internet. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Would Armenia and Viet Nam really have had relations during the Soviet era? Moscow and Ha Noi did, and at least under the 1936 constitution a republic was allowed to conduct diplomatic relations, but would Yerevan actually have established formal relations? Nyttend (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a good question. When I added that source that made that claim (the Armenian Foreign Ministry) I tried to phrase it as diplomatically as I could, haha. Of course that source didn't go into any of these details, but even if Yerevan had no such power the appearance now is that they did. Even if that establishes nothing more than some sort of artificial independence, it goes to show that the mere subject of such relations is valuable to the Armenians. My contention is (in a lot of these articles) that the perception of or desire for a relationship matters also (if this can be documented, of course), not just whether there's ambassadors or not. How your (very valid) point is discussed in the article is a matter for people smarter than me and more knowledgable on this topic... Drmies (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I commend Drmies' efforts, but let's be honest: the Armenian SSR had very little autonomy in foreign policy (and of course the relations were bound to be peaceful: was the ASSR going to declare war on its own?), and relations since then have been thoroughly routine, limited to a couple of visits. Overall, not notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–South Korea relations[edit]

another random weak relationship. http://www.mofat.go.kr/english/regions/europe/20070803/1_308.jsp? says it all. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no notable interaction between the two countries. As with the other non-notable relations articles, any notable information (if any) can be put into either country's article. Tim meh ! 00:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noncontroversial. --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's hardly a reason Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They don't share embassies within each other's borders. The only notable relation between them (from the source, not even mentioned in the article) is the economic trade, which does not need to be covered in a separate article, but can rather be included in existing articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 12 Armenians in South Korea! Wow! Really, nothing here to indicate notability or potential for expansion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really don't see how this one can hope to survive.--Aldux (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dehawks[edit]

On behalf of DragonflySixtyseven who will give reasoning. Prodego ^talk 00:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google turns up nothing, and the concept of a Kristallnacht unit that went out of their way to not hurt people just feels... odd. DS (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Google pulls up nothing, google books pulls up less. The only reference to it is a school textbook (which we don't have to read) and pl-wiki, who express similar suspicions about the validity of their article. Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I have no good reason whatsoever to believe this. Surely such a notable band of nice Nazis would have been written up, in things indexed by Google News forever. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Polish version has been deleted after a very strong suspicion that it was a hoax. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Martinson[edit]

Aside from an award by a former Mississippi governor and aside from being the grandmother of actress Lauren Jones (which is also the user name of the creator of the article), I see nothing notable for inclusion. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Borderline, but I don't see any harm in having this article. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think that she is notable but agree its a weak keep - this said she is from the refernces a notable philanthropist having set up charitable organisations. I go with Borderline and say might as well keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollowinsideandout (talk • contribs) 08:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–South Korea relations[edit]

another random combination. this link http://www.mofat.go.kr/english/regions/europe/20070803/1_307.jsp? says it all. no real high level agreements, no respective embassies, no trade agreements. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I particularly enjoyed the statement from your link "number of Koreans living in Georgia: 10". No sourced information about any encyclopedia-worthy relations between these two countries, and I can't think of any particular situation in the past that has lead to these countries interacting in any substantial manner. It does indeed seem to be a random and unnecessary country relations pairing that does not have any content for an article at this point. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noncontroversial. --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's hardly a reason Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, both countries have issues with communist/post-communist governments. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

even if that is true the article is about relations between them not what they have in common. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we declare a moratorium on all United Nations' members bilateral relations articles? Sockpuppets, crazy messages in the edit summary space, 3 or 4 new deletions a day, it's getting ridiculous. I'm getting worn out looking for pertinent links in various forms of government documentation. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you have provided not one reliable source to keep any article you've voted to keep. There is no moratorium, articles are assessed through the valid process of WP:AFD. LibStar (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a relationship so notable that the "Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs" page simply says "under construction". ~Excesses~ (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources establishing notability here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too unnoteworthy. Alexius08 (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Stanford[edit]

Non-notable Christian minister. The sources in the article are all tied to him, and a Google search revels no independent third party sources. Also note that the creator appears to have a COI. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and either autobio or coi. Google has 10 hits, of which 1 is a wedding he presided over and 4 are book signings. JCutter (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC) and again at 06:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News shows some reasonable hits for him. Article does need cleanup and NPOV-treatment, but subject appears likely to pass WP:AUTHOR. COI is not a valid deletion rationale. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those do you consider reasonable? I see quite some trivial mentions. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Some one needs to wikify this article. I suspect that this will show it to be a Weak Keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Jclemens. Tim meh ! 01:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question as Mgm the sources that Google News turned up were trivial mention, either statements that he was speaking at a conference, or what appear to be promotional pieces for his book. If someone can show me sources that are not of this nature I will gladly withdraw the nomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I will be switching to delete after looking into those a bit more. Tim meh ! 01:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my above comment. The sources mentioned by Jclemens only mention Stanford trivially. Tim meh ! 01:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alésia Glidewell[edit]

