< 21 April	23 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Vietnam relations[edit]

Another X-Y country relations article that fails WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 23:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no embassies, no historic ties, nothing to indicate anything of substance here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cyprus historically doesn't even have good relations with itself. Having two non-resident ambassadors is hardly notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:15, 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 User:Plumoyr is 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) 20:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:NOHARM argument doesn't really fly. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Mbhiii sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I'm not able to find much on this, but experience has shown me that it's difficult to find the right kind of sources with a simple google or Lexis search. Thus, if anyone turns up some sources, I will switch to keep. Cool3 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, non resident ambassadors, the extent of bilateral relations is shown here [1] LibStar (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources discuss this alleged relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one keep vote here offers no solid grounds for why there should exist any X-Y country relations articles in the first place, let alone this one. Disk space being cheap is no reason for this encyclopedia to be clogged up with junk. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 10:12, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Medical Services[edit]

Procedural nom. This was ((prod)) tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree (with possibly the single worst deletion reason I've ever seen, "exceedingly generic name"). It appears to be a potentially noteworthy company, so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain. – iride scent 22:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After the initial Prod referred to above was placed, and the article was still there, another prod was added by 76.66.195.159 on 6 Dec 2008 for "Non-notable medical service." The Prodding looks appropriate. The company which owns Academy Medical Services may be notable and has references, but notability is not inherited by subsidiaries which only have 105 employees. A merge to the parent firm might be appropriate. Edison (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local health care employment agency in Ohio. If one prods everything, some of them can't help being appropriate. DGG (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a local medical employment agency, it's a non-consumer business. Most of the references given relate to inclusion in various directories, or are about its parent company Acloche LLC rather than this division. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stark Reality (band)[edit]

Procedural nom. This was ((prod)) tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree. This appears to be a potentially noteworthy band, so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain. – iride scent 22:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC) *Delete Fails WP:N and WP:Music. One album in 1970; no evidence it was a success. Edison (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for these two rated album reviews at Allmusic, [2] and at Pitchfork Media, [3] alone. Also mentions here and here. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Esradekan. Nice going. Edison (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aww shucks, thanks. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:38, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Matías Scoppa[edit]

Procedural nom. This was ((prod)) tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree. It appears to me that he meets the football notability criteria by some distance, so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain. – iride scent 22:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. King of the North East 23:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notablity standard expected of footballers King of the North East 23:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I don't know the Portuguese setup that well so may be wrong, but isn't S.C. Covilhã a fully professional club in a fully professional league? – iride scent 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not on the list. If any evidence can be found to support the claim that it is a fully professional league the article should probably be improved and kept and the league added to the list. King of the North East 23:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the league, but according to Portuguese League for Professional Football, it does appear to be run as a professional league. Does anyone know for sure? Jogurney (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks to fail WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 00:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article on the club says "one league away from the Portuguese First Division." If someone in the U.S. plays on a farm team or a minor league team, does that satisfy WP:ATHLETE? If not, why would a less than highest pro league team from a smaller country qualify? I seem to recall deletions of minor league players, but I do not participate in that many sports AFDs. Edison (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE says that a player has to have participated in a fully professional league, it does not state that said league has to be the highest level in its country. I have no idea what a "farm team" is so can't speak for players on such teams, but the policy as it stands does not state that players must play at the highest level in their country -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears that Scoppa has played in a fully-pro league (since the LPFP runs the Liga de Honra) which means the article passes WP:ATHLETE, and regardless the article comes close to passing WP:N (based on the Record and LPFP sources). Jogurney (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The two sources don't come close to him passing WP:N as they're just trivial statistic sites that would mean nothing if the league wasn't fully-pro. --Jimbo^[online] 23:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The source from Record certainly does. I realize one source is not multiple sources, and that is why I said it comes close. Jogurney (talk) 00:00, 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 merge to Psycho Motel. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Untouchables (rock band)[edit]

Procedural nom. This was ((prod)) tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree. The moment one sees that "founded by former members of Iron Maiden, The Cult and Thin Lizzy alarm bells sound, so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain. – iride scent 22:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can someone find any reliable sources to show that this band met any of the criteria for WP:BAND such as a charted single or multiple reliable and independent press coverage? The best bet seems to be that one member was formerly in a famous band (apparently an exception to "notability is not inherited). If not it should be deleted. The only refs are to less than reliable/independent source: a fan page and a Youtube video. If they made a record after changing their name, that notability should accrue to the renamed band "Psycho Motel" and not to this one. Edison (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: enjoy these 90,000 hits on Google. Cheers. I'^mperator 17:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Nominator. Passes WP:BAND by a landslide (passes at least three of the criteria, C5, C6, and C7). Original prodder appears to be nominating in Bad Faith, much as I like to assume good faith. Cheers. I'^mperator 17:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind merging this to Psycho Motel. The band had no releases and few is known about other activities. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 17:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above as it is the same band. "changed their name to Psycho Motel" Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:52, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yuka Aimoto[edit]

Procedural nom. This was ((prod)) tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree. Although it's unreferenced, it's potentially notable (I don't know the significance of the film she appeared in or of her role), so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain. – iride scent 22:15, 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]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Calathan (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A voice actress, but where are refs to satisfy W:BIO? Non-English reliable and independent sources would be fine. Has had 4 cast roles per "Anime News Network," a source of unknown reliability. Edison (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ANN has been pretty firmly established to be reliable. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, ANN's encyclopedia is generally accurate (if rarely comprehensive -- there are usually large omissions when it comes to credits for actors and creators) -- however, because it's user-edited it's not "reliable" by the jargon definition used by Wikipedia. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The voice acting role listed here is one of six leads in that (stongly notable) OVA. The ja.wiki article lists a handful of other minor voice acting credits -- and a much larger number of stage acting roles, some of which are clearly minor but others look like potentially notable, in particular the one where she reprised her original role in a revival, which strongly implies it was a lead role. Not knowing anything about the plays, however, I cannot fully assess those. So provisionally keep and edit to bring out she is more of a stage actress than voice actress. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The voice actor has played a significant role in various notable creations. Dream Focus 11:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she meets criterion #10 under WP:MUSICBIO, "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" with two notable theme song peformances. Technically, under WP:ENTERTAINER: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" also. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While she technically meets criteria #10 of WP:MUSICBIO, I don't think she meets the intent of the criteria. According to ANN, the opening theme of Raimuiro Senkitan, and the opening and ending themes of its sequel OAV, are sung by "Raimu-tai". The name makes it clear that it is a group composed of voice actors from the series, and isn't a separate group. This is further supported by the fact that all of main female voice actors for the series are credited with singing those theme songs. This isn't a case of a singer being asked to perform a song for a TV series, but a case where people were cast in a TV series, and as part of that roll, they had to sing. I don't think that establishes any further notability beyond that established by her roll in the series. Calathan (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the "intent" of WP:N was to keep people from writing articles on your neighbor's new puppy, but is instead used to delete good articles on legitimate works of anime and manga. Clearly "intent" has no place on Wikipedia, only the rules as-written. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I interpret your comment correctly, you are really saying that notability guidelines shouldn't be applied as-written, as that results in good articles being deleted. If that is the case, then I don't see how you can argue that the guidelines should be applied strictly as written in this case. Regardless, I think the intent of guidelines is important, and if a guideline is not worded to match its intent, it should be reworded. WP:N says to use common sense, making it clear that the notability guidelines shouldn't always be blindly followed with no consideration to if they make sense. Futhermore, this article isn't currently good in my opinion (she is apparently primarily a stage actress, but the artcile doesn't even mention that), isn't about a work of anime or manga (its about a person), and it doesn't look like it is going to be deleted (most of the !votes are for keep right now), so I think your comment is somewhat misplaced. I certainly am not voting for it to be deleted. Calathan (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. Passes WP:ACTOR and WP:BIO. Cheers. I'^mperator 17:06, 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 keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magistrates (band)[edit]

WP:PROD tag removed by author - a music group that fails WP:MUSIC per [4] and [5] - the latter is mostly a collection of trivial blog mentions/listings. The criteria for ensembles is not met for an indie band given a lack of releases. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Withdrawing the nomination on the account of independent second and third party sources brought to light by Paul Erik. I'd do a non-admin closure, but getting ready for work. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 13:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an obscure English band has made a Wikipedia article to advertise. No reason to keep, as this is a very non-notable band. my name inc 21:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They had a nice article in the Guardian. Is XL a "major label?" Has their record made it into the charts somewhere? Seem on the bubble between keep and delete. relative to WP:BAND. Edison (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
XL is a fairly well known indie label, yes, but I can't find any information regarding this group and its relation/business with the record company. Here is allmusic, here is Rollingstone, yahoo! news and yahoo search - combined with the google news search. I'm just not seeing the necessary notability to satisfy inclusion criteria. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 14:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is xl recordings. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 14:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn delete Proved notability. my name inc 14:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the link to the Magistrates page on the XL Recordings website in response to Wisdom89. Adam2201 (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the band got two non-trivial mentions in The Guardian [6] [7], one in the Essex Chronicle [8] and one on BBC Essex [9]. And The Observer Music Magazine called the band "one of the 20 best new acts of 2009". [10] Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the band have had mentions on the NME website Here, and also two mentions in the physical magzine (although I am finding it hard to find digital versions of these articles). Adam2201 (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update Here is one of the articles from the physical NME magazine (scroll down to the 30/03/09 issue). Adam2201 (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSIC#1, as demonstrated by User:Paul Erik above. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 07:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the article meets WP:MUSIC#1. Adam2201 (talk) 13:31, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Session[edit]

Non-notable game. Remurmur (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MLauba (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah, probably. Could you elaborate on the places where you've looked for sources and the other ways you've checked that this article is not in need of improvement but irredeemable within reasonable limits? --Kizor 21:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no GameFAQs page, the game was not rated by the ESRB, and the creator has a Deviant Art page. But really, just a quick glance at the official webpage should be enough to tell you that it's an amateur venture.--Remurmur (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it's certainly an amateur venture that's not a guarantee of non-notability, but it does mean that checking for things like ERSB ratings etc. isn't going to produce the relevant results. Someone another 00:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone another's got a point, Counter-Strike was an amateur venture... --Kiz o r 05:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, Counter-Strike was not self-published.--Remurmur (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ESRB rating because it's not a retail game - the latest titles on Big Fish Games don't have ESRB ratings either. The link you've posted is not the official webpage, but an affiliate seller, the official webpage is here. And what possible difference does it make if a game has an affiliate that also has a deviantart account? A better argument for deletion is that there's not really anything interesting in the wikipedia article itself, it's practically just an ad. - AmethystPhoenix (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Play This Thing! review (Greg Costikyan again), full-sized review on Game Tunnel and a huge wibbling article on Game Set Watch. Lovely jubbly. Someoneanother 01:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which are major enough news sources to count as "significant coverage" per WP:N.--Remurmur (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the building consensus on Game Tunnel and GameSetWatch seems to indicate that these two are acceptable sources under the Wikiproject VideoGames sources list. On the other side, the presence (or lackthereof) of a GameFAQs page has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. MLauba (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by major, independent games are a corner of the gaming spectrum with their own corner of gaming journalism to which all of these sites belong. IGN and GameSpot don't make a habit of reviewing small-scale indie games any more than Fast Car Magazine runs features on caravans. Emily Short's piece has been reprinted on Gamasutra (see here), which is on the reliable sources list. Costikyan's site and personal opinions are relevant due to his background. Game Tunnel, at that time, was run by Russell Carroll who is now a game producer for Reflexive Entertainment, again relevant to this area. Someone another 15:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep per SomeoneAnother. Costikyan, Game Tunnel and GameSetWatch, makes three independent sources which aren't being challenged for reliability under the Wikiproject Video Games at present. Passes inclusion threshold in my book. MLauba (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the quality of the coverage linked to above is satisfactory. Integration into a "critical reception" section is required, natch. Marasmusine (talk) 13:02, 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. per WP:SNOW J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call Of Duty Forum[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources providing independent coverage, but since it asserts notability, cannot be speedied under A7. MLauba (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MLauba (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, all sources provided are clearly unverifiable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a damn shame it cannot be speedy deleted because its quite obvious what the outcome should and will eventually be here. JBsupreme (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:WEB by a huge margin. References are completely unverifiable - they might as well have provided none at all. A quick look at the forum itself revealed that the most users logged in at once is 11. —LedgendGamer 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Article claims "over 20,000" members, but the footer on the forum reveals that there are actually only 41. The article claims that the site is within Alexa's top 100K, but Alexa has no data on the board. The article claims that the board was "launched in March 2009", but the domain was only registered a week ago. Quite simply, this article isn't just describing a non-notable board - it's also full of obvious lies. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per Zetawoof's explanation. Alexius08 (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Article should have been speedy deleted instead of bringing it to AFD. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:23, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Yan-Lam[edit]

Unsourced biography of unnotable person that remained unsourced for two years Alexius08 (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, he is a bodyguard. Sounds like a good guy. Unfortunately, not notable. Delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeeeeesh, two years? Really?? Wikipedia really makes me sad. JBsupreme (talk) 21:26, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gundam fix figuration[edit]

As per WP:NOTCATALOG; article looks like an online catalog (I know because I did the organizing), also the main reason why it was deleted on the (now-deleted) Master Grade and HGUC articles. Items listed here are not "notable sales of rare collectors items" and has no other justified reason to have an article or part of an article here in Wikipedia (although it might be useful in the mech's own articles and (maybe) in other Gundam-related wikis). E Wing (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the original contributor of the list, then I can't argue about keeping it. However it proved to be very useful to me, as there is scarce non-Japanese material about GFF, and because that's the only complete listing which cited the different variations for each figure. As you suggested, maybe in the Gundam Wikia pages such listing would be more appropriated, as there is already a listing for HGUC releases. So for me it is ok to delete this page, but then I'd like to have a link to the external GFF release list at Wikia. If you agree I will setup such entry there. Mgmalheiros (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your talkpage. All that was left to do is that some admin here will allow such kind of external link. E Wing (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Remove the prices, and it isn't catalog, but a legitimate list for a notable toy line. If the action figures are from a popular series, they normally get listed somewhere. Dream Focus 16:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a catalog to me, but some cleanup can be done to fix that. I've removed the wordpress reference, blogs aren't reliable sources. If the toyline can be found to have more reliable third party sources and a suitable lead written, it can potentially be improved. Thats a big if, but the possibility is there. I do agree with the suggestion the information be copied to a wikia though. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nuke from oribt; it's the only way to be sure. Product/price catalog. --EEMIV (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a catalog, not advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not here - Very much like a catalog and a collectors checklist :( Its greatest fail is that it is something for Fans while articles in Wikipedia should aim to appeal to the widest readers audience. The numbers of Reliable Sources found ( or to be found) to verify the exactitude of this article that won't solve that issue unfortunately. So the best would be to trans-wiki it to a more Gundam fans focused place or to ~~use carpet bombing on it~~ delete it. --KrebMarkt 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete great info for Gundam fans, not so great for wikipedia readers. Wikia is the place for this. --Oscarthecat (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not here - Find a good place to put this information. For collectors this would be a good list, but not for general readers. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:43, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phat Ass White Girl[edit]

Non notable pornography term/slang. LeninAwaken (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this article because the term sees a lot of use in porn, with 'PAWG' being a very much used term in certain areas of the pornography fan community, particularly amongst black male porn fans, and I felt that something needed to be put on Wikipedia to explain it. Merge if you like, but it is a notable term.--Highly frenetic (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right,m in which case you need to have some references to that. Even for merged content, it will still need the references. DGG (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even assuming that the problems with sourcing and original research could be fixed, can this ever be more than an elaborate restatement of the title? It seemed fairly self-explanatory to me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above this is not urban dictionary Yourname (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carbon Rodney 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to Wiktionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oniongas (talk • contribs) 09:14, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fontanne[edit]

Obvious neologism and also a case of things being made up. TN X Man 20:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Possibly also a hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense or a test, or AFD as a hoax. It was previously nominated for speedy as a test edit. This article contains text from the article Spork which is the common name for the utensil in question, and seeks to create another article to document the fact that some students at a high school allegedly decided to call it a "Fontanne." No references other than original research ("I heard it" has been presented to document that anyone even at that high school calls it that. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. No relevant results at Google News or Google Book Search. Edison (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to argue contesting the deletion of the page describing fontanne.

First, it's obvious this wouldn't show up on a Google News or Book Source. Not all Wikipedia article subjects do.

I also don't appreciate the way that the administrators have treated this posting - especially WikiDan61. In his first reply to my question of "why is this page marked for deletion?", he ended up "yelling" in all caps. If Wikipedia expects quality standards from contributors, why can't they hold themselves and their admins to the same?

As an interjectory note, I should point out that I am not a Wikipedia administrator. Just an editor interested in upholding the quality of Wikipedia. If my all caps was interpreted as yelling, I apologize. I intended it to be meant for emphasis, but I should have used bold instead of all caps. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second, you don't want first person reporting? Understandable. If you want to hold that standard to yourselves for a second, please take a look at Google News, which your admin attempted to use to un-verify my article (above). Google News isn't a news organization. It's not official, and it doesn't take responsibility for the articles posted on it. It doesn't even produce any of the news it shows! It's aggregating the news of reporters from various sources, most (if not all) of which use first person experience in their reporting. So, in essence, you're trying to confirm that my use of first person reporting is wrong by attempting to disprove it with first person reporting.

Second interjection: No, Google News isn't a news organization. It's a news aggregator, which means that it collects information from reliable news organizations and presents them for search. So searching Google News is the equivalent of searching MANY reliable news organizations simultaneously. And I believe you are mistaking what counts as "first-person accounts". If a reporter interviews a witness to a news event, the witness' account is a first-person account, but the reporter's writing on it is a second-person account, which is made more reliable by the fact that the reporter and his or her editors will check the facts in the first-person account before printing it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I'd like to quote something from your (Wikipedia's) article on Dialect.

A dialect is distinguished by its vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation...

Essentially, couldn't it be argued that using the word fontanne instead of/in addition to the word spork is a form of dialect? The vocabulary is different and so is the pronunciation. I'd like to disregard the grammar part of that quote, because some dialects of Mandarin and Cantonese Chinese use the same grammar but different words, characters, or tone. I've not included this in the article yet, but as I noted at the top of the page, it's still under construction.

Final interjection: A dialect, like any other fact in Wikipedia, must be notable and verifiable. The use of a neologismy by a handful of people may, in their own minds, constitute a dialectual variation, but this does not make the dialect globally notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't take this the wrong way. I'm very sympathetic to the admins at Wikipedia and realize that they have a hard job to fulfill, but I really wish that they'd step back and take a look at what they're doing, too.

Go ahead and delete the fontanne article if you wish. The world's watching.

Jacobw125 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure it meets any speedy criterion, but it's clearly an attempt to use Wikipedia inappropriately. To the extent the world may be watching this article, they'll be glad to know we are maintaining our standards. DGG (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. Alexius08 (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many times I have "saved" articles nominated for deletion by finding books, magazine articles, and newspaper article which have some coverage of the subject. I did not note the utter absence of your neologism as proof it was not notable enough for an article. I was just demonstrating that the deletion recommendation was not an arbitrary and capricious one reflecting a failure to do due diligence by searching for references. No, "fontanne" is not a "dialect." It is a neologism that has not caught on anywhere. A [Dialect|dialect]] is a regional speech pattern. You and your two friends do not constitute a "region" or a "social class." Does "Go ahead and delete the fontanne article if you wish" mean that the article can now be deleted under CSD G7, as a speedy request by the author? Edison (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

From Wikipedia's Region article.

"A region is a geographical term that is used in various ways among the different branches of geography. In general, a region is a medium-scale area of land or water, smaller than the whole areas of interest..."

Technically, the use of the word fontanne in this case does qualify for a dialect of English, because it's not just "me and my two friends" using it and, to my knowledge, the people who are using it are spread out over at least two cities.

"Regions can be defined by physical characteristics, human characteristics, and functional characteristics."

Both human and functional characteristics are unique to the area containing the people using the word "fontanne". Again, another qualification for a dialect.

No, it's not a request for a speedy delete. Nice try. :-)

Jacobw125 (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to allow the author of the article to change his argument. I wish to argue that the usage of the word "fontanne" over more than "me and my two friends" and their respective locations classifies the area containing them as a region, which in turn allows the use of the word "fontanne" to be classified as a dialect of the language English. Jacobw125 (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice try. I disagree with your assertions about the claimed usage by you and your friends, or even the claimed "people in two cities" constituting a "region" and making the neologism a "dialect." And what are the reliable sources (other than your original research) to verify your assertions that people in two cities (which?) use the term? Edison (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm in Chapel Hill. I use this word. I now challenge anyone else (from another city) to verify that they use the word 'fontanne' instead of the word 'spork'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobw125 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentYour statement isoriginal research and "I've heard of it" arguments are not any more persuasive in AFD than "I like it." Reliable sources are required. Edison (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was surprised and appalled at the treatment this page has been getting over the past two days. I personally consider this word a part of my vocabulary. I also happen to live in Cary, which I suppose would qualify this word for a dialect in a region. Spiceboy12 (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC) — Spiceboy12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- CommentYour statement constitutes original research and "I've heard of it" arguments are not any more persuasive in AFD than "I like it." Reliable sources are required.Edison (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I believe there's a difference between an "I've heard of it" or an "I like it" and an "I USE it". Personal experience is invariably more reliable than speculation, right? Jacobw125 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment No, "I use it" is still original research. Edison (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One word does not a dialect make; it can, however, make a Wiktionary entry if it's verifiable in reliable sources. This one fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Well worded. Perhaps I'll attempt to submit it there later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobw125 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. No notability established. I understand, and agree that it is a pity, that poets get little coverage, but this one's seems to be really very very little, not enough to establish notability of the subject and reliability to the article - Nabla (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Elsner[edit]

This person does not have sufficient notability to warrant an article. The article has been carefully constructed to give the impression that this person is a well-published and established writer, but a little online research suggests otherwise. I suspect this article has been written by the person it concerns, especially since it has mostly been written and edited by one user. Peejles (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "a little online research" is not always adequate to determine whether a subject has adequate sources to write a high quality NPOV article. If the article is written by someone knowledgeable about the subject, then engaging them in discussion is usually the best way to determine if there are adequate RS to write an entry. Some discussion with the main editor might be helpful here. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "a little online research" is perfectly adequate to see very clearly in this case that there is no major published body of work to warrant an article on this poet, nor any available secondary literature, and this is backed up by my own specialist knowledge in late 20th century American poetry (which I mentioned below earlier). The sources given below to justify the article are misleading:

To join the Poets & Writers Directory, which the main editor uses below as a qualifying reason for this article, is in fact a free online service where anyone can register and create a profile and describe themselves as a writer. There is no selection process. The San Francisco Public Library is the only library in the world listed on Worldcat [11]that owns a copy of her book, so is one book in one library really enough to establish notability? --Peejles (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Correction The P&W Directory most certainly has an application and selection process. See Evaluation Criteria.- CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 21:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - About Public Libraries: Due to reliance on public (municipal) funding and the budgetary and space constraints that derive from it, and in light of a tremendous volume of books submitted, every entry undergoes the most stringent review process by professional librarians and departmental editorial staff before a decision is made to include it in the catalog and give it shelf space. Many more books are rejected than are accepted. The fact that this poet's book was selected speaks to its merit. The SFPL is a venerable institution. Their expert judgment is impeccable. --CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 21:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to be ignoring the criteria - WP:CREATIVE - and the fact Ana Elsner is extremely obscure and has only been published once in a scarcely distributed book by an extremely obscure publisher who only seems to have published this poet and no-one else. The words "castles in the sky" spring to mind. --Peejles (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response A public library does not carry "castles in the sky", they carry real books by real authors, works that they judge to be worthy of the reading public's attention. --CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 22:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Poetry Publishing - It is a sad but well-known fact that poetry is not a significantly commercial product. The market for poetry is minuscule compared to that of other literary genres. Therefore the large publishing houses shy away from taking a chance on, and incurring a considerable expense in, publishing it, with the exception of keeping up the well-established standard stock of textbook poets, mostly deceased, whose names assure 'brand name recognition' and a steady trickle of sales. That fact does not make contemporary poetry any less important in literary society, it does, however, curtail its widespread dissemination.
That is where small poetry presses come in. I have researched this area well and recommend that anyone interested in this subject read the Wikipedia article Small press:

"Since the profit margins for small presses can be narrow, many are driven by other motives, including the desire to help disseminate literature with only a small likely market. Small presses tend to fill the niches that larger publishers neglect. ..." and "Many small presses rely on specialization in genre fiction, poetry, or limited-edition books or magazines. ..."

I myself support such "indie publishers" because I have found through them a vast reservoir of contemporary voices that are compelling and mind-broadening, albeit continuously marginalized. Clearly InstaPLANET Press, this poet's publisher, falls into that category and should not be discriminated against based on its relative obscurity. -CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 23:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response This diatribe on publishing culture is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The fact remains that Elsner is a very obscure poet who does not meet the creative criteria, and this article is clearly an exercise in self-promotion. A link at the bottom of the poet's publisher's - InstaPLANET - website to InstaPLANET.com has CulturalUniverse written in big letters at the top. Clearly this user, CulturalUniverse, is in some ways involved with the publisher, and I would even bet my bottom dollar that it's the poet herself. --Peejles (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You lose that bet, my friend. I am certainly not a poet, merely a fervent admirer of poetry. (I wish I was a poet myself, but I lack the talent.) Cultural Universe is a generic term not protected by © copyright. Anyone can use it. I can use it without copyright infringement. I do use it because I like it. It has nothing whatever to do with the website you refer to, though I am aware of that site. CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 19:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE Dlabtot (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:CREATIVE because
- Poet qualified to be included in the Poets & Writers Directory,
- Poet's book qualified to be included in the San Francisco Public Library catalog,
- Poet qualified to be included in The Other Voices International Project,
- This biography of a living poet has already passed the Wiki Project Biography team's review. It was flagged "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography" by the Arts and Entertainment Work Group.
CulturalUniverse (talk) Wikipédien aux pieds nus 08:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is willful and unjustified[edit]

The AfD flag was put on this page by an anonymous user. The authority of this individual, "Peejles", is highly suspect!

The article itself has already passed the Wiki Project Biography team's review and was rated by them as belonging to B-class. See Talk:Ana_Elsner.

To substantiate the merit of the article and the person it is about, go to http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Ana+Elsner%22&aq=f&oq= and you will see that this person is well established in her field.

Flagging the article for deletion by someone who has not identified himself/herself on the Wikipedia site must be construed as vandalism and shall be treated and reported as such.

Respectfully, Wikipédien aux pieds nus 23:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC) User:CulturalUniverse , proud Wikipedian since June 2005

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure how the user who nominated this article is any more or less anonymous than any other user on Wikipedia. Can you explain that comment? As far as I'm aware, any user is allowed to nominate an article for deletion without special "authority," as long as it's not abundantly apparent that the user is doing so in bad faith. After a quick look at the article, I would not put the nominator in the bad faith category, as it appears that all the sources provided are closely related to the subject. Are there reliable sources available that are independent of the subject of this article? Rnb (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rnb: In contrast to "Peejles", you did make and publish your own user page. On your "Rnb" user page you tag yourself as DGAF "This user (Rnb) does not give a fuck". Oh, really?
FYI: This biography of a living poet has already passed the Wiki Project Biography team's review. It was flagged "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography" by the Arts and Entertainment Work Group.
CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 08:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did create my own user page, but I wouldn't say that people who don't do that are anonymous, as user pages frequently have little to no information about the identity of the user. I also don't believe people are required to create a user page. At any rate, the article still needs to cite reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but as to whether or not those sources exist, I suspect others would know better than I would. Rnb (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Granted I don't have a user page, but this doesn't make flagging up this article vandalism. With regards to my "authority" I am writing a doctoral thesis on late 20th century American poetry with a particular interest in the San Francisco Bay Area.

This article concerns a poet who is extremely marginal. The press (Instaplanet) who have published her work seem only to have published her, and are not a major or significant publishing house. Her work is missing from all crucial surveys (indeed all surveys) of San Francisco Bay Area poetry [eg. see 'Bay Poetics', ed. Stephenie Young, (Cambridge, MA, 2006)]. Also, there is no truly independent mention/discussion/assessment of her work anywhere online.

The subject of this article does not meet any of the necessary criteria for inclusion whatsoever; if this 'poet' is deserving of an article, any have-a-go writer is. This article is wholly misleading, and paints Elsner as being a significant poet, when in fact she is overwhelmingly marginal. --Peejles (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are not determining whether "a poet is deserving of an article" or if the person is a "significant poet". The sole purpose of the discussion is to decide if there are enough reliable sources available to create a well written NPOV entry. It is important to keep our comments focused on the purpose of the discussion, okay? FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Almost all of the biographical and promotional material on the Web seems to be ultimately traceable to the poet herself. Dlabtot is correct that the criteria of WP:CREATIVE are not fulfilled here. Deor (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is very little "promotional material" about this poet on the web. In fact, with the exception of her publisher's site there are no commercial sites at all that come up in a search on this author. The sites that do come up in any web search are based on factual reporting on this poet and her activities by way of news coverage or other data dissemination. Of course the biographical material is traceable to the poet herself because she was the one being interviewed and sourced. User:CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "promotional" I merely meant stuff like "Ana Elsner will be reading her poems at <library branch or other venue> on <date>. Elsner is a multilingual writer, poet, artist and translator …" As for "news coverage," I don't see any. (You need not respond to this, as you've already made your opinion clear. And put on some shoes, for pete's sake. :-)) Deor (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deor, Yes, I will put some shoes on, eventually :) In response to the points you raised: -1- I could not find your quote "Ana Elsner will be reading her poems at <library branch or other venue> on <date>" on the article page. Actually, what I had done was put a representative mention of Elsner's readings into this paragraph here: Ana_Elsner#Readings, and link to two reputable sites for reference, The Academy of American Poets Event Listing and the Glen Park Library posting. -2- Re. your quote "Elsner is a multilingual writer, poet, artist and translator....", I got that basic stuff directly from 'interviewing' the poet via email, and confirmed it from the data on independent sites like this: The Other Voices International Project Volume 30. -3- Regarding news coverage, admittedly Reuters, AP, CNN, ABC etc. have not reported anything about Ana Elsner (yet!), but I did find other 'evidence' of news bulletins about this poet at various sites such as The Randall Museum Program, Heather World's article and others, all independent non-affiliated entities. I also found some printed mentions and reviews from sources that have no internet presence. I think we web-citizens often forget that there exist more traditional (and perhaps archaic) modes of news reporting and dissemination, to wit, the printed news papers which are fast becoming obsolete, yet were the major and only community conduit since 1605.
Let me say this (perhaps it does not count for much or any, but it certainly is my heartfelt testimony): If I, as a scholar, were not convinced of this poet's impact on contemporary poetry, present and future, I would hardly have taken the time to create a comprehensive Wikipedia entry for her and continue to research her. I was most gratified when on April 16, 2008, the article I created and maintain was approved and assessed as 'B' class by the WikiProject-Biography and tagged "This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group". It proves that the Wikipedia editors and admins in charge of biographies recognize the merit of my contribution. Why should their judgment be put in question now or at any time? CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 02:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't remove this important biography from Wikipedia. Ana Elsner is one of the few modern American poets who is not mired in the Hallmark swamp. Undoubtedly that accounts for her being ignored among the chattering classes or the paucity of her references on the Google slag heap. But those of us who follow her work are treated to an unequaled view of the societal condition from a place in the soul we never knew existed. When you finish an Elsner poem, lay it on the nightstand, turnout the light, and turnover, you're likely to stare into the darkness saying over and over, "My God, that's how I feel too. But why didn't I realize it before?" And you'll be haunted by that thought and feelings of your own shallowness over and over. I've seen the hard copy of "Crossing Boundaries" from the International Review of Poetry and Photography that's referenced on the Wikipedia site in issue. It's truly a first-class, powerful merger of words and images rarely seen. And I for one look forward to discovering more of Ana Elsner's work in the literary journals and in upcoming books authored by her, no matter the publisher. I can scarcely believe that you are seriously considering removing her biography from this online encyclopedia! - KAL

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.217.10 (talk)

Reply - Thank you "KAL" for your endorsement. Whoever you are, to me you represent all those viewers and searchers who visit the Ana Elsner biography page here on Wikipedia, and seem to get a lot out of it. Thanks again for 'speaking up'. Opinions such as yours are invaluable in confirming the validity and relevance of this article to the community of web-citizens at-large.
- CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 01:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I want to invite you to join us here at Wikipedia by creating an account. Thanks again. - CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 01:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet inclusion guidelines. There is no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources regarding this subject (biography). ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Request deletion of stub. - Wikipédien aux pieds nus 04:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC) --- I retract this entry based on subsequent developments - CulturalUniverse, Wikipédien aux pieds nus 21:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin: The above post is actually posted by User:CulturalUniverse. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 25 APR 2009 This morning I received notice from Ana Elsner, the subject of the article, that she withdraws her consent to have her biography or any parts thereof posted on Wikipedia, effective immediately. She instructed me to remove any and all data and content that I had gathered about her and had published here.
It is with great regret that I will execute her demand. I understand that since the life of a living person is concerned here, that person has every right to disallow having her biography displayed on this site. I must respect her right to do so.
CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 01:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My problem with this is that anyone could claim that the subject of any article had contacted them asking for the deletion of their article on Wikipedia! I'm not sure if you can just delete it (even though you created it), or if someone can request for their article to be deleted if it doesn't infringe copyright law. We need to follow the rules. Having said that, if the creator of the article agrees it should be deleted then there's probably no need for further discussion. --Peejles (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I am the Wikipedia user who first started this page on July 2, 2007, based on information supplied directly by Ana Elsner herself, whom I had met personally at a literary event. If you check the page history you will see that I am also the sole contributor to this article as more data was becoming available from the poet or about the poet. -CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 03:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment You yourself exercised your right to install an AfD, prompting for deletion of this page, based on your personal POV. Now you are seeking arguments to prevent this page from being deleted. Make up your mind. Let us know what your true intentions and objectives are, other than seeking personal notoriety as evidenced by the 11 mostly petulant entries you made on this page so far. - CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 03:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In summary Whoever you are or think you are, you have made this matter your personal cause célèbre. This is highly inappropriate. I am done taking you for anyone other than a troublemaker. Let somebody else deal with you and your 'problems'. - CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 03:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I simply said it's not necessarily up to you to delete it. This whole 'the poet suddenly asked me to get rid of the article' seems very suspicious/convenient. I wholly support its deletion because the subject does not warrant inclusion. I have not been petulant, I have simply raised the point that Wikipedia isn't for articles about people who have no notability. As far as I'm aware an administrator needs to authorise deletion, and if you blank the article (like you tried to remove the AfD notice) it's likely to be reverted. --Peejles (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject fails to meet wikipedia's guidelines for notability. There are no reliable sources providing coverage about this poet. I will also note that User:CulturalUniverse, the original author of the article may have a conflict of interest. The user name of Cultural Universe seems to align with Instaplanet which uses the same term. Instaplanet is also the small press that publishes Ana Elsner's poetry. -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable to me. Notable people don't get to choose whether they have an article or not, any more than they get to choose whether a newspaper writes them up or a website publishes their picture (privacy laws notwithstanding). Stifle (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On what grounds does she seem notable to you? -- Whpq (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The references that CulturalUniverse provided. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History - past and recent I started this article after hearing Ana Elsner read from her work at the San Francisco Public Library and approaching her with the proposal to put her biography on the Wikipedia online encyclopedia. At that time she gave me her permission and supplied all the data necessary to write a good biographical article. That was in July 2007. Since creating the page I have kept it updated as new information became available but not before first getting Elsner's consent in advance of posting each new entry. Through countless emails and telephone conversations over the last 2 years, as well as some personal contact on occasions when I attend her readings, we, biographer and poet, have established a trust relationship.
On April 23 Ana Elsner noticed the AfD placed on her biography. Yesterday, April 25, she contacted me, saying that it was offensive to her that her notability was put into question. She asked me to delete the article I had created. I apologized to her and began to remove the bio last night. I just saw that it has been put back. User Stifle's subsequent comment states "Notable people don't get to choose whether they have an article or not..."