Non-notable voice actor. Lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Procedural close. The nominator did not explain why they consider this woman non-notable. The notability of an actor or in this case voice actor depends on the importance of the roles they played and the coverage they get from reliable sources. The nominator also didn't show they did any sort of research as required by WP:BEFORE. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can demonstrate through reliable sources that this voice actor is notable under any one of our notability guidelines I will happily withdraw. As it stands this is no better than a vanity page. JBsupreme (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Google news appears to have a few relevant hits. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foldabots[edit]

Unreferenced toy book. Only source on page is a dead link. Author has created an army of Foldabot pages, and has since been blocked for it. For reference, please see: Foldabots toy book, Lupet and Uwak:Foldabots, Liyab:Foldabots, Metrotren:Foldabots, Lu-Sho:Foldabots, Pasada:Foldabots, Karera:Foldabots, Elementron:Foldabots, Raya:foldabots character, Miko:foldabots character, Foldabot Liyab, Foldabot Patrol, and more... every time I check, there are a few more. They may be breeding on their own at this point. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this was tagged for speedy, but I removed the speedy as I felt it didn't meet any of the criteria. I was however about to send it here when the nom beat me to it. Black Kite 09:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the times it's been nominated for speedy deletion, the article hasn't met any of the criteria, so AFD is the right place for this to end up. I added the only source in February in an attempt to find some reliable references for this subject - from memory, when it was a live link it was a newspaper article about the new Foldabots book and the only such reference in Google News. I am not convinced either way about Foldabots' notability - there are a lot of websites out there on Foldabots and it seems popular in the Philippines, but there's a lack of reliable sources (in English, anyway, perhaps there are reliable sources in Filipino). Somno (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TheCoffee (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Ive seen a couple of news articles here [80], [81]. There's some stir at the local media but I don't think it's enough to push its notability.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have made the same case for any article with the subject's only reference/s being a short article in Rated K or Jessica Soho Presents, where not all the featured persons/topics are strongly notable. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it as an unpopular toy. Alexius08 (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kotra (producer)[edit]

No real claim of notability, no reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any substantial coverage by reliable sources. Therefore, it fails WP:BIO. Tim meh ! 02:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ocean Fracture[edit]

Non-notable band. I would have speedied this except it has had a fair number of editors involved. However, I still can't see that it meets notability criteria. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the pages for the band's albums/singles: The Sunmachine And The Ocean and Cesarium/Black Lung Optimism. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the three items of press coverage quoted in The Sunmachine And The Ocean can be verified, then the band will likely pass WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, none of the items CAN be verified by internet, as the first two sources (Rock Sound Magazine and Big Cheese Magazine) do not archive material online, and no results can be found at a search of Kerrang!. Unless someone has access to these actual magazine issues, the claims to notability of this article remain unverifiable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources already supplied in the article (and album article). No where in WP:RS or WP:V does it say that they have to be available online, only that they are reliable, third-party, and published. From WP:RS; "it is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You'll have to pardon my ignorance here, I'm fairly new to all this. Since the articles have been put up for deletion, I've inserted a few more relevant references into each, including national radio station playlists and (as per the previous editor's comment which states that references do not strictly require to be archived online) further issues of publications featuring relevant information. I don't know whether the previous editor's "keep" closes the debate or not, so if someone could be sympathetic to a Wikipedia newbie and let me know, I would appreciate it. :p Thanks. User:Verklemmt —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Taking the sources for The Sunmachine in good faith, we have coverage in some notable magazines (esp. Kerrang) for the album which establishes notability for the band, though perhaps weakly so. I'm staying on the safe side, the side of inclusion. Note to Verklemmt--no, it's not over yet; more editors can still weigh in. When you add sources to the article, make them look good by using templates and by looking for sources that editors have access to online. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 19:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connect Support Services[edit]

Article does not specify why the subject/entity is notable or any major attributes. Poorly sourced. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 18:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Not entirely unsourced, but the two articles quoted aren't really about the _company_ per se. However, they do show it has been the subject of some media attention; enough for WP:CORP? Perhaps. Tevildo (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Trivial mentions and press citations of company spokesmen are rarely enough to demonstrate notability. While its research occasionally gets press attention, a Gsearch shows a large number of directory-type listings. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another non-consumer tech services business. As regards this business itself, the coverage cited is not significant, and not primarily about this business. The article text seems remarkably evasive about what they actually make or do. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – I believe there is just enough coverage from independent – reliable – 3rd party sources to warrant inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 11:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has reliable references and with some rewording would make an okay article. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 19:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatches (magazine)[edit]

A recently launched magazine with only three issues out yet. I have not found any notability guidelines for magazines, but my gut feeling is that a magazine this new should have a rather high notability bar, and this article does not seem to clear it. There is one secondary source: a shortish trade journal article which appears to have been written after the first issue and basically says "here's something new; it will be interesting to see how it goes". I don't think that is enough coverage to conclude notability.