When I defended the article's merit by citing that this biography of a living poet has already passed the Wiki Project Biography review and that it was categorized B-class, not a single person acknowledged this fact... Instead, the prevailing strategy was to bring all kinds of allegations, impugning my neutrality and conjuring up some ridiculous conspiracy theory regarding my user name, a website's header and a small poetry press. Are you hoping that if you sling enough mud, enough of it will stick? Never mind the fundamental Wikipedia principle of "assuming good faith"...

I ask the admins to examine what exactly has been put on public trial here, a user, a user's good name, a user's contribution, the Elsner biography or the very principles of Wikipedia? - Biographer of poet Ana Elsner, Wikipédien aux pieds nus 22:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are you claiming that you have no conflict of interest, and that you are not affiliated n some way with Instaplanet? -- Whpq (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to be put on the defensive based on some witch-hunt. Let me say this one time: I have never engaged in self-promotion on this site. I have not built in any commercial links or any other advertising into my contributions. I do not derive, nor aim to derive, any personal gain from posting on Wikipedia. I have endeavored to strictly adhere to NPOV in creating this biography and to keep it spotlessly clean and free of bias.
Whpq, Not only do you NOT afford me, your fellow Wikipedian, the courtesy of "assuming good faith", but your persistence in using COI allegations borders on harassment. I strongly advise you to cease and desist your accusatory conduct, a conduct that is sadly reminiscent of McCarthyism. You are wasting my time and yours. - A Wikipedian living in his own Cultural Universe, Wikipédien aux pieds nus 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal practice to declare "if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article" as per WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD. -- Whpq (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Message from a Non-Insider Although I am not a Wikipedian, I believe I have the right to weigh in at this forum. I do consult Wikipedia from time to time and that is how I happened on to this flap over poet Ana Elsner's biography, initiated by Peejles. The most striking thing about this controversy is how un-wikipedian and how unsourced or uninformed the arguments against Elsner's inclusion in this encyclopedia really are.

Case-in-point: Peejles post citing the so-called survey "Bay Poetics, ed. Stephenie (sic) Young, (Cambridge, MA, 2006)" to support the claim that Elsner is an "extremely marginal" poet. In doing so, Peejles' lost all credibility. In fact, and I have the book right in front of me, Bay Poetics is no survey at all. Not even its editor, Stephanie Young, would characterize her collection as a survey in light of this statement she made in the introduction: "I started with my friends, and then the writers important to my friends. I followed lines of personal relationship because I was curious what formal or tonal connections might emerge between those who share their affection." Bay Poetics, p. IX. The representation that Bay Poetics is a "survey" is either a deliberate misrepresentation or a complete misunderstanding of that publication.
Even if Bay Poetics is relied upon as a criterion in evaluating the standings of regional poets, then take note Wikipedia editors: Every, let me repeat, every San Francisco poet laureate as well as the Oakland poet who served as the official California poet laureate at the same time that editor Young compiled her Bay Poetics, all these distinguished poets must have been considered to be marginal because she omitted all of them. Hence, Elsner's omission from Bay Poetics puts her in the company of some of the most prominent poets.
If you take the time to investigate, you will see that Elsner's work has been published in anthologies and literary journals in Italy, Germany and Austria. Her sponsored appearances and international credits exceed those of the entire lot of poets (all 110) who appear in Bay Poetics.
Also completely dismissed from this discussion is the fact that two former San Francisco poets laureates and prominent Bay Area literary figures, Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Jack Hirschman, provided resounding endorsements of Elsner's work.
For what it's worth, I have personally attended a program, funded by The Friends of The San Francisco Public Library, where Elsner shared the podium with former San Francisco poet laureate devorah major. At another SFPL event her co-feature was the principal oboist of the San Francisco Opera orchestra. Researching primary sources at the San Francisco Public Library will quickly bring to light these repeated prestigous engagements.
In summary, Peejles charge that Elsner is a "marginal" artist remains unsubstantiated and demonstrates to me his complete lack of knowledge about the San Francisco literary scene.
As has been pointed out already, Elsner's bio apparently passed a review by the Wiki Project Biography team. To my knowledge her bio has appeared on Wikipedia for a considerable period of time now.
For these reasons among others, a basic standard of fairness requires, it seems to me, that her detractors satisfy a heavy burden of proof before this bio is removed. From what I can see on this page, no one has met that burden
Signed: KAL, a Member of the Public-at-large —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.217.10 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KAL, I am most gratified that there are people like you out there who have first-hand knowledge of Ana Elsner, her work and her track-record. Thank you for coming forward. --- Please don't think that your voice is of less importance in this matter than is that of an "Insider". - CulturalUniverse, Wikipédien aux pieds nus 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What aspect of WP:CREATIVE do you feel this person meets? Alternatively, what independent sources can be used to satisfy the general notability guideline? Rnb (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of 'Bay Poetics' was merely a quick example. I find 'KAL' and CulturalUniverse's remarks rather offensive in this discussion. To argue that Ana Elsner is an important well-published literary figure is, frankly, delusional. Surely anyone can see with a google search that there are no reliable independent sources available to establish any notability, and the ones CulturalUniverse provides are dubious to the point of being laughable? And besides, how do they possibly meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria? The unsigned remarks above seem to be asking me to source the poet's lack of notability! How ridiculous. This discussion is at a complete dead-end. Surely it should be up to CulturalUniverse to list the surveys that Ana Elsner is in, rather than me to list all the ones she isn't in, ie. all of them! Poets & Writers Directory relies on a points-based system, so anyone only needs a minimum of 6 poems on an edited website to be a member. It's nominal, and I would qualify. --Peejles (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ms. Elsner may indeed be a talented poet, but the credentials listed here are not even remotely sufficient to establish notability. Listing in Poets & Writers should in no way be considered evidence of notability....I too am listed, for the record, and I am not (yet!) a notable poet. I have always considered myself an inclusionist, but to include this article without further evidence of notability undermines the basics of WP:CREATIVE 7triton7 (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discrediting the P&W inclusion is addressing one argument. It leaves standing substantive facts like
- Poet's book qualified to be included in the San Francisco Public Library catalog,and make no mistake about it: this is a milestone.
- Poet qualified to be included in The Other Voices International Project right alongside Billy Collins,
- This biography of a living poet has already passed the Wiki Project Biography team's review by the Arts and Entertainment Work Group., a fact that is conveniently overlooked by all detractors - CulturalUniverse, Wikipédien aux pieds nus 03:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having a book in the library doesn't automatically mean the author meets the notability guidelines, nor does having it in included in a project. As far as the biography review, I believe that's more a review of the quality of the article, not the notability of the subject, and I'm still confused as to how the review missed the article having independent sources. The best way to show the subject is notable is to find reliable sources that are independent of the subject and cite them in the article. Are there reliable third party sources that show the notability of this subject? Or that show the subject meets WP:CREATIVE? Rnb (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a matter of fact, there are third party sources. Perhaps you are familiar with poet laureates Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Jack Hirschman. Both these venerable poets have reviewed and endorsed the work of poet Ana Elsner. "To create true poetry requires hunger and passion, and Ana Elsner has it, in spades." Lawrence Ferlinghetti, and "The rage comprised in the intellectual landscapes of Ana Elsner's lonely journey in poetic form disparages war and injustice with cries for the rebirth of human dignity and compassion." Jack Hirschman. - CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 04:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, where were these reviews published? Rnb (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were published in June of 2007. - Wikipédien aux pieds nus 20:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC), CulturalUniverse

Where were the reviews published? What journal or book, etc., were they published in? Rnb (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both reviews are on the back cover of Ciphers of Uncommon Origin, Volume I, along with another review by Terry Tarnoff, author of The Bone Man of Benares. From what I understand, review copies of the manuscript were sent to Hirschman, Ferlinghetti and Tarnoff. All three then mailed back their review text. These were put on the back cover verbatim. - Wikipédien aux pieds nus 21:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(indent) I don't think those can be used as sources as they're not independent of the subject because they appear on the subject's book. If there's another source for those, an independent review journal or website or scholarly journal, those could be cited as independent sources to establish notability. Rnb (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So these quotations are just solicited blurbs, and so cannot be taken as independent, especially since they appear on the book itself. (Although I obviously don't know in this case, blurb reviews are also commonly written for a fee.) And three quotations, even if they were in a review journal and so on, doesn't vaguely constitute the poet being "widely cited by their peers or successors". --Peejles (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Observation The more I look at the postings on this page, the more I become convinced that what we are dealing with here is a generation gap. People such as Ferlinghetti, Hirschman and so many others are still very much alive but are of the pre-internet era (and I must largely include myself in that group). The present cyber-generation seems to abide by the premise that 'if something does not come up in a google search, it does not exist.'
Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, the internet lags so far behind in capturing the vast body of cultural legacy that exists and pre-dates all the bits and bytes of today's world, that it will never catch up. Meanwhile, your 'google mentality' seems sad and pathetic, as least from the perspective of this old geezer. But, since I am on your turf here, I must abide by the strictures you have laid upon yourselves and upon interlopers such as I. - CulturalUniverse, Wikipédien aux pieds nus 05:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another observation Ferlinghetti and Hirschman both come up with reliable third party google results / sources, so your point is completely void. They are notable, Elsner's not, and no amount of pontificating about generational nonsense is going to change that fact. And I don't think calling other users 'sad and pathetic' is going to help your argument; there's no need to throw your toys out of the pram! --Peejles (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accipe hoc
The very same users have been engaging me over and over again, spending copious amounts of time on this issue. Unfortunately I do not have the luxury of unlimited time at my disposal.
This discussion has grown above and beyond what is warranted here (right now it stands at 38 kilobytes).
I have endeavored to state my arguments in as comprehensive and clear a fashion as deemed appropriate. I rest my case.
The biographical article about the poet Ana Elsner has spawned a long and lively discussion, a fact, which in itself is noteworthy.
- CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 23:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The offered information establishes neither notability nor verifiability for biographical information. --Clay Collier (talk) 03:24, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–Haiti relations[edit]

Created by an obsessive stub creator; barely any content; the fact that Canada gives aid to the poorest country in its hemisphere is entirely unremarkable and would be better dealt with in Foreign aid to Haiti Canvasback (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Is there a guideline somewhere about looking at articles before voting on them? Canvasback (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation when there's something more to say. (Yes, I have looked at the article...) Peridon (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone's found something more to say, so I change my opinion. Peridon (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~I can tell :) Canvasback (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep I'd be surprised if this can't be expanded. There is a significant Haitian community in Canada ([12], which must have some effect on the relationships between the two countries. This book might be useful, although the snippet doesn't provide much detail. There are also the following sources: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [[20], [21] etc (just to give a sample of material available at Google News). Zagalejo^^^ 22:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the sources listed. As Canada participated in a military occupation of the island, (last ref above) they seem to have some notable relations indeed. Poor job of making an article, matched by a careless nomination from an spa who has just joined, to do nothing else but nominate and !vote to delete some of these articles. DGG (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a completely single-purpose account; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotels.com (2nd nomination). But remember that the creator of some of these articles has a history of making threats and attempting vendattas. Canvasback (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If it wasn't there when this was originally nominated, the Calgary Herald article, "Canada wants better monitoring, but remains committed to Haiti", of April 5, 2009, pretty much says it all-- "Yet while the United States is Haiti's largest overall donor, Canada's $555 million in aid over five years to 2011 represents the world's biggest per capita direct injection." That, plus the sources cited above, shows a more significant relationship than usually encountered in these random pairings. Mandsford (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I appreciate the sources found, but this stuff is better covered at MINUSTAH/List of Canadian Peacekeeping Missions & Foreign aid to Haïti. As stated, it's not a surprise that a wealthy hemispheric power sends cash and troops to the poorest and most miserable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some material. It is surprising that this is not a major article - huge number of sources, lots of controversy. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canada and Haiti have always had relations and there are a good amount of refs which i feel establishes the notability. Cheers Kyle1278 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N appears to be met from the sources provided, and I have no doubt that they're just the tip of the iceberg. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The current governor-general of Canada was a refugee from Haiti when a child. She has visited the island several times since her appointment and raised the consciousness of Canadians about Haiti. A notable subject that needs a lot of work. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs improvement. There is a growing Haitian community in Canada, Governor-General of Canada is from Haiti. Canada is involved in Haitian Government reconstruction since uprising. Etc. CaribDigita (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only the evidence gathered above by DGG, Mandsford, & Ron B. Thomson, but Haiti was added to the CIDA's short list of 20 preferred foreign aid recipients.[22] I wish the deletionists would do their homework. -- llywrch (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer is the creator of the article, now nominating it for deletion as disruption. Uncle G (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unbelievable. Whoever has aimed to "rescue" a worthless article on an utterly non-notable subject has come up with the basic WP:COATRACK trick. The article is a poor duplicate of content, including an utterly pointless take on the history of Haiti (more than 90% of this summary has nothing to do with Canada), and everything else, which can be summarized in a phrase or two, is by now redundant to several existing topical articles. Yes, another meaningless juxtaposition, another awful experiment in writing an article on nothing at all. Dahn (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address your concerns. Please review the current version of the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, whatever isn't (or should) already covered elsewhere is trivia that we wouldn't be covering at all were it not for "rescue" attempts directed at this article. Let me also note that, as a representative of the current who endorses keeping these articles on the basis of project goals in WP:BIAS, you seem to be tolerating the fact that most of the historical trivia now in the article is one-way, like it's written for Canadians or assumed that everybody knows the history of Canada, while Haiti's is a mystery to all. The bloating of an article through this method would technically expose another kind of bias, since Canada's own history isn't part of the bloating. Once you remove that pointless summary and other forms of cherry-picking trivia, you'd be exposing the fact that all relevant bits of text are something we could easily fold into other, more relevant, articles. Dahn (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I have added a couple of lines describing Canada. What articles should the content be folded into? Aymatth2 (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly my point... Regardless, and if you're really looking for those other articles: aside from the "Foreign relations..." for the bulk of it, you have the ones Biruitorul indicated above, and maybe a few other topical articles (though whatever is left other than the foreign aid and the info on Haitians in Canada seems too trivial to be needed anywhere). Dahn (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to disagree with you Canada and Haiti have had a lot of relations the Governor General of Canada is from Haiti this is a very notable article and it has both things about Canada and Haiti.Cheers Kyle1278 20:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? The father of the President of France is from Hungary: does this affect France–Hungary relations? The Prime Minister of Bulgaria was born in Ukraine, which has no bearing on Bulgaria–Ukraine relations. Janet Jagan, later President of Guyana, was born in Chicago, but what does that have to do with Guyana – United States relations? And so on. We note these facts in the subjects' biographies, because their significance does not extend to the bilateral relationships as such. (There are of course exceptions: Adolf Hitler's Austrian birth and upbringing had quite a bit to do with Austria–Germany relations - but that is hardly the norm.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way this article has enough context and reliable sources to be kept.Cheers Kyle1278 23:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and other contributors. Canada gives lots of foreign aid to Haiti and participated in a military occupation of the island.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough historical facts between the two nations to warrant an article. And plenty of third party media sources to meet that requirement. Dream Focus 03:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep duh. Jwray (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per llywrch and others. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:51, 27 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 support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOHARM is an invalid argument. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep: well-sourced and relevant as its own article. freshacconci talktalk 14:15, 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) 07:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malus Darkblade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fictional character that shows no evidence of notability. Please note that the Black Library is a part of Games Workshop. None of the "References" here are independent of the fictional publishing house, which is a requirement under WP:NOTE. Mintrick (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability Dlabtot (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion it is a good idea to flag concerns on the article (like the need for sources, etc.). The character is the star of a number of books and comic books and I'd be surprised if there aren't any interviews about character creation, development of story ideas, etc. or reviews. Granted the article needs quite a bit of work but have their been attempts to find sources? (Emperor (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- I did, in fact, take a look to see if anything popped up. There was nothing beyond fansites/forum posts and Games Workshop affiliates. Mintrick (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fictional character which plays a significant part in multiple novels and games. Dream Focus 15:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does any of that relate to WP:NOTE? Mintrick (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they changed the guidelines against this week, without alerting the general public. Note: any change done in secret by a small number of people, without an announcement for the millions of wikipedia users to know it was going on, isn't valid as far as I'm concerned. The suggested guidelines have been ignored in the past, and articles kept, do to ignore all rules and wp:common sense winning out the consensus. I'm going by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)/Original and the fact that there are thousands of articles dedicated to characters from major works of fiction, which under the new guidelines would have to be erased. Dream Focus 21:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, we should go by a page that says, right up top, that it's no longer relevant, and ignore all rules to follow your perspective exactly? That's an interesting take. Guidelines codify the "general consensus" of Wikipedia. They can be treated with the occasional exception, but this is nothing of the kind. You're proposing a systematic divergence from a guideline, which isn't an exception, but a change. If you think that way, try and change the guideline, don't ignore it. I think you'll find people have tried to codify just this exception before, but the community has rejected it. Mintrick (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't general consensus of all of wikipedia, but instead of a small number of people around at the time. And should we erase Steel_Brightblade, Palin_Majere, Raistlin, Caramon, Tika, and vast numbers of others? The character is notable because they are found in multiple works. Dream Focus 22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the community has affirmed notability again and again. There are always dissenters, but the consensus remains. Once more, I will say that appearances have nothing to do with notability. Your assertion that they do is absurd. All the characters you listed (with the possible exception of Raistlin himself) should probably be merged to a single Dragonlance characters article. Never mind that what you're saying is classic violation of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Mintrick (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The community has affirmed the old rules for years now. But, on April 9th, someone managed to change the guideline. [23] No consensus was formed, other than with under a dozen people who were around at the time to notice. The guidelines can not possibly reflect consensus with so few people participating. Hopefully it'll get changed back soon, and thus avoid this debate altogether in the future. I still say Keep based on wp:common sense, since under the changed guideline you'd have to erase almost every single character article there is. Dream Focus 10:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you're referring to did not change the guideline, it's someone proposing a new version. The general notability guideline, which is what I've shown to be applicable here, has been opened to much wider debate, yet remained intact. Mintrick (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have restructured the article so that it focuses on the series of comics and novels, in which the character is merely the titular character. The novels and comics may be notable as a group, and the "Character" and "Magical items" sections still need to be trimmed or axed for putting too much WP:UNDUE weight on in-universe elements (sometimes mixed with original research). – sgeureka ^t•c 06:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There don't appear to be any secondary sources here. AniMate^talk 23:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTLAW The guidelines are suggestions, not policies. Everything is kept by consensus of whoever is around at the time to comment, not on the guidelines. Does this article hurt anything? Does it make the wikipedia better, more complete, with something that would be of interest to some people? Dream Focus 01:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're citing something irrelevant. This article doesn't live up to the spirit of notability, it flies in its face. There is not a single independent, reliable source used in this article. The guidelines are rules, and there should only be exceptions when there's a good reason. You're not saying that an exception should be granted for any reason whatsoever, you're saying the guideline is flawed and should be systematically ignored. That is tantamount to saying that the general consensus of Wikipedia (which is, make no mistake, in support of notability) should be ignored in favor of your own personal preferences. Mintrick (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's citing what is most relevent... the true spirit behind the Pillars. It's kind of hard to dismiss the core principes... specially as each and every guideline (subordinant to policy) specifically and pointedly advises "best used with common sense and the occasional exception"... specially when the result serves to improv wiki's utility to the reader. If common sense was not expected to be used, or if the occasional exception were not allowed, that caveat would not head every guideline. Wiki is full of common sense exceptions, for it's not about "us"... its about those who peruse these pages... even in the face of that ever-changing bastion of popularity and hype currently called WP:N... a "guideline" that has itself been the subject of dispute and contention ever since written... one that has seen change and mutation on a continuing basis for years... and has uncountable hundreds of thousands of edits to its text, content, and meaning. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and the true spirit behind the five pillars is that the consensus regarding notability as essential should be ignored for all fictional characters, despite the fact that it's been reaffirmed over and over again? IAR does not mean that you can simply ignore established consensus and do exactly what you want. Other people have different visions of what Wikipedia should be, and in the realm of notability, the consensus in favor has withstood the test of time. I can't believe this is still difficult to understand. Exceptions are exceptional. They have good reasons. These keep votes are neither, they are a systematic attempt to ignore notability on a case-by-case basis, instead of abiding by general consensus. This is antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia. Mintrick (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IAR actually can be used to ignore guidelines if the result improves wikipedia's utitility and usefullness to readership, and as long as one strictly follows the core policies. And he is correct in that WP:N is not a policy nor Law... simply an often-changing guideline that acts as just that... a "guide". The ultimate spirit of wiki is to serve the readers, not the editors. We have to be able to step off our high horses once in a while and ask ourselves "does this act to increase a reader's understanding of a subject?" If it does, THAT is the exception.
HOWEVER, since the parent subject is notable, and since the spin-off has its own established notability (as seen by the numerous books), there really is no conflict with WP:N and is in complete compliance with WP:V. It's not as if we were discussing some very minor character. Malus Darkblade is THE main character of his own spin-off series of books and there are numerous precedents on Wikipedia for inclusion of articles on major characters from a "universe". Not being offered as Other Stuff Exists, but solely as examples of existing and established precedent... Hawkeye Pierce, Radar O'Reilly,Hot Lips Houlihan, Adrian Monk, Archie Bunker, "Tim The Tool Man" Taylor, Al Borland, and many, many others... Being discussed as a MAIN character in context with his universe, is allowed and encouraged. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a common misconception about notability. Licensed works are not independent, and don't count for notability. No quantity of such books indicate notability. Show me one single place in an active guideline where that is true. As for precedent, there are plenty of other characters that have been deleted or merged. IAR doesn't mean that you can just ignore rules to serve your own ends, or even the assumed ends of some other nebulous group you've presumed the right to speak for. Mintrick (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no misconceptions and I do not make assumptions... so I would appreciate you not presuming that I speak for anyone but myself. The various books meet WP:BOOKS. The subject of those books is allowed an article... else we'd have 7 seperate book articles and someone would be proposing a merge to create exactly what we have now. That other articles failed and were merged or deleted is a WP:OSE argument. Each must be considered on its own merits. And I will continue to believe that wiki exists to serve the readers and not the editors. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Why is this character notable?" "Well, because he's in all these books!" "Well, why are those books notable?" "..." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources establish independent notability for this fictional character. Then redirect to the warhammer thingamajig.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a character, a comic series, and a novel trilogy. Can anyone make an argument that any one of them is even passingly notable? This is a definite merge candidate if so, with something like Black Library being a good target. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. One of those things would have to be proven notable. I did a Google search for "The Daemon's Curse" OR "Bloodstorm" OR "Reaper of Souls" OR "Warpsword" OR "Lord of Ruin" AND "bestseller" and found Bloodstorm is listed as a bestseller in one published magazine. I'll focus on searching for it, and see if its notable enough to make an article about. Dream Focus 20:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it isn't Blood Storm, an unrelated bestseller novel by Colin Forbes? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google shows more promising hits. Locus magazine list the book on their bestseller's list. They have books from different companies and authors, so it seems legitimate. Only counts science fiction and fantasy novels of course. So that is one book so far the character has been in, which would count as notable. Dream Focus 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'm not sure what factual claim we could get from that. "This character appeared in a book that was the #5 bestseller of gaming-related book adaptations for a month in 2009"? :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=Malus+Darkblade Some of the books mentioning him have what appear to be fairly high sales ratings. Not sure how their ranking system works though. Dream Focus 21:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

googling his name in quotation marks gets 21400 hits. Seems to be a well talked about character among fans of that sort of thing. Dream Focus 21:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zilch in terms of significant coverage in secondary sourcing to meet WP:NOTE. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this satisfies the GNG. 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 speedy delete. Per previous discussion (G4). --auburnpilot talk 22:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Y'self[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Original article was deleted in January 2009. New article basically is the same. It lacks reliable secondary sources and the band's activity does not in any way assert notability under WP:BAND. Much of the article was copied and pasted from here. LargoLarry (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, no sources. Dlabtot (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would agree with SD. In reality no change from decision of recent AfD.--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 21:27, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celebracation[edit]

neologism which is described as existing only on one website for the purpose of advertising. Beach drifter (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-described neologism which torpedoes its notability in the entry. Wperdue (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does not meet our criteria for inclusion currently. Please don't send it over.—msh210 @enwikt 00:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks more like something that should be on Urban Dictionary. Article notes its own lack of notability - I can't even justify a transwiki to wiktionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is practically the definition of a protologism. We don't want it, and, as Dennisthe2 notes, Wiktionary wouldn't want it either. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone can make up a word, and people in advertising are especially talented at this, but that doesn't make it worth an article in WP.Northwestgnome (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Del NN.—msh210℠ 00:02, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angola–Serbia relations[edit]

These two countries do not have a notable bilateral relationship. There is none even asserted in the unreferenced stub, and there is none assertable if one seeks for reliable sources. These two smallish countries don't have much to do with each other -- a hint may have been the absence of coverage anywhere in the world on this relationship that rises above the extremely trivial. This was a contested prod (one reason i never prod -- just a waste of time) Bali ultimate (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable in terms of the intended scope of the article. Not likely to become so. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yugoslavia might have had some meaningful relations with Angola in the '70s, but in the absence of reliable sources documenting this, we should delete. At this point the article is quite insipid, asserting nothing beyond the existence of embassies, already covered in the respective "diplomatic missions of..." articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - both former communist/socialist nations; full embassies; "friendly" relations. See [24] and [25]. I would prefer to see more to establish notability, but that's all I found on a Google News search. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yugoslavia (of which Serbia is the successor state) was one of the main supporters of the MPLA in the Angolan Civil War [26][27], providing training [28], and was also also being major source for arms which were chanelled to UNITA by South Africa[29]. Both countries had observer status at Comecon[30]. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate what you've dug up, but given a) Yugoslavia was just one of several big supporters of MPLA b) there's not that much more to the relationship, can't what needs to be said be said at MPLA#Foreign_support? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the information could be included elsewhere, but let's look at this from the point of view of the reader, i. e. the person for whose benefit we are supposed to be writing this encyclopedia. If someone looks up "Angola–Serbia relations" is it better for us to redirect to an article about the MPLA, leaving the reader wondering whether we have lots of other information about Angola–Serbia relations hidden away in other articles, or for us to have this article that collects together the information that we have about the subject, with its links to MPLA, Angolan civil war, UNITA and Comecon that can be followed if more information is wanted? There's nothing wrong with having information in more than one place. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 17 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 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the information could be included elsewhere. All In Order (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — All In Order (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a Hilary T sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Also, the fact that they have/had diplomats does not automatically create notability. Edison (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither of the above two opinions addresses my points above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite sufficient sources, as Phil found. (Almost anything in Wikipedia could of course be included in other articles than the present ones--that's not a reasonable criterion). DGG (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus on consistent guidelines on notability is achieved at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Martintg (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There should be something like WP:BLP1E for this type of article. Embassies and sitting somewhere together are completely trivial and don't warrant an article. The only thing that remains is Yugoslav support for the MPLA. There are several better places where this information can go; and anyway I wouldn't think of Serbia as the successor of Yugoslavia. If this information had to go to any bilateral relations article, then Angola-Yugoslavia relation would be the correct choice. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:35, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primal Tears[edit]

Lack of notability , non-existent sourcing, article has not improved in 3 years and looks more like an advertisement than a serious article. Bonewah (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article contains no new information.keystoneridin! (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although not perfect sources, I think you could make a reasonable case for notability with these book reviews: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be substantial independent coverage, the sci-fi article for instance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those book reviews are a step in the right direction, but we are still way short of Wikipedia:Notability (books). Bonewah (talk) 14:40, 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 17:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This one truly tests the AFD process. However, when looking at the reviews, I noticed that there were actually only two. scoop.co.nz and scifi.com, as shown here [38]. Though these are indeed independent – creditable – 3rd party sources, with only two sources reviewing the novel, I have to question the true notability of the piece. My rational is that for a piece, such as this, to claim notability, I would expect at least one review, from more established media such as the New York Times. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak keep Reviews from East Bay Express, SciFi.com, and Scoop, bring it barely past the notability threshold. The scoop link isn't a review, it just mentions the book, is all. Dlabtot (talk) 20:09, 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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Charly[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Google "Operaton Charly" or "Operación Charly". You find out that no historian has ever heard about Operation Charly, indeed, Google knows only person has used this word. The rest of the article is synthesis. This is essentially a single source fringe theory article, which has been deceptively represented as an article about historical events. Luis Napoles (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination sounds like an argument for re-naming, not deletion. The nomination argument alone is not grounds for deletion, even if we then re-name it to "That operation no-one can agree a name for". The central claim of this article is that the Argentinian military planned to export their "Dirty War" methods to Central America, possibly with the collusion of the US. If that much alone stands up, then the article should survive - even with massive re-work. If the US collusion is verifiable, then the article certainly needs to remain, and in broadly its current form. Even if this particular naming is obscure, or just plain wrong, the major content wouldn't be affected by that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename. Wikipedia user Luis Napoles has a long history of POV-pushing edits and advocacy, muich of it bordering on (if not outright being) vandalism per Wikipedia guidelines (please see all of the deleted material on his talk page). This is another issue that fits in with his pattern of Wiki-editing. Thank you. – 166.217.71.89 (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On that topic, just look at the recent edit history for Operation Charly. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This IP has no edit history.Luis Napoles (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A little background reading shows that the deletion nominator has a long record of pushing a WP:POV agenda in South & Central America articles. Despite real concerns over the accuracy of the name here (maybe another name might just be clearer anyway?) there seem to be good grounds to support the article's core premises and notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's unfortunate that you resort to ad hominem. What are the article's core premises and notability? This is an article about a journalist's theory, no other sources have been presented. What do you suggest as a name? The current name is absolutely unacceptable, because it deceives the reader (including me, before I googled it) to believe that there existed such operation.Luis Napoles (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits last night reduced a 16kb article to a meaningless stub of a few hundred bytes. That's an undiscussed attempt to delete an article by stealth, a much worse action than the simple graffiti vandalism that we are happy to block the childish editors for. Your past edits to other articles are no better - blatant POV pushing, raising repeated criticism by the community of other editors.

The core of this article is, as noted above, collusion between the USA and Argentina to bring the Dirty War methods taught at the School of the Americas into Central America. It's unfortunate that secrecy over an operational name gives you the opportunity to start claiming that none of this took place at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are still resorting to attacking other editors, try to address the problem. Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim, including surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Teaching at the School of the Americas should be added into the article School of the Americas. Only a single source claims that there existed some Operation Charly, by a reporter of unknown reliability. If were are to believe Google, the entire Internet has only one non-Wikipedia reference to "Operation Charly". That is a major fringe theory flag.Luis Napoles (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're working your hardest to keep any "red flags" well away from Wikipedia. You are however still confusing the issue of name vs. existence. Is your point really that there was no Argentinian - USA collusion outside of both countries? That much is already multiply independently referenced (Seoane & Chomsky, and the second only needed a few minutes with my own non-specialist general-interest wooly-liberal bookshelf, not even research through a relevant field-specific resource). The rest is just quibbling over the name, and I've no strong attachment to it myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:52, 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 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Article is sufficiently sourced, has reliable sources, and Google has many more records than just a Wikipedia article. I think Luis is pushing an agenda as well. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss the right title on the talk page. Sufficient sources to clearly show notability. So far from this article being fringe, denial of it is what's fringe. DGG (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:58, 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 speedily deleted (A7). (non-admin closure) Rnb (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clone Army Builders Guild[edit]

Lego collectors club, no clear notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, as I tagged it earlier, no notability whatsoever. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More info in being added. So I think think we should leave this one be for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.27.72 (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC) — 76.114.27.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While there is more info, there are no links to a third party source to confirm notablity. Livewireo (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,the article lacks a neutral POV. Also, there are obvious questions of notability. A search of Google News turns up nothing, and a search of Google Hits turns up little more than the group's website and advertisements for the group's website on other forums. per the Wikipedia guidelines on organizations, this article seems to fail as the scope of it's reach appears limited only to those that are a member with little to no influence otherwise. JogCon (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't imagine notability ever bein established for this. Quantpole (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an article about web content that does not assert notability. Rnb (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I've re-added the speedy tag which was removed by an IP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:25, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovar people[edit]

This seems like a Wikipedia-invented term. If it's referring to the predominant ethnic group in Kosovo, we have an article for them: Albanians. If it's referring to all people from Kosovo, we have something on them too: Demographics of Kosovo. Either way, it's a content fork and a neologism. Kosovar diaspora should also probably be deleted (as well as Kosovar Australian, none of whom are actually Australian citizens), but let's see how this goes first. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I would not oppose a merge to Demographics of Kosovo, Kosovar is certainly not a neologism, but rather a term in quite common usage. Cool3 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very true. But I think what needs to be said about the term is already said at Kosovar. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright, Kosovar does seem to cover what we need covered. At the moment, I'd be opposed to deleting Kosovar diaspora, but it seems that Kosovar Australian could probably go. Also, I'd have no problem with a redirect from Kosovar people to Kosovar. Cool3 (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an ethnicity by a long shot, just a [potential] POV fork from Albanians. Whatever needs to be said about the particular details is covered in the "Demographics" article. Although Kosovar diaspora looks awful, it could potentially function in the future, since "diaspora" relies on citizenship, not just ethnicity - granted, I wash my hands in advance of the "all Kosovars are diaspora" conundrum :). Since Kosovar Australian relies on wishful thinking, and. like Biruitorul, I don't think there's any documented presence of Kosovars with Aussie citizenship, let alone notable men and women, I say delete. Dahn (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not an ethnicity, it's a (disputed) nationality. The correct term might be Kosovo Albanians or Ethnic-Albanians from Kosovo. PolScribe (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it doesn't have any base in the reality, most of the people who live in Kosovo are Albanians and we have an article on that while Kosovar doesn't mean anything or at least nothing more than "Kentuckians".--Avala (talk) 17:54, 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 merge to Brian Griffin. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faster than the Speed of Love (Family Guy)[edit]

This is an article about a book within a TV series (Family Guy) and is not very notable. The book has been mentioned in a few episodes of the series, but is not notable on its own. If anything, some of the content should be redirected to Brian Griffin, who is the author of the book from the show. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That book is an integral plot device in several episodes. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Brian Griffin.--Iner22 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Unless someone can come up with some reliable sources, preferably ones that are independant of Family guy, the article suffers from a lack of out of universe notability. Merging would be pointless, since there's no referenced information to actually merge. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak merge to Brian Griffin, where the fictional book is already mentioned. The whole article is structured and written as if it existed in the real world - a sign that it completely fails WP:INUNIVERSE and doesn't contain much or anything worth saving for another article. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:SS spinout covering a fictional element of an unquestionably notable franchise without a clear merge target. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brian Griffin and trim (there are several repeated points). Much of the humor inspired by the book keys on the relationship between Stewie and Brian— this is better established in the Brian Griffin article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or MAYBE merge to Brian Griffin (and that might is because I don't see anyone entering the current title). A recurring joke that was used in a few episodes, the fictional book is not even close to being considered notable enough for its own article. TJ Spyke 21:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can IPs participate in this? If so, I support keeping this since this book is a recuring theme throughout several episodes and an important part of one of the main character's story arc. Have a nice day.--72.1.222.80 (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Make small section Brian's article. This a fictional book with a fictional publication. It has no real world impact. This isn't like As the World Turns' Oakdale Confidential and the Harry Potter series' The Tales of Beedle the Bard both of which were fictionally published books that received real world publications. Sarujo (talk) 04:29, 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 g3, one of a series of hoax movie articles. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besties[edit]