I would be less skeptical about notability but for the fact that User:Dispatches intern recently created Dispatches (journal) which has been speedily deleted twice. At least the latter incarnation was quite a fluff piece when I speedy-tagged it. After the second speedy, somebody registered the account User:Angelm06 and immediately created the present article from it. This leads me to suspect that the article was created by someone connected to the magazine in real life, which weakens the default assumption of notability that comes from "somebody bothered to create a Wikipedia article about it".

CSD G11 was attempted but denied. –Henning Makholm (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added dispatches (magazine) after seeing dispatches (journal) was deleted. I am a fan of the magazine, and the editors, and feel it is indeed worthy of a wikipedia entry. I have added a couple of more references to the page. Perhaps this is not a good basis for my judgment on dispatches (magazine)m but I modeled the initial entry after Monocle (2007 magazine). If you look at the creation date for this entry, it was in the first year they began publishing, and a month or so after the first issue...Being new to wikipedia, it is unclear to me why Monocle (2007 magazine) is an okay entry but dispatches (magazine) entry "may" not be. Any suggestions, further comments are greatly appreciated.Angelm06 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since the nomination, additional references have been added to the article to satisfy notability through coverage in independent reliable sources. In addition to the ones already in the article, I also found this CJR article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am convinced by the references in the article of notability. Moreover, the journal's website (though I wish it had more to say about how contributions are accepted) leads me to believe that this is not a purely commercial institution, and that a certain amount of peer review is involved. This, in turn, leads me to invoke User:S Marshall/Essay, an essay by two Wikipedians that proposes notability for, I believe, this kind of magazine. I admit that I'm in the academic business and find it more difficult to gauge this kind of publication, but I think we're staying on the safe side with by keeping this article. Angelm, I appreciate your tenacity--now start editing that article a bit more for neutral tone... PS: I'm canvassing this all the way to S Marshall. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That Reuters covered the story indicates they think the venture notable, and they should know. DGG (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 canting keels. MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBTF Technology[edit]

Whether loooking under the new or old names for the company, there are some ghits but nothing that establishes notability. I declined the speedy on this some months ago as I thought that maybe the involvement with the Sydney-Hobart race might be a claim to notability but in revisiting it, I'm not seeing clear evidence to pass WP:CORP. StarM 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it should be retained in some form or other. I'm not going to argue that this is the best form, but I don't really see the harm in keeping it as is.

At any rate, you seem to disagree.

As an alternative, perhaps we could at least have a redirect from CBTF to Canting Keel, and add to the Canting Keel page a mention of at least Canting Ballast Twin Foil, and perhaps even CBTF Technology. Could you indicate whether there is a problem with that?

Esb (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: six months has passed since it got tagged for a rewrite. Now, still no reputable sources given. Alexius08 (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunaewsky69[edit]

No evidence of notability, no reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — This, that, and the other [talk] 09:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Detali Zvuku festival. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kvitnu[edit]

Minor record label with only a few releases. Most of the artists do not appear to be notable at all, and those that are notable are only marginally so. The centre of a walled garden, possible conflict of interest. J Milburn (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Detali Zvuku festival. Same people involved. Worth including and covering in the encyclopedia, but not enough ntoability for a stand alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ballet Folklorico Nuestras Raices[edit]

Non-notable, written like an advert. Crashoffer12345 (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find reliable sources with which to establish notability for this organization. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 19:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McCaughey[edit]

Delete Non-notable sporting figure who does not meet WP:SPORT. Even says that the driver is an amateur while standards for racing drivers only include professional drivers. Drdisque (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ATHLETE says that he is notable if he has competed at the highest amateur level of his sport, which I believe SCCA is. (correct me if I'm wrong) Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 20:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is only true for sports that are only competed at an amateur level (such as archery or swimming). -Drdisque (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Being a regional champion in any sport seems notable enough for me and the fact that he competed, and won,a national competition. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 19:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raging Storm Records[edit]

Delete record label fails WP:CORP, has been tagged for self refernces for a year without apparent compliance with WP:V and WP:RS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above: fails notability per WP:CORP, and fails WP:V and WP:RS. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 19:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per above, doesn't explain why it meets criteria. TheAE talk/sign 20:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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