Delete Possible WP:HOAX, and certainly fails WP:NFF all references are to IMDB, and relate to an entirely different film. Mayalld (talk) 13:55, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–Nigeria relations[edit]

another laughable combination. the cited story [39] comes under WP:NOT#NEWS. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Edison (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - this mostly needs more sourcing; I think it can be rescued. Anyone? Bearian (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the sources found, it's more of a "we want a relationship" relationship than a "we have a relationship" one. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Bearian. — Jake Wartenberg 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Biruitorul. Wikipedia only has articles things about things which exist. All In Order (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — All In Order (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a Hilary T sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barbados has major ties to Nigeria for one genetically most Bajans appear to be from regions of Nigeria. The local accent Bajan is directly-related to several Nigerian languages. including the Yoruba people, the Igbo people etc. (This answers the "supposed" idea outlined here... Slavery and Economy in Barbados Quote: "Black slaves were imported in large numbers from the Gold Coast region in particular, especially from what is today the country of Ghana. The Asante, Ewe, Fon and Fante peoples provided the bulk of imports into Barbados. Nigeria also provided slaves for Barbados, the Yoruba, Efik, Igbo and Ibibio being the main ethnic groups targeted." Exaclty what will be the criteria for Foreign relations articles? Also did you read the part I had in the discussion page of that article involving the inter-government scandal involving a Nigerian nurse that died while working temporarily at the Government Hospital in Barbados? That is pretty significant. Because after the news leaked it, the Nurses refused to stay and asked for their programme in Barbados to be stopped. I also think it is kind of baffling that if one country says to another "we want you to establish an embassy in our country so that we can increase ties even more" that that would be seen as non-notable esp. since it is referenced. And so I would ask this article should be notable to whom? It may not be notable in the US or Europe. But Barbados-Nigerian relations are pretty significant in Barbados. As per here... [40] -- CaribDigita (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The identity of the article's creator is one of the factors I look at. Although this new article has come out in the middle of a firefight over the mass-produced "X-Y relations" pages, CaribDigita has been a Wikipedian longer than most of us, well over four years. Although what I've seen thus far is debatably notable (such as working on direct flights between the two nations), I'm in favor of letting Carib-- who has an impressive record in writing articles-- work on this one. Mandsford (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Biruitorul. And let me add that supposed genetic and cultural links between peoples, created at a time when none of the two states existed, add absolutely nothing, and say more about both countries' relationship with the colonial power managing the slave trade. Using the same reasoning, Hungary's relationship with China would overshadow all the links Hungary has with its neighbors, as would Madagascar's relationship with Malaysia and Malta's with Saudi Arabia. A random diplomatic incident, if at all noteworthy, can fit into another niche to cover the two or three sentences discussing it. Dahn (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established in the article or establishable by sources findable by me.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't meet WP:N and it's unlikely that better ones are available for such an odd topic Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 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. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:04, 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) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOHARM is not a reason. The above should be disregarded. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the comment by 65.246 should be disregarded. That's what we call a backhanded compliment, lumping this particular article in the same category as those mass-produced pages generated by Groubani/Plumoyr. Those juxtellaneous miscepositions take only a few minutes to create, roughly the same amount of time that it takes to write on a wall with spray paint. A serious editor like Carib should not be compared to Johnny Appleseed. In retrospect, April 2009 was like the worst possible time to create an article about one nation's foreign relations with another. If it's not kept this time around, no prejudice to it being recreated later. Mandsford (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Mbhiii sockpuppet — another sockpuppetteer that attempts to stuff nonexistent ballots at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...not if shared or not used to circumvent policy. Do you see both (or either) here? -MBHiii (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CaribDigita & Mandsford. And this widow who emailed me about helping her get $425 million out of her late husband's Barbadian bank account. (She promises to share some of it with me, too!) -- llywrch (talk) 21:06, 24 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) 01:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article consists exclusively of the kind of information that may or may not be mentioned in passing, to give depth to an existing article. There is no indication that the subject of this article (the relations between the two states) passes WP:N, and no technical reason to put the information here rather than into more reasonable places. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Mandsford and as the article provides useful information the growing political and commercial ties between these two nations. There’s a central discussion. going on where we’re trying to establish consensus for a guideline to clearly state that that the sort of sources we have for this article are sufficient evidence of notability. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about what's useful, but about what's encyclopedic. And by any measure (try WP:GNG), the sources given do not cover the topic in encyclopedic fashion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pending Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations outcomes and working groups' recommendations. -- Banjeboi 23:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see plenty of sourcing on this article and these one by one noms rather disruptive. To me it's rather foolish to even nom them as one can find numerous sources to support the topic. What's more helpful is to establisha guideline how best to integrate the material to best serve our readers. hence I fully appreciate those willing to work on a task force dedicated to exactly those issues. We aren't in a rush here. Shorthand, keep unless that working group works out a more appropriate solution. -- Banjeboi 01:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? You see sources meeting WP:GNG? Do tell! - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:37, 30 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 02:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Iceland relations[edit]

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non resident ambassadors. no evidence of significant relationship. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Strong keep - They are technically allies through NATO, WWII, European Councils, etc. I'd like to get more reliable sources on the nature of their embassies and level of trade. This might be rescued. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, I've found lots of sources from old articles at GNews: [41], for example, voting together in 1949 in the UN [42], US exports to both countries [43], and this gerat one [44]. I'm convinced now they meet my own standards. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - that both are NATO members is documented at Members of NATO. That both received some amount of steel from the US at the same time in 1948 says nothing about their own relationship. And while at a prime ministerial meeting, relations were said to be "excellent" (what else could we expect? A war?), it was also noted that "many opportunities for furthering cooperation existed in the economy, in investments and in the tourism sector" -- translation: the current relationship doesn't amount to much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article as fixed up? Bearian (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The "historical context" section tries to make something out of nothing. Allow me to explain. The two were not allies in WWII - Iceland was part of Denmark, it was then occupied by the British, and finally remained neutral after independence in 1944 (see Iceland during World War II) - in no way was it part of the Allies. That Greece and Iceland (together with Portugal, Austria and Libya) voted to abstain on whether to admit Red China to the UN in 1958 (not 1949) says nothing about their relationship - it's entirely possible (indeed likely) they arrived at that vote independently of one another, and it also does not mean they "voted together often" in the UN. And finally, that the US gave steel to both of them says nothing about their relationship: it says something about the US-Iceland relationship and the US-Greece one, but nothing about the Greece-Iceland one.

The second part, aside from reading like a news release and not an encyclopedia article, again hypes this up in absurd fashion. As I said above, the fact that even they say that there are "many opportunities for furthering cooperation" means cooperation is not that extensive at present. And where exactly does one derive that Iceland's support on Macedonia is "highly important" to anyone? A single, routine visit does not make for a notable relationship by any means. And by the way, the lack of mutual embassies is rather telling. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Bearian. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- As re-written, the article certainly meets notability standards. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meet notability guidelines. — Jake Wartenberg 17:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing but unremarkable trade and defense agreements and a no-doubt highly staged "working visit" by a head of government, which fails WP:NOT#NEWS. All In Order (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— All In Order (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Relations between two countries are always relevant, even if the people that live in them do not speak English (see WP:BIAS). This one is well documented and clearly notable. "Unremarkable" is scarcely a reason for deletion. I am pleased to find that Greece and Iceland are on good terms - it would have been remarkable to me if they were not. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever is relevant is already covered elsewhere. Bringing up the "don't speak English" argument is a strawman - I and at least another "delete" voter are not native English speakers. Dahn (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right on "don't speak English" - shouldn't have put in that dig at the other editors. I apologize. But I do sense bias and it bothers me. I think this article has potential, if limited. It does have references and I don't see where else the subject would be well-covered. All of these country-X / country-Y relation articles fall between the two countries. Usually they will document the rather dull and routine exchanges between the two countries with stuffed shirts mouthing platitudes about economic cooperation and cultural exchanges. Blah blah. Still, I see value and no harm in articles that summarize current and past relations between two countries. If the material has good sources, I can see no reason to delete it. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you make wraps around the notion that we need this type of articles as a rule. I would like to go back in time and make the first people who thought up such articles (whatever the countries involved) rethink - particularly since they "fall between the two countries" (my editing experience tells me that this most often makes them content forks, and unlinkable to). But whatever my principles on the generic issue, articles like this one simply don't make the cut: sure, one can write plenty about how the two countries are members of the same organizations (the point?) or about how one took an unclear stance on an issue which may or may not be the other's business, but that only proves that this articles attract content which we can do without, and which we only have around because somebody decided we need to "fill in" the bilateral relations article. Ironically, if there's anything that important, it will actually have found a place in the system (for instance, the FYROM issue could fit in somewhere in the plethora of articles we have on the various incidents surrounding Greece's "problems" with Macedonia, where it would receive its deserved importance as a footnote or a passing mention); if it isn't, and it's just there as filler, then we don't need it all. Also consider this exercise, which I view as essential: once an article like such as this one satisfies your requirements, and therefore exists, do you picture any other article (other than maybe the corresponding "Foreign relations" ones) ever linking to it? I can only see it as forking eternally somewhere in a dark corner, its only use being that it has lived up to its own tailor-made expectations. Dahn (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question is not what we need, the question is what we want to have. Every non-confusing way or organizing information is good, if the information is inherently of value from an encyclopedic standpoint. Multiple approaches to similar and overlapping topics are a positive feature of anything that is not paper. The relations between two countries is valuable and productive way of thinking about politics and economics and society, both currently and historically. Now, suppose that someone thinks it is not a productive or interesting way-- the solution is for that person not to work on it. If we stated interfering with articles we think uninteresting or unimportant, AFD will grow exponentially. (e.g.: I'd love to try to remove as many wrestling articles as possible, because I think no rational person ought to care about the whole general area. I know that's not the consensus, but perhaps I could persistently chip away at the edges.... ). "Content we could do without" -- the totally opposite way of looking at things from making a comprehensive encyclopedia. We're not making an abridged encyclopedia. If you want one, clone it. DGG (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above proposes dividing wikipedia into separate parts, and welcoming content forks. Alas, it's not the first time I've seen DGG supporting this notion. And no, I don't see anybody supporting the argument according to which this article (or others in its series) is "uninteresting", it being "unimportant" is really a misnomer, and the analogy with wrestling flawed (since that would be a discussion about bio notability, where clear, if indeed questionable, standards exists, and were, by definition, the possibility of forking is limited by a person being one, and not two people). The point I for one have made is that the info in said articles is only there to support the articles existing (and therefore amounts to trivia), that there is a marginal possibility most will ever be linked in other articles, and that a system thriving on editors ignoring content fork can only lead to a proliferation of cruft, when editors such as myself are actually trying to provide the reader with structured info (and that structure, is, I do believe, a wikipedia goal, hence this very page). And, if I may: the supposition according to which "delete" votes are on grounds of the article being "uninteresting" strikes me as an attempt to hide the actual fact that the main (only?) reason behind the "keep" votes, overriding all stylistic or structural issues, is that the "keep" voters find the article "interesting" (or "not-uninteresting"). Dahn (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any fork issue here - think that is a continuation of another discussion. There are two obvious links to any article like this: Foreign relations of Country X and Foreign relations of Country Y, both of which would point to it for further detail. And a reader looking for information who searched on the two country names looking for information on their relations would likely find it. There are a lot of Greeks in ~~Nigeria~~ Iceland who may be looking for this information. Yes, an article like this could be a focus for the kind of POV edit wars everyone hates. The first search results I found for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Haiti relations were highly opinionated - I can see that article evolving into yet another battleground. But that is a problem we have to find ways to deal with. We can't exclude articles because we find them trivial or boring, or suspect may be controversial. I prefer to fall back on the well-tried notability guidelines: multiple independent sources = keep. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For "I don't see any fork issue here", see my "filler" comment. For "two obvious links" - yes, I've included them in my comment; got more? The crystal balling about Greeks being in Iceland and needing the info (about WWII? about FYROM?) is pretty much out there, and begs a comparison with people needing a phone number and going on wikipedia to find it. I don't find it convincing at all. About the POV war: I'm not sure if that's in answer to something I said, because I don't recall voicing such concerns (though, yes, I believe AfD should also function against POV forks that only function as edit-war baits, I can't see how that applies in this particular case). Btw, the very "trial" by which these articles acquire "many (?) independent sources" is flawed: once the article's relevancy is doubted, an editor who objects sets out to find x sources that mention X country and Y country together, and once this is over claims to have provided a summary of relations. Let's start from the reasonable assumption that something has by now been written about the relationship between any two states, at random (and, incidentally, in this article the sources don't even say anything about the relationship between the two countries, just about a subject involving them and some other tens of countries together, and at least two sources, I note, have been quoted improperly and for no apparent reason). Quoting such sources would establish very little, if anything, about the actual relationship, because it would be based not on the summary of a studied relationship, but on bits of info used to fill a vacuum. It's like writing on a dare, not like recording subjects validated by analytical sources. I would imagine that comparing such subjects, where the main agent of selection is a wikipedia editor (and thus by definition speculative, if not simply WP:SYNTH), to bilateral relationship which are by now the main topics of specialty books is an absolute exaggeration - fine, keep the latter category if we have to, but the former simply needs to go. Dahn (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I confess to serial violations of "filling in". I find an article that seems incomplete or biased, check around, add some more content. I think that is largely the way Wikipedia grows. As long as there are reliable independent sources, well, storage is cheap. I started an article on Baeocrara once - don't know why. It is very small, but maybe of interest to a few people. A couple of editors have contributed. It gets about 3 page views a day. Seems like a suitable topic. Maybe Greece–Iceland relations will get more hits. Time to get some sleep. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing my point. I have nothing against most articles on "obscure" topics that get "few hits", and (I'm repeating myself) I don't object this article because it's obscure, but because it "validates" itself with trivia. I have nothing against writing, say, an article on Greek/Icelandic poets that are not known to the general public (even the Greek/Icelandic public), as long as they fit with general guidelines by being mentioned by their peers. As for Baeocrara, I have contributed similar articles myself, though not in the same field. The issue here is not about the supposed obscurity of the topic, but about the validity of separate coverage. In this context, it also involves the usage of sources, most of which we wouldn't normally use at all (because nobody would consider the events they describe notable in themselves), and which casually mention two subjects. This method of validating a separate article, I dare say, abuses what the sources say (it's not a relationship they talk about), what an article is supposed to cover (I approve of Edison's comment above, to which I may add WP:SYNTH, and perhaps WP:COATRACK) and what the relationship between articles is supposed to be (WP:CFORK, WP:BTW). Dahn (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are reasonable people who will disagree if a type of article should be on Wikipedia, and there is an ongoing discussion about standards specific to these types, but according to the general notability standards, I think this still fits. Ultmately, I use the "student standard" -- if it is probable that some high school or college student would find this article useful as a starting point for research, then keep it in. Hmmm.... that's a good as an standard as I've seen. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To focus solely on the new point you add: what the student will find in most such juxtapositions (this one included) that he wouldn't find elsewhere is solely what a wikipedia editor was able to collect in several minutes, or at most an hour, using a search engine and typing the names of the two countries. This article says: "Look, a text can be written by synthesizing random tidbits that popped up in said search. One can transform the actual arguments about how this is a poor excuse for article writing into one saying that said operation can't be performed, and express satisfaction when it was performed." I'm sure that, in the unlikely event a student has the unfortunate idea that he or she can write a paper using trivia, he or she can perform the same exercise with a google search. Another soft spot of the "student standard" is that we are always debating these articles a posteriori. They don't pop up because someone needs them, and the need is always hypothetical and sometimes clearly bogus; they pop up simply because someone has said "why not?", and if they weren't already around I'd wager nobody would miss them (students included). Dahn (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is straying far from whether this particular article should be kept, but anyway ... It is probably true that a lot of articles do start with an editor taking an interest in a subject, doing a quick search, and within an hour or less making an article that just reproduces obvious information from Google. But if they are obsessive-compulsive as I am and I suspect quite a lot of other editors are, they will add internal links, think about the new aspects of the subject those links suggest, search for more information, add to the article, restructure and expand. Then other editors with different knowledge and ways of thinking will come across the article, revise and add to it. In the end, with luck, there is a good comprehensive and well-organized article that gives the student what they need to know without spending hours or days of research. There is no new knowledge in the article, of course. There should not be. But there is real value. I would not spend time as an editor if I did not believe that. (That last statement is not really true. I enjoy exploring subjects and recording my findings, and am not too concerned about how wide the audience is.)

On this article, and all other AfD articles for that matter, I prefer the very simple test that it should be more than a stub and should present relevant information about the subject with reliable sources. It does not have to be a great article and does not have to be an exhaustive study. If there is general interest in the subject it will expand and improve. If not, it will do no harm. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just about any such juxtaposition of common terms will result in "more than a stub", but I still fail to see how that implies the article should exist. For instance, I could write a piece of FA depth and proportions (which an article such as the one we're discussing has no chance in hell of becoming) about Adolf Hitler and Romania - both terms are valid, the info resulting from the juxtaposition would be sufficiently covered by sources etc. It would not be validated as an article because it would be guided by my informative priorities (my synthesis), and not by an encyclopedic structure, because the existing info is already covered or should be covered elsewhere. The fact that I could write about a topic at length does not mean everything I could write about is a proper or necessary article, especially since wikipedia strives for coherent articles that do not contradict each other, and I don't see how this sort of proliferation could help anyone maintain that coherence without wasting days just trying to figure out how thousands of articles relate to each other.

Furthermore, if the relevant info already exists, then we are talking about content forks, which only serve to hinder more logically structured info; the measure of difference here is trivia (i.e.: stuff that we simply wouldn't have and wouldn't need were it not for the arbitrary juxtapositions: one wouldn't even refer to all the visits a state leader has undertook in a bio article on that state leader, but we are supposed to view the more obscure and inconsequential of those visits as relevant when they "validate" juxtapositions of countries which have no form of relationship above that "tidbit" level). Dahn (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that articles should not be created that simply duplicate information recorded elsewhere, and am not arguing for creating trivial articles - only ones where there is significant content. But Country X-Y relations articles may serve as the opposite of forks (assuming these is relevant information about country X-Y relations.) That is, the article on "Country X foreign relations" can have an entry * Country Y: See Country X-Y relations, and the article on "Country X foreign relations" can have a similar entry. The content is held in one place only, rather than duplicating it in the articles on Country X and Country Y foreign relations or, worse, not duplicated it but forking. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what I'm saying is that, aside from trivia, articles such as the one we're discussing are equivalent to the sentence "X and Y have some sort of relations". There's hardly a need to summarize the rest of the info elsewhere, since it never comes up otherwise in an encyclopedia, and there's hardly a need to have a separate article on a sentence. What's more: creating an "article" on the "title-see also" structure is an MOS nightmare; the proper way to do that would be to have at least a summary paragraph - it's telling that an article such as this one will be its own summary... Now, as much as I dislike the idea of "bilateral relations" articles in general, I can be persuaded that some of the articles could survive independently, but the bar would have to be set much higher than "Greece-Iceland" (fine with "Canada-US", "China-US", even "Bulgaria-Serbia", "India-Nepal"). If anyone will ever need detailed info on the others (which I sincerely doubt), all of what is notable can easily be bundled into a sentence or two, and then kept in the existing articles.

On the issue of duplication: some info will be duplicated no matter what, and, technically, once you reduce it to a "see also", it's still duplicated (an exact duplicate, in fact). In any case, since the rule of thumb is to summarize the articles linked as "see alsos", we would still be duplicating the content for those "more notable" of bilateral relations articles, and we would still have to deal with monotony somehow. Nothing lost, nothing gained on that field. Moreover, proper writing will always leave us with a degree of monotony to deal with: articles on similar topics will have to describe and/or summarize a situation that resurfaces. For example, if I write (as i did) articles about Romanian people who played a part in WWI, and if I want to texts to make any sense to the average reader, I have to mention in each article that Romania was an Entente country, that the Germans occupied southern Romania etc. etc. Finding different but complementary ways of saying the same thing is something an editor has to live with. Dahn (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no reliable sources establish that this relationship is a notable one, and it is unlikely to ever be such. I am amused at the puff used to try to asset the relationship as notable, however. They were both among the 44 UN members who voted against China's entrance in 1959? The United States provided steel subsidies to greece -- and separately provided steel subsidies to iceland after WWII -- and this trivia establishes a notable bilateral relationship between Iceland and Greece (that's so embarressing it should be excised from the article immediately). Both are members of the OECD? Etc... Clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - By both being NATO members itself means there's heavy government documentation on the relations between the two. Military base personnel in each others countries alone garner government and NATO sources.--Oakshade (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Might I ask for evidence of this documentation, and why Members of NATO couldn't simply cover this territory? - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To assume that NATO in its 50-plus history generated absolutely no documentation on its members and how they relate to each other operationally and diplomatically is willful ignorance and requesting such documentation in an AfD is a case of Wikilawyering.--Oakshade (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You made the claim; you supply the evidence. Sources abound showing US-German cooperation in the NATO context; US-French cooperation (or lack thereof); US-UK; US-Italy; France-Germany; UK-France, etc. - in other words, the obvious cases. Just because you say there's cooperation between two small countries on opposite fringes of NATO territory, one of which does not even have an army, does not make it so. You haven't shown the documentation - indeed, you probably cannot show it - so your argument falls flat. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:52, 26 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 support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliably sourced evidence of a significant relationship has been established - the article seems to be bound together by synthesis - I don't see how the fact that they both received U.S. steel or that they have both held the same position during votes in the UN is relevant to their relations - they also both have the letter c in their name and are both majority Christian, neither fact has anything to do with their relations. The rest of the article is a news report of a single meeting, not enough to support an article on the general topic. I think it has been established throughout various discussions including numerous AfD's that creating these articles on mass with no consideration to the importance of the relationship is not supported by consensus. Guest9999 (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources - Searching the Greek language sources, I was able to find some very in-depth reliable sources on Greece-Iceland relations. [45][46][47]. So far we've been expecting English language sources on a topic about two non-English speaking nations and not desiring to cover it because English language sources haven't heavily covered the topic, an example of systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so the Greek President (a figurehead, by the way) made a visit to Iceland. Can you prove that the information is relevant, not just that it exists? You're proposing to prioritize trivia here - trivia that would never even make it into the subject's biography. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relations are the in-depth subject of reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. If you don't feel that's significant, that's fine, but the standards of this encyclopedia set forth by consensus don't agree. --Oakshade (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, what you've got there are three articles, two of which are releases by the state-subsidized Athens News Agency, which seems to cover all events related to state business (and, in any way, does not have the level of independence we set for establishing notability). The other is a passing mention in a newspaper article which, I suppose, does not in any way comment on significance in its five paragraphs, but merely records that it happened (which no one doubts); the newspaper gives coverage to all sorts of events, many of which do not deserve mention on wikipedia, let alone a separate article. And clearly, the material in both sources is not, as was claimed, "very in-depth". This is in addition to Biruitorul's objections, which still stand, despite Oakshade's exercise in "I can't hear you". Dahn (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, using google translate, it appears that the only outside source cited here, the Naftemporiki article, centers on a trade agreement which eliminated the double taxation of imports and exports, signed during a courtesy visit. More than half of it cites the Greek President, who I don't think has any say in executive matters, expressing hope for more cooperation in the economic sphere. Trivial, anyone? Dahn (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial? "Trivial" has long been defined in WP:NOTABILITY as "passing mention" or "directory listing". Multi-paragraphed articles directly on Greece-Iceland relations is not in any manner a "passing mention" or "directory listing." Not counting Athens News Agency articles because it's not independent of the nation of Greece is pure Wikilawyering. Biruitorul's weak argument (if you can even call it that) of ignoring articles directly about Greece-Iceland relations demonstrating the notability of Greece-Iceland relations is amusing at best and while the objection might "stand", it's wasn't even worth countering. --Oakshade (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For one, let's note how you assume the notability of information presented in an article you haven't apparently read. I'm not counting ANA articles because they're not neutral, and because they discuss the activities of the cabinet to a level we don't ever touch here - which also makes it trivial under any definition of the ones tested here. And, yes, all three sources are indeed passing mentions - should we now start having articles on everything that was covered by one newspaper article? Also, state visits and other news items are not significant in themselves, and are only taken as proof as notability in absurd articles such as the one we're discussing; elsewhere, including in the bio articles on the visitors, and they would be automatically considered trivia if all they say is stuff like "X has visited country Z for three days". One can clearly see from both my points and Biruitorul's that there are at least three WP:GNGs that clash with your "sources", as much and as abusively as GNG has been invoked by the "keep" camp. Reading GNG together with WP:PSTS and then noting the words "national agency" as associated with ANA should also make clear why the accusation of "wikilawyering" is bogus. Dahn (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're just repeating the same invented "trival" argument. If you think multi-paragraphed articles on a topic are considered trivial by WP:NOTABILITY's standards, you are free to advocate this on the WP:NOTABLITY's talk page. Otherwise you're just passionately fighting a losing battle and this looks like consensus on against deleting this article based on the relationship of these nations. It's not even worth writing long counter arguments to weak ones. --Oakshade (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, now you're just being rude. As for your interpretation of what constitutes trivial and what doesn't, I'd be very interested to see what your claim of things having "long been defined" and by whom relies on. For now, let's have a look over these quotes from WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive" (with an additional mention that a one-sentence mention is trivial, whereas a 300-page book isn't); "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." (I leave it to you to [re-]read the long application of that principle in note 2, but let me highlight this phrase: "Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large"); "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): [...] press releases." Lastly, let's not disregard this: "Presumed means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion." So, if there's something you want to have reconsidered about these issues, it is you who may want to consider agitating on the WP:N talk page.

And, as has been said many times by now without seemingly attracting your interest: citing random sources mentioning various events not inherently notable (state visits) to evidence and support a questionable and questioned phenomenon (relations) is WP:SYNTH. Dahn (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn, this long speech is actually confirming this article passes WP:NOTABILITY. The articles covering Greece-Iceland relations are not "one sentence mentions" but multi-paragraphed articles. You can't get around that. And if you don't think coverage on this topic and other arguments by other "keep" voters are not indications that article is "presumed" notable by WP:N standards, that's your opinion but WP:NOTABILITY and, in this case, consensus disagrees with you. I'm done argueing against someone who's making a feeble attempt at Wikilawyering and practicing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Go ahead and have the last word. I'm done. --Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, Oakshade. If your objection is that my replies are long, feel free not to read them. As I have shown with citations and you were unwilling or unable to dispute, WP:N does not in fact agree with you. I didn't even take the "consensus exists" claim into consideration, since it's evidently irrational, and made spurious by the many, many AfDs, this one included, as well as by a "centralized discussion". Screaming otherwise won't make my arguments an "opinion" and yours "truth", and the irony of you invoking IDIDNTHEARTHAT after complaining that my posts are too long is glaring. Dahn (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article consists exclusively of the kind of information that may or may not be mentioned in passing, to give depth to an existing article. There is no indication that the subject of this article (the relations between the two states) passes WP:N, and no technical reason to put the information here rather than into more reasonable places. The article has been blown up with ridiculous little things such as voting the same way in the UN or both being NATO members. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pending Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations outcomes and working groups' recommendations. -- Banjeboi 23:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assess the notability of the topic, and try not to invoke as a "keep" reason a discussion that will drag on for a long time and may not even reach a conclusive result. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see plenty of sourcing on this article and these one by one noms rather disruptive. To me it's rather foolish to even nom them as one can find numerous sources to support the topic. What's more helpful is to establisha guideline how best to integrate the material to best serve our readers. hence I fully appreciate those willing to work on a task force dedicated to exactly those issues. We aren't in a rush here. Shorthand, keep unless that working group works out amore appropriate solution. -- Banjeboi 01:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where? Where are the sources satisfying WP:GNG? - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:37, 30 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 Foreign relations of Estonia. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Kazakhstan relations[edit]

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 13:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They are formerly part of the USSR. This article can be improved easily. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 14:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because they were both part of the USSR doesn't necessarily make their current relations notable. tempodivalse [☎] 15:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - that the two were part of the USSR is documented at Republics of the Soviet Union; nothing else seems to make theirs a notable relationship (which is unsurprising - the Baltics and Central Asia were as far apart as you could get in the USSR, and have little in common with one another). - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 17:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a search of google news archives turns up the kind of boring news stories you would expect to see about two former members of the Soviet Union, but nothing else. Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. All In Order (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — All In Order (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or re-direct and merge into Foreign relations of Estonia. If relations between these two countries are not be notable by Wikipedia standards, they exist never the less. There are 192 countries within the UN, the Estonian foreign ministry lists relations with 72 and this is one of them. So it is not a random pairing. Martintg (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kazakhstan is a notable trading partner for Estonia, to the point that these two countries have seen it fit to establish a double taxation avoidance treaty. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this, the entire CIS minus Russia accounts for 2.5% of Estonian exports and 3% of imports, so Kazakhstan can't be that notable a partner. And that sort of agreement is a) thoroughly routine b) not really enough to build an article out of - if really notable, a list can be snuck into Economy of Estonia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not thoroughly routine; there are a number of countries that do not have such a treaty with Estonia. As a rule of thumb, double taxation avoidance treaties are done when there's a significant number of people who do business in both countries -- so existence of such a treaty is an indicator towards notability of the relations. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 05:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with that line of reasoning. First, the fact that they have such a treaty is essentially trivia, and not something an article could ever be written about. Second, there's a WP:SYNTH issue here. Nowhere has anyone found a source specifically dealing with "Estonia-Kazakhstan relations"; rather, you have found a fact and decided it constitutes evidence of notable relations. That's not how this should work. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not a source?. Note that bi-lateral treaties themselves are sufficient notable for an article about the treaty. Martintg (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the above, and per similar arguments I've made in other such AfDs. It may not be entirely random (though I wanna bet it started on a dare), but it's entirely non-notable, and complete overkill for an article that cannot in itself provide any relevant info. Whatever trivia could be added to the original stub only brings the article down,and underlines that it serves no real purpose. Dahn (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus is achieved at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Martintg (talk) 04:05, 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. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Digwuren. --Miacek (t) 17:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established for this relationship or establishable by me.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than deletion [48]. Given that some bilateral agreement exists, there is scope for future development. So even if a particular relationship is deemed not sufficiently notable at this point in time there is scope for future expansion, the existence of such a bi-lateral agreement should at least qualify that article for merging rather than outright deletion. Re-directs are cheap. The Estonian MFA indicates such a bilateral agreement exists or is in the precess of being drafted, so at the very least this article should be merged and a re-directed retained to Foreign relations of Estonia. Martintg (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, implausible search term. Mergellus (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as All In Order. Uncle G (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article consists exclusively of the kind of information that may or may not be mentioned in passing, to give depth to an existing article. There is no indication that the subject of this article (the relations between the two states) passes WP:N, and no technical reason to put the information here rather than into more reasonable places. This includes the double taxation agreement. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my standards - both were parts of the USSR, have some trade, etc. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have an article on Republics of the Soviet Union if someone wants to know about their both being part of the USSR. And the fact that they have "some trade" (which as I showed, is pretty negligible overall) means nothing if its significance to this relationship is not corroborated by independent sources, which hasn't happened. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:22, 30 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 02:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine–Vietnam relations[edit]

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 13:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sure, they've got some trade, and the usual "deal to co-operate in trade, technology", but nothing out of the ordinary or particularly notable emerges about this relationship in any source. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 17:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 17:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is nothing unusual or particularly notable about this relationship. Including this kind of thing would make for a boring encylopedia. All In Order (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — All In Order (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's just another Hilary T sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article shares knowledge = that what's wikipedia is all about! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft & clutter. Dahn (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All articles of the type "X-Y country relations" are notable. They might be not properly sourced, but this is not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While you're free to believe all such relations are notable, precedent disagrees with you. See for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Montenegro relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Chile relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamaica–Serbia relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta-Americas relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France–Nauru relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland–Singapore relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile-Luxembourg relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy See–Yemen relations. Consensus is that sources are needed to write a coherent article on the subject, and that the mere existence of relations is insufficient. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:47, 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. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kind of boring, but notable as per refs. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete who cares if someone finds a subject boring? I'm personally bored by 90% of the articles on wikipedia that I believe deserve inclusion (Formula One defines boring for me. But notable? Absolutely). The problem with this article is that, as a topic, it's a bilateral relationship of no demonstrable notability via reliable sources that discuss this relationship per se -- news articles in which the words ukraine and vietnam appear are not be confused with articles that discuss this rather quiescent bilateral relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is a "rather quiescent bilateral relationship", that implies there was once a less quiescent relationship. But in any case active trade relations are not trivial. DGG (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? "quiescent" means simply to be inactive; untended. At any rate, it's my contention that this has always been inactive and untended.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG, my usual standards: significant trade, former alliance via USSR, great references, etc. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ukrainian SSR hardly had a foreign policy to speak of, so we can't really say the two were allies (and in any case, Vietnam was not in the Warsaw Pact). As for trade, to the extent that's notable (which independent sources don't show), we have "economy of..." articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:20, 30 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peru–Ukraine relations[edit]

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 13:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - random pairing of two countries on opposite sides of the world; no evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 17:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article shares knowledge = that what's wikipedia is all about! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As established by numerous discussions, bilateral relations are not inherently notable. You need independent sources to verify that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:52, 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. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non notable relationship. I only found this article of 2006 which demonstrates the vagueness of relations. http://en.for-ua.com/news/2006/12/26/170003.html nothing else like trade etc LibStar (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article consists exclusively of the kind of information that may or may not be mentioned in passing, to give depth to an existing article. There is no indication that the subject of this article (the relations between the two states) passes WP:N, and no technical reason to put the information here rather than into more reasonable places. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:56, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco–Ukraine relations[edit]

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 13:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aside from "signing accords on trade and investments" (something that happens every week of every year, and is not terribly convincing evidence of notability, or something we can write an article about), there's no evidence these two have interacted meaningfully. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 17:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article shares knowledge = that what's wikipedia is all about! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Up to a point: see WP:EVERYTHING. Also, this particular information (the presence of embassies) is already covered at the respective "Diplomatic missions of..." articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This and all "A country has once winked at B country" articles. Dahn (talk) 00:25, 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. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found at least a couple in-depth reliable Arabic language sources directly about Morocco-Ukraine relations. [49][50] Remember, these are not English speaking nations and English language sources aren't so readily available. Not covering this topic because of lack of English sources would be a case of systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable independent sources discuss this relationship in any non trivial fashion sufficient to establish notability. Claims that this is about english vs. foreign language sources is a straw man.Bali ultimate (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles listed above are directly about the relationship between the two countries (translation for one) and are non-trivial (ie. not a "directory listing" or "passing mention").--Oakshade (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are absolutely not about the relationship - they're about a visit that is too trivial to mention in the biography of someone too unimportant to have an article here (foreign ministers yes, assistant foreign ministers no). Of course a newspaper reported on it - that's their job; the question is if it has anything substantive to do with "Morocco–Ukraine relations", and the answer is no, at least not at a level beyond the trivial. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article consists exclusively of the kind of information that may or may not be mentioned in passing, to give depth to an existing article. There is no indication that the subject of this article (the relations between the two states) passes WP:N, and no technical reason to put the information here rather than into more reasonable places. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:58, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark and Shattered Lands[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Creating page for IP. Reason on talk page is:

[Rahennig] made no effort at all to do anythin w/ this page its got no info and is not helping wikipedia. there is no such book being published either that is just made up. dsl doesnt even own all its own world it is half taken from tsr/wotc books and all these reasons are basicall lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.68.126 (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable. Quantpole (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Userify for User:Rahennig if he is still keen on improving and sourcing. I do object to the apparent agenda displayed in the nomination rationale, but don't see the article in a keepable state yet. MLauba (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. No idication of change or improvement since the first AfD, when it was similarly deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwiti[edit]

Restoring and taking to AfD per conversation here. Also left message at WT:WikiProject Business/Accountancy task force. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, most references are self published or PR related, link to facebook homepage is irrelevant, smells like advert (point of view is artificially distant from the subject: "According to their website...").
Keep

a. Ok, have removed many references which are 'self published' (and linking back to their website). b. Have removed the external link to Facebook (agree that everyone knows Facebook and their homepage link is not of any help). c. Ok, I have also removed the phrase "According to their website...". The reason I had included this phrase initially was because: i. It is true (I actually got the piece of information from their website) ii. I was following an example given somewhere on Wikipedia for their verifiability clause. i.e. All statements must be verifiable and better if it begins with "According to so and so...". (Sorry, can't locate the Wikipedia Help page for this now).Publiceyes (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Sounds like a sales pitch, and if kept; should be reworded. Renaissancee (talk) 00:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deforrest Most[edit]

Doesn't establish notability at all, only source is an obit, google news didn't term up any further sources. Tomdobb (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I believe he received just enough notoriety to have an article here on Wikipedia, based on the following news articles. [51]. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject of significant coverage from RS establishing notability. --J^mundo 13:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 13:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest keep based on AP carrying his 2006 obit, plus the 1999 article I added. Edison (talk) 15:17, 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 and yes, an NFL coach is inherently notable --B (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Curl[edit]

Declined speedy - I don't know anything at all about American Football so it's hard for me to assess this fully but the title of "assistant coach" does not seem particularly senior and it would seem this isn't notable - even the Rams web site doesn't have a bio for him. Plenty of google hits but I don't know which are reliable and which are just fan blogs. One google news hit for '"Dick Curl" Rams' but that only mentions him in a piece of random humorous writing on a slow news day. ~Excesses~ (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 13:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Assistant head coach/quarterbacks coach. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 17:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - may not appear notable now, but i'm waiting for more info to be available, his rams bio will be updated soon. Plus he's an assitant head coach, which is clearly notable. RF23 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's the assistant head coach of an NFL team. Extensive media coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 17:08, 25 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]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's true that proposed things don't always go as planned. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10th Street Station[edit]

Proposed stations tend to fail WP:CRYSTAL, prod removed Delete Secret ^account 12:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources shown to establish notability of a proposed rail station. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that is proposed, and crystal-ball rail stations are not inherently notable. (Parenthetic note: If it should somehow survive AFD, since there are a great number of "10th Street"s in the world, the title of an article such as this should include the city.) Edison (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate with 9–10th & Locust (PATCO station) and Tenth Street/Promenade (Metromover station). --NE2 02:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not a "proposed" station because it's been approved to be built.[52] No crystal ball anymore. --Oakshade (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it's still a crystal ball until contruction starts, being approved to be built isn't nothing, there are many stuctures that are approved to contruct and nothing happened. Secret ^account 12:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In light of Oakshade's revelation, I'm going to have to vote to Keep the article. ----DanTD (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia doesn't need to have an article for every light rail stop in Minneapolis. There just needs to be an article covering the overall project, which there is. One specific station is not adequate for an article unless there is some historical or political significance. Renaissancee (talk) 23:27, 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 redirect to Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show). None of those favouring retention give any policy or guideline based reasoning for retaining unsourced content, so their argument is weakened. The strength of the debate is to merge and redirect. I will enact this through a close to redirect to the main article, but the content will remain in the article history for any merging that is required Fritzpoll (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel of Fortune wheel configuration[edit]

The wheel configuration article was redirected a few days ago but an IP undid it. Previous afds for both articles resulted in a keep. No attempt has been made to source these articles, and I really can't see any potential sources forthcoming. As big a part of the show as these are, you'd think there would be sources but even with my extensive game show knowledge I've found bupkis, nor do I see any attempt to source the articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article. It's valuable content, but not enough for a stand-alone article. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go to WP:MRFD Deletion is not the proper way to deal with a contested redirect. If the person who undid the redirect can't voice actionable concerns, their action should simply be reverted. If there are worries content was lost a merge should be discussed. Either way losing the redirect because someone disagreed with it, is not a good thing. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing a merge. I'm proposing a deletion because I don't think the content should be anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you're suggesting one. I'm saying reinstating the redirect is better. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why redirect if I want to get rid of the information? A redirect of "Wheel of Fortune wheel configuration" wouldn't make sense if information on the wheel's configuration isn't in the parent article at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not contesting that it should be deleted, I'm merely trying to point out that you're going about it the wrong way. If the title was originally a redirect, then it must be for a reason. Either something was merged and later deleted (which should get a discussion) or it was deemed a useful redirect. Neither is a case for AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep: I think it would be upsetting to some fans of Wheel of Fortune to redirect/delete this article. Let's not upset our fans.--Tomballguy (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Chris[reply]
Keep, or merge and redirect. There is some info on the wheel configuration the main article, so if none of the info were to be merged the redirect would still be appropriate. And I see no good reason not to have info on the puzzle categories in the main article, if not in a separate list. DHowell (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I also think the tags about "too much intricate detail" should be removed from the main article. It's a game show; the article should explain the rules of the game. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:51, 22 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) 12:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Even though at this point nobody but the nominator is arguing for deletion, I'm relisting this in hopes of some discussion about the sourcing. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incredible article, this is what makes wikipedia so popular. Ikip (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Every single keep vote has been WP:NOHARM or WP:ILIKEIT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 13:13, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list[edit]

Flagged as without citations since December 2007, this is an essay and collection of original research, presented as an enhanced dictionary definition. It may be interesting and even useful, but it is not notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your last sentence is better rephrased: "It may be a badly written article with some verifiable content, but it is notable."
"Why is it notable?", you ask. Because Robert W. Bly, author of ISBN 9780028642109, has thought mailing lists so notable that he has devoted the the entirety of chapter #4 of that book to them. (He's also devoted pages 26–28 of ISBN 9780844232430 to them.) Because James Dening, author of Marketing Industrial Goods (Business Publications, 1968) has thought the sub-topic of the updating of mailing lists so notable that he has devoted chapter 11 of that book to it. Because Ed Burnett thinks that mailing lists are so notable that he has authored The Complete Direct Mail List Handbook (ISBN 9780131592780). Because Rose Harmer thinks that they are so notable that she has authored Mailing List Strategies (ISBN 9780070266759). Because Richard S. Hodgson thinks that they are so notable that he has authored The Dartnell direct mail and mail order handbook (Dartnell Corporation, 1974), which has chapters like chapter 19: "Standards for Computerized Mailing Lists".
The PNC is thus satisfied. ☺
Go and have a look at some of those sources, then come back and read the article again. You'll see it to be shallow and incomplete. But you won't see it as documenting the heretofore undocumented. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs work, no doubt, but that is not a reason for deletion. 'Mailing lists' are notable as a major part of modern commercial enterprise. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the concept of mailing lists is very notable. If the article is badly written, then it's not the subject's fault. This should be rewritten, not deleted. And really, what would Wikipedia look like without an article about mailing lists? JIP | Talk 17:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improvable. DGG (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Uncle G's good points. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:06, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Boys (Katy Perry song)[edit]

Unfortunately, the article is unsourced and no physical or digital release had occurred. I won't deny the fact that it was proposed as the album of the same title's third single in Australia, but in no way can we prove of a release. The only possible way of it's ARIA chart peak was that it was avaliable to download from the actual One of the Boys (album). This fact does not comply in anyway regarding the song as an actual single release off the album. The article also includes that it will be the fifth international single, where are the sources for that statement? I am sincerely sorry guys but it's best that the article is deleted. I believe that it lacks to meet the criteria of WP:SONGS. The entire page uses once source, only to prove a chart peak. That isn't good enough! childfunk chat 11:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It passes the charting test of WP:NSONGS, but fails the test of having sufficient information to build an article beyond a stub.—Kww(talk) 12:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It peaked at #3 on Billboard, that's enough for me. I'll add a cite as soon as I can navigate to one on Billboard's site. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, had the wrong song (was looking at "Hot 'n' Cold" by mistake). This song didn't even hit Billboard as far as I can see, so, change mine to Delete.--BlueSquadronRaven 14:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't think that this song is notable enough for its own article, but some of the article's information could be integrated into One of the Boys (Katy Perry album). Captain panda 04:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability and no valid information for merging to parent album. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:55, 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 already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/Magnus expansion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion//Magnus expansion

Duplicated article. See Magnus expansion (without slash). --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:27, 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 speedy delete as copyvio — Tivedshambo (t/c) 11:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dating tips[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but it's been CSD tagged as copyvio anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excesses (talk • contribs) 11:15, 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 Speedy delete g11, advertising for restaurant with this name. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me'nu[edit]

Non-notable neologism. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A copyright does not in of itself make a silly term notable, which this has yet to demonstrate being. - Vianello (Talk) 11:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable. Quantpole (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, a non-notable neologism inserted for promotional purposes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A page created by now blocked user(s) Weisinc as a promotional page for Weiss, Inc. Dan D. Ric (talk) 14:11, 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) 12:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptogenic[edit]

This belongs over at Wiktionary, I think. Hard to say. Minimal content, not likely to be any more relevant content to de-stub it. — This, that, and the other [talk] 10:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and... I created a minimal version at wiktionary a few months ago. It has barely been expanded since. — This, that, and the other [talk] 10:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Fixing bad articles/stubs gives guidance on this, as does User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. The bare adjective doesn't denote a subject. But the corresponding noun, cryptogenesis, or a noun phrase constructed from the adjective, cryptogenic species, would. If you want to write about the latter, this is a source to start with:
- James T. Carlton (1996). "Biological invasions and cryptogenic species". Ecology. 77 (6): 1653–1655. doi:10.2307/2265767.
And here's a source to carry on with:
- G. J. Inglis; B. J. Hayden; W. A. Nelson (2006). "Are the Marine Biotas of Island Ecosystems More Vulnerable to Invasion?". In Rob Allen (ed.). Biological invasions in New Zealand. Springer. pp. 122–124. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
No deletion required. Uncle G (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. Plenty of scope for expansion of this article on a notable subject. JulesH (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Cryptogenesis. This term appears in technical literature and many Wikipedia articles, and enough reliable sources exist to write a good article on it. Wronkiew (talk) 23:30, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Room Service Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable article previously nominated, and deleted. However, most of the delete 'votes' were sock puppets, so restored and listed here. PhilKnight (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sockless delete, non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Was known for being their last tour, but every band that goes on tour even once will have a last tour at sometime. That doesn't make it notable. Just an indiscriminate list at the end of the day. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the original nominator the first time around. The article has no third-party coverage whatsover, and no assertion of notability beyond it being the band's last tour, and as has been said, that doesn't make it automatically notable enough for its own page. fuzzy510 (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 13:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 13:14, 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 02:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FreeOrion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Back for the third time. New version, so it dodges G4 CSD, but it still doesn't assert a single evidence of notability. Thoughts? - Vianello (Talk) 10:40, 22 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)).

Keep The article is well written and just as valid as most of other opensource project pages. I will personally work on improving it even further when necessary. Here's an review of the game btw http://freeorion.en.softonic.com/ . The project/game is also well referred among Master of Orion and 4X strategy game communities.Peer-LAN (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Unfortunately, a personal assessment of "gamer community" is not a reliable source. A review's more a step in the right direction. - Vianello (Talk) 11:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~& sal~~t - still no reliable sources supporting a verifiable and neutral article. MLauba (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt. The only references are from its own website and sourceforge. Clearly not notable, and the author has not made any attempt to establish notability following previous AfD discussions. Quantpole (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's with all the hate? The article is good and the project is well enough known, well better position then most open source game with wikipedia pages. Some aditional links http://www.happypenguin.org/show?Free%20Orion, http://www.linuxlinks.com/article/20080511064350671/FreeOrion.html Dauntless (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC) — Dauntless (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no hate, the article is being weighed against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines the same as any other article brought into an AFD discussion. Someone another 22:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 13:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- How many times does this need to be deleted? Still advertising for nonnotable software. If other open source games with less reason for being here have Wikipedia articles, as Dauntless suggests, those should be deleted as well. DreamGuy (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. That's just not true. It is a notable open source game, with over fifty thousand google results (which is a lot, e.g. Quiet Exit the debut album of Norwegian singer-songwriter Elvira Nikolaisen that is now on the main page at Did you know... or Robert Lee Howze who's also there have less), with packages distributed on several Linux repositories and available for Windows/Mac. It is notable, I can give millions of examples of articles (not game related) that have fewer results (not that I support the removal of those). Look, I just pushed the random button and I got Dale L. Walker, Cassidy's Ltd,Victor Pasmore, BTC Racing, Cotelsat, Marcos Elias, Enyinnaya Abaribe etc... I could go on for ever, with fewer results! This game is notable enough and well known in the gaming community. The fact that open source games don't have advertisement on commercial game magazines doesn't mean that it's not N. This game is notable whether you like it or not, and there are a whole lot more things out there then this wikipedia page that deserver attention. Leave this page alone already, I rewrote it to meet Wikipedia standards, now if you want to improve come and help. Peer-LAN (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable to you doesn't necessarily equate with notable for an article on Wikipedia. If it is indeed notable for Wikipedia, then you ought to have no problems showing why. Google hits aren't a recognized measure of notability. Multiple instances of independent, non-trivial coverage in notable and reliable sources are. And that's what we go by, whether you like it or not. DreamGuy (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge to Master of Orion per WP:NNC if sufficient RS to establish N cannot be found.Per non-trivial magazine coverage found. Seems to have sufficient sourcing to meet V, so salting is absolutely not appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Three deletion debates and no-one has produced reliable sources to indicate it passes WP:WEB? Jesus. Delete and salt, at best it gets one line in the Master of Orion series page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge to Master of Orion per WP:NNC — for now. The article already seems to meet the verifiability guidelines but it still doesn't appear to be notable enough to justify its separate existence. Also, "how many times does this need to be deleted?" is not a valid question. Since the project in a state of continuing development, it will presumably meet the notability guidelines at some time in the future.

Relevant search results:

http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/freeorion/

http://www.gamesterritory.com/?p=104

http://freeorion.en.softonic.com/

http://www.freewaregenius.com/2008/05/15/an-overview-of-free-turn-based-strategy-and-war-games/

Rankiri (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Blogs, self-published sources, primary sources... none of these nor the ones linked by Peer-Lan above are considered as reliable third-party sources acceptable under the wikiproject videogame's source list. I don't see how merging wholly unsourced content to Master of Orion is acceptable in any way, nor do I see any chance that this merge would stand for even a day without getting reverted. MLauba (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Excuse me but show me two open source games that meet those criteria of having an article on a commercial game magazine. If this how you review notability, they you might as well go and remove the whole section of open source game from Wikipedia and stick with the paid reviews. 1 2 Peer-LAN (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Response Any article whatsoever has to pass the sourcing threshold in order to stay on Wikipedia. The reason for that is simple: only through reliable third-party comment can the reader be assured that he's reading content which is as encyclopedic and neutral as possible, rather than subtly written propaganda. Bending or compromising on these requirements is basically breaking the trust between Wikipedia and the reader. If we make exceptions for a game (which is, in the grand scheme of things, rather harmless), how could we justify not making exceptions for posting nasty rumors about a politician or a celebrity coming from a random blog, which is not rather harmless? MLauba (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response Not only that you compare apples to oranges, but please tell me how you keep your political standard on articles like Swfmill, BCX, hipergate, MINIX, Knark and I could keep going on but to be honest I'm afraid you'll start proposing them all for deletion for no logical reason. I usually contributed to wikipedia with pleasure; I've never meet so much iniquitous resistance. Peer-LAN (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MLauba (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that what I meant and was looking for; thanks for pointing me towards what I should have posted instead of my comment (as they touch the same point, of your comparison not being well related to the current state of affairs).

You appear to misunderstand my point. There are other poorly sourced articles on Wikipedia which do not meet the reliable sources policy. They are however not under consideration in this present AfD, nor is the existence of other poorly sourced articles a valid precedent. The point is, when a deletion discussion does occur, the consensus is normally formed on standing policies, not upon their subversion - unless the opposing opinion holders can make a valid case on why we should Ignore All Rules. That being said, this is only my view on the matter, and I expect I've explained it at length. If you want to pursue this further on a bilateral basis, don't hesitate to take it to my talk page. MLauba (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I'm fairly sure the available information—including independently taken screen captures—makes it safe to conclude that FreeOrion is, in fact, an open source remake of a TBS classic Master of Orion that it is similarly set in space, licensed under the GPLv2 license, available for various operating systems, currently under version 0.3.12, and so on. Considering that the open sourced nature of the game automatically makes it an unlikely review candidate for the major game reviewing publications, I think some of the googled sources, along with the official www.freeorion.org, should be enough to satisfy the merged paragraph's source requirements, therefore I still support selective merging over deletion. Rankiri (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The game has been around for a long time, though it's still in alpha, and is based on / inspired by a classic 4X game. It's worth having it in Wikipedia. If we don't want to keep it as its own article, we should at least Merge it with the Master of Orion page. I agree with Jclemens—there is no reason to salt this article. Peyre (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per LAN. — Jake Wartenberg 17:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google returns mostly download and forum links. Nothing more substantial. SharkD (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any reliable third-party sources, necessary to demonstrate notability. Powers ^T 18:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is basically advertising. Without reliable third-party sources it cannot be a complete NPOV article. I might also add that WP:GOOGLE and WP:OTHERSTUFF are not in themselves valid arguments. bridies (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rally cry on their forums. MLauba (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added ((afdanons)). — Jake Wartenberg 18:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A rally call for improving the quality of the article... is that somehow "bad" in your opinion? Also I just joined today that forum and tried to help them with something that seemed logical at that time and I haven't even thought this will happen; after all it's a well balanced article for a quite well known open source game. I didn't expected The Spanish Inquisition. Peer-LAN (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Noooobody expects the... oh never mind. Powers ^T 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a snotty remark like "please improve what you can before some crazy ass admin starts feeling important" is somehow "bad", funnily enough. Inviting others to jump in after you've poisoned the well is less than helpful. Someone another 22:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question to SALT !voters Why? What would salting this accomplish that simply protecting a redirect to Master of Orion wouldn't accomplish? Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response It would ensure that the fourth attempt goes through DRV and gets recreated as properly sourced, at long last. At least that's how I see it. MLauba (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can do that with a protected redirect--no non-admin would be able to change it, and DRV would be the right process to get the protection lifted. I want to make sure we're doing the right thing for the encyclopedia here, rather than just prohibiting a potential redirect (redirects are cheap) just because an enthusiastic bunch of hobbyists want their NN game included. Salting is for protecting the encyclopedia from clear harm, not for punishing enthusiastic creators of NN content. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point taken & vote amended. MLauba (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and maybe salt): I hate to do this, because I've so much as played the game. But then I play a lot of free games, and it's not about my personal opinion for what we include/exclude. We have policies and guidelines that are meant to ensure quality articles, and prevent personal opinion from slipping in. If this is important, find a reliable third-party source to say it is. If it isn't, then don't include it in Wikipedia until it is. Randomran (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but hold the salt, oppose merge or redirect to MoO though, this is a separate game and should be treated as such. The Softonic source looks good, but in order to provide enough material to build a solid neutral article (per notability), multiple reliable sources which cover the subject properly are needed. Game databases which contain links to the game and a stack of small articles on sites which can't be shown to be reliable aren't providing what is needed. I think there is a very good chance that this game could become more widely reviewed, but not until it has some kind of solid base (IE a version which is basically complete but can be further added to). Reviewers aren't going to fall over themselves to cover something which isn't complete in the majority of cases, give it a chance when there's hope that it will be covered. There are several sites who cover misc. freeware/open source/indie etc. games who could reasonably be argued as reliable. For instance: Jay is Games, GameZebo, Rock Paper Shotgun etc. If this is deleted then I suggest waiting for it to be built into that basically complete game then notifying as many of these reviewers as possible, if reviews do get written the article can be brought back, cited and then it's fine. Someone another 22:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Several comments have suggested redirecting to Master of Orion. Despite the similar name, FreeOrion is not a clone or remake of Master of Orion or any other game. The theme is similar, but design decisions are not made (solely or primarily) because of how a MOO game works. Various other games provide inspriation, but most design discussions are debated on their own merits. Geoff the Medio 75.155.168.6 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC) — 75.155.168.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have been editing for years under various IPs, including 66.102.65.103, 24.80.6.15 and 24.85.239.188. If you feel my comment is nonetheless unreliable, consult the Wiki Main Page of freeorion.org which states the same thing in the second sentence. Given the apparent lack of reliable secondary sources stating the FreeOrion is a clone, this should be sufficient evidence to assume for this discussion that it is not a clone. 75.155.168.6 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I was under impression that it was an open source remake of a commercially successful classic, similar in that to FreeDOOM or OpenTTD. If it's not closely based on the original game, I correct my original vote to delete and I hope the project will become more notable in the future. — Rankiri (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aditional argument A good argument for keep that I forgot to point out is that the game enjoys a constant flow of an average of 1000 downloads a day [53]. And that is just from the direct download from Sourceforge.net, not including third party repositories or websites. That's significant unbiased data Peer-LAN (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good argument, as it has nothing to do with Wikipedia criteria of notability. Lots of YouTube videos, porn videos, news stories online and so forth would smash those hits, and we don't have individual Wikipedia articles for most of those either. DreamGuy (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Peer-LAN (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hits are not a valid replacement for notability or verifiability. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt – I cannot find anything reliable that can establish notability of this game. I won't claim speedy deletion G4 as consensus seems to be against it, but my opinion is that nothing explicit has been brought forward even from the first AFD nomination. The question of the redirect should have been brought up at deletion review or can still be (as a protected version) if there is indeed a dispute as to whether the redirect would be a plausible search term, as 75.155.168.6 suggests. Otherwise, the constant recreation seems to indicate disruptive editing. MuZemike 06:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that along with asking for help on the external discussion board, peer-LAN appears to be canvassing for support on wiki too. Quantpole (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response can you read WP:CANVASS before you open you mouth from now on please. If you look, you'll see that Friendly notice, maybe... that is, if you're not just blinded by your irrational abhorrence you seem to have, because my message was limited in scale, neutral, nonpartisan and open (it's like I wrote that part of the article). So please, stop with all this Kabuki, it's just not necesary and plain impious. Peer-LAN (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I posted what I did in consideration of your actions and manner so far. The note may be neutral, but in the context of your behaviour regarding this matter I thought it worthwhile bringing to people's attention. People can make up their own minds on what your intention was. Quantpole (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additionally, lets try to assume good faith and attempt to not be selectively rude. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basically, my reasons for thinking this article should stay are the same as in the previous afd I commented on: No, third party news sources are sparse and barely existant. However, there is little question that this is a popular project, and an offshoot of an even more popular, notable game. It is clear to me by the forum references, download sites, and download statistics that this project is notable, even if it doesn't fall within the notability guidelines. Reading this afd, I fear alot of the arguments against this article are for the sake of argument, and are strictly based upon the principle of the guidelines and not whether or not the article actually is useful and of acceptable quality. It is my steadfast belief that guidelines are never perfect; In this case, the guidelines exclude what I do firmly believe is a project worth inclusion in Wikipedia. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt per MuZemike. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In it's current form, there is no evidence this subject exists except for it's own website and download service, meaning it fails notability guidelines completely. There are a number of arguments above for "we should keep it, it's definitely well known". No, from wikipedia's perspective, it is not. If it were well known, a secondary source would take the time to write about it, in a non-trivial way, in a reliable venue. "It's notable even though it doesn't meet the notability requirements" is an paradoxical argument. This debate is NOT whether the subject matter is notable in an objective way, it is a debate on whether it should have a wikipedia article. If it does not meet the Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, then it shouldn't be included here. At some time this subject may well become notable enough to be reviewed in periodicals, news or journals. When it is an article can be created. Not before. Note: this last comment is an argument AGAINST salting, although I understand the frustration of some editors that this inappropriate article continues to be recreated. -Markeer 23:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Master of Orion. An excellent community project, but until reliable, published sources give this game significant coverage we shouldn't have an article about it. I do not object to a short mention in the MOO article (I'm sure I've seen the freewaregenius raised in another recent AfD...)Marasmusine (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable third-party sources. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable open source project - article can be improved. - Hoplon (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Add one Magazine source for notability. 189.77.136.95 (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC) — 189.77.136.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I've followed the .pdf link to the Full Circle Magazine article and it is indeed listed there. I'm not familiar with the magazine itself (it appears to be less then 2 years old, but that doesn't necessarily make it unimportant). This may well count as one source, I'll leave it to others to debate whether it passes WP:SOURCES. Regardless, to the "Keep" people, one source is still not enough. Multiple sources with non-trivial coverage is the goal. -Markeer 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A magazine source was found. Also, the number of people downloading this free open source game each day, and the number which have downloaded it total since it first was released, makes it notable. Dream Focus 18:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hits are not a valid replacement for notability or verifiability. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The source — "a FREE independant [sic] magazine" — appears to be comprised of reader submitted stories, so I would not immediately regard it as a reliable publication. Additionally, its coverage of FreeOrion is extremely limited. The article references FreeOrion in "your monthly list of Linux games or applications from the depths of the Internet" as one of the top five space games for Linux, but aside from that it completely fails to mention any facts about the game itself. I'm not sure if the following quote satisfies WP:GNG:

"If you prefer turn-based strategy type games, yet still love the alien side of life, FreeOrion is a great option. It's is a free turn-based strategy game based on Master of Orion. Basically, it's a space-based Civilization (or, if you're a free software lover, FreeCiv). As a nice bonus, the graphics look fairly good (especially for an open-source game)." http://dl.fullcirclemagazine.org/issue14_en.pdf — Rankiri (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.There is nothing wrong to be free and having magazine reader submitted stories does not mean that the magazine is comprised entirely of stories submitted like you are sugesting, also has to take into consideration that the submitted stories have to be aproved by the editorial, since the magazine has editorial integrity, one proof-read team, etc. It is worth mentioning that the magazine is independent of the subject(FreeOrion) and not some kind of fan blog.

The magazine is simply specialized in linux, especially Ubuntu, even their logo is just like Ubuntu logo, and having a sub-forum in Ubuntu Forums and in the Ubuntu wiki is under the Address/Link "UbuntuMagazine", but i dont know if it one official project or one 3rd Party suported the project.

So you did not say a good reason why the magazine could not be a reliable publication.

The phrase "from the depths of the Internet" is a sarcastic way to express that there is not much publicity about free and/or open source linux applications and especially in this case games and should not be interpreted in a pejorative way.

As you said "the article in the references FreeOrion one of the top five games for Linux space", is not something trivial to be in the Top 5 of all space games for Linux.

It does not completely fails to mention any facts about The Game itself. As shown in the quote "If you prefer turn-based strategy type games, yet still love the alien side of life, FreeOrion is a great option. It's is a free turn-based strategy game based on Master of Orion. Basically, it's a space-based Civilization". It address the subject directly in detail genre and somewhat the gameplay(turn-based strategy) , the theme(alien side of life/civilization), and if you consider the comparison(Master of Orion) it tells much about the game. There's even a small screenshot of the game.

In addition, the article objective is not a review, but to inform what games won the Top 5, thus increasing notability, popularity, etc, of FreeOrion and other games.

Sorry my bad English, it is not my native language.

201.36.214.10 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC) — 201.36.214.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Any source considered as a reliable one needs editorial oversight, as laid out in WP:SOURCES. There is no indication of editorial policies, in fact, most if not all content is user-submitted - see here. The "top 5 Linux space games" isn't any form of contest or survey, as indicated on the magazine page itself, this too is user-submitted. Last but not least, the onus is not on Rankiri to demonstrate that a source is not reliable but on those submitting it that it is reliable. That being said, even if the source were to be reliable (which I contest), the mention remains entirely trivial. MLauba (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources establish notability for this.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:06, 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 Speedy delete a1, no meaningful content, see Dan D's comment below. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word ses[edit]

Delete non notable neologism/protologism per WP:NEO not found in online dictionaries of slang, possibly WP:MADEUP Mayalld (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mayalld's nom CultureDrone (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Quantpole (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be a speedy delete. Simply copied something about the word "See' and replaced it with "Ses" Dan D. Ric (talk) 13:08, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Nigerian relations[edit]

Another random pairing with no attempt made to establish notability from an obsessive stub creator. The existence of a Nigerian community in Greece is unremarkable and can be discussed somewhere else. IfYouDontMind (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts DGG (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources indicate anything other than a routine, non-notable relationship here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 10:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of significant relationship. This details 2 rather unremarkable agreements between the 2 countries. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added some content and references. I assume US-Anycountry relations would automatically be considered notable. Let's not be parochial. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First, not all US-X relations are notable; but then again, the US is a superpower, and we also generally consider Russia-X and China-X to be notable, so there's no question of being parochial here. Second, a few kind words, the signing of a document the type of which is signed every week of every year, and pledges of "further cooperation" do not exactly constitute a notable relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of anything other than a routine, non-notable relationship, but nice try. Canvasback (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Canvasback (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DGG (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So I think the argument is that although the relationship clearly exists, and reliable independent sources show that the two countries are exchanging bland diplomatic bullshit, it is not very interesting so should be deleted. Personally, I would prefer that all relationships between two countries were routine and boring, and see no reason to reject articles for this reason. I wish there were more of them. Is it factual? Aymatth2 (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's part of it - if this article weren't here and editors didn't feel the need to "fill in" the details, things like Greece's $5.4 million annual imports from Nigeria (which is nothing for an economy worth $350 billion) would never be considered notable enough to make it onto Wikipedia. In essence, we're lowering the bar. But the more important fact, one that I'm sure you're tired of hearing from me by now, is the lack of sources discussing the relationship as such, for which we compensate by plucking out random facts we find in news searches, etc. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have filled in some details on diplomatic, trade, people etc. relations. Still a skeleton article, but I think it is now clear that the relationship is notable and interesting. Greek investments in Nigeria today exceed US$5 billion, although that has nothing to do with notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as IfYouDontMind. Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deja-vu, yadd-yadda. Dahn (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deja-vu, yadda-yadda. -- llywrch (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete behind all of the sources in the current version there is no evidence of a notable bilateral relationship. $5 billion of cumulative private investment by greek companies in nigeria over 60 years (sourced to greek government press release, but whatever) is not very much -- Nigerian GDP is about $170 billion and Greece's is about $300 billion. Even if we assume that $5 billion was invested over a five year period (instead of 60 years, but again, whatever) that amounts to private investment of about 0.7% of Nigerian GDP per year -- and that says nothing about gov-to-gov relations (the trade numbers are really trifling -- a total of about $100 million is what, 0.05% of Nigerian GDP). What else? Greek dominance in shipping means that Greek ships often call at every major port in the world. That they call at Lagos, too, says nothing about the bilateral relationship between these states. That 300 Greeks live in Lagos and 3,000 Nigerians live in various greek cities also says nothing about bilateral relations (and giving the globe trotting habitual to citizens of both nations seems empirically small).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the dollar value of the relationship determines whether it is worthy of an article. The article describes some of the many official and commercial ties between the two countries, and is fully sourced. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they were added in using primary sources in what appeared to me as an effort to use SYNTH to establish some kind of notability. And on that basis, the relative value of those commercial relationships is important. For the sake of the argument -- if you could point out the single best source that demonstrates notability for this topic, i'll give my honest assesment of it. Remember, verifiability is neccessary but not sufficient for inclusion (that is, to say something is "sourced" is not sufficient to detemine if the topic at hand merits inclusion).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious independent sources are:

Guardian News shows some press interest in the official relationship. There are a couple of other news stories like this, never very exciting articles!
Athens News gives some human interest about Nigerian immigrants in Greece
Philippine Daily Inquirer discusses issues with Greek shipping in Nigeria, backed up by a couple of other other news sources

This content was slapped together very quickly after the stub showed up in AfD (it beats me why anyone would churn out a bunch of stubs like this.) I am sure that a more careful check would find many more independent sources. There is a lot going on between the two countries, particularly in trade & investment, and the papers are bound to be reporting it.

I don't see SYNTH. To me that is stringing together two statements from different sources to reach a novel conclusion: "X said the USA stands for freedom, Y says the Tamil Tigers are fighting for freedom. So the USA supports the Tamil Tigers." Obviously unacceptable. I suppose you could stretch the SYNTH definition to say that the collection of statements from the independent sources is being used to imply the relationship exists. The only statements that directly discuss the relationship come from primary sources such as diplomats who are clearly biased - the relationship is their job. But I think that is stretching it. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I read the first source from The Nigerian Guardian. (since you placed it first, assuming that is the strongest). The outgoing greek ambassador to nigeria said very nice things about nigeria in his going-away event, and this single-sourced article in a nigerian newspaper is about that. I don't see that as establishing this is a notable bilateral relationship. Unless he's been PNG'd, every outgoing ambassador for country x says nice things about host country y.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would be easy enough to add many stories similar to the one from the The Nigerian Guardian from the leading Nigerian and Greek newspapers. They will tend to report stories like "Meeting with his counterpart in Athens today, the Nigerian Minister of trade said he wanted to strengthen economic and cultural ties between his country and Greece." These really would be reliable independent sources reporting on the relationship. Also, they would be extremely boring and would add nothing to the article. So how many different articles from how many different newspapers would be enough to establish notability? (be reasonable - I have a day job) Aymatth2 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At that level of trivia? You could have millions and it still wouldn't help. Let me put it this way -- various mediocre high school sports programs have been written up thousands of times in local/semi-local papers (for the mediocre high school teams i played on, that would have been the newark star ledger). Would the existence of thousands of trivial game reports justify inclusion of individual high school sports teams in wikipedia? No. These sort of single source stories, written from press releases aren't much different. There is no in-depth coverage of this supposed relationship in any of them. I'd like one source that isn't trivial and is about the relationship. Just one.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question - I am not sure where to look. I tried searching for Ελλάδα Νιγηρία σχέση, but the results were all Greek to me. Apart from the government sites, which have a lot to say about the relationship, they seemed to mostly be about the Siemens scandal, Commerce or the trade in prostitution. I am starting to wonder if Greece has any diplomatic or economic relationships with Nigeria, or if it is all an elaborate hoax: the two countries have never heard of each other and the newspapers are just making it up. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The material discussed by Bali is proof that there is a significant relationship. International trade is a major part of world affairs, and it canot really be discussed except in bilateral terms. So there will often be content for such an article. DGG (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -Most of these international relations articles ARE notable. They just need expanding. This is obvious notable ,good work expander. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the English language sources found by Bali. There's probably a lot more in Greek.--Oakshade (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Dr. Blofeld FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japan–Ukraine relations[edit]

No evidence of notability provided, apart from routine trade relations, and visits by heads of state which are routine and highly staged events IfYouDontMind (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. DGG (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, this one could use some better third-party sourcing but unlike some of these random country pairings this one seems to contain some encyclopedic information - high-level visits and balance-of-trade information is the kind of thing these articles should contain. Obviously the relationship between these two countries is not exactly extensive or close, but there seems to be sufficient useful information to support a stub. ~ mazca ^t|c 09:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this topic is better covered in Foreign relations of Japan and Foreign relations of Ukraine respectively. Goesquack (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the above user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. DGG (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as IfYouDontMind. Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sure, there've been the usual ceremonial visits, the carbon deals signed, and so forth, but with no historic, cultural or geographic ties and fairly low-level economic ones, it's difficult to see a coherent, well-developed article being written about this subject. - Biruitorul ^Talk 10:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one in a series of Japan-"Country X" foreign affairs articles that could benefit with substantial expansion and references. --MChew (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be pedantic, but where are those sources? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a few refs from the first few search results on "japan ukraine trade". I assume there are many more if anyone cares to expand the article further, and more to be said about other aspects of the relationship (cultural exchanges etc.) Not very exciting, maybe, but trade beats war in my book. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article shares knowledge = that what's wikipedia is all about! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Canvasback (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Canvasback (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DGG (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as IfYouDontMind. Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft and clutter. Dahn (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:' "cruft" = IDONTLIKEIT. "Clutter"=ITHOUGHTWEWEREPAPER. DGG (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Nah, I was just tired of repeating the exact same points I've made on numerous similar AfDs. You can pick it up, mutatis mutandis, from other such pages I've edited recently. Dahn (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, this is OK article. Agree with DGG. Delist/keet for procedural reasons. This is pure disruption.Biophys (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to refs found by Aymatth2 and due to comments by DGG. This is a disruptive nomination by someone whose intent is disruption. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Nihonjoe, whom I note hasn't weighed in on any other related nominations. -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:52, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 17:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masters: London Live '68[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Masters: London Live '68

No sources, no context, barely no sense. Just not clear enough to fit in any speedy category. Sources exist for Alan Bown (who is also mentioned as artist various other musicians recorded albums with) but I can't find any record under this name for this artist on Google. MLauba (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#A9, now tagged as such. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:07, 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 no consensus. There has been somewhat successful progress to add reliable sources to the article; we expect to see more of them. No prejudice against renomination should the additional sources fail to materialize. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom)[edit]

This article, along with two other characters from this five-part miniseries, was AfDed three months ago for reasons lack of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources (i.e. WP:NOTABILITY) if you check Google News/Books/Scholar for "Virginia Lewis" "10th kingdom", and no source is cited in the article. The article is also WP:REDUNDANT to the parent article The 10th Kingdom, contains WP:OR (the "Personality and traits" and "Cultural references" section, honestly, read it!), and if the original research were removed as it should, the rest of the article would consist of plot details that fail WP:WAF and WP:UNDUE (I'd add WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT if they weren't under discussion at the moment). The article has been tagged for over half a year for these issues, and no improvement is in sight. Speaking from experience writing the FA article on the highly influental six-part miniseries Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial), the main articles already gives due weight to the all the characters and nothing needs to be merged from the current character subarticle. If few new legitimate elements were added to the article, I'd still argue to WP:AVOIDSPLIT until a sizeable article without much redundancy to the parent article has been written. I boldly redirected the article yesterday per these reasons without being aware of the last AfD, but the redirect got reverted.

I do not think three months is too early to start a new AfD. Additionally, the last AfD only ended in a keep because an editor claimed that "Principle characters in the major series deserve an article" and that a merger would be appropriate, followed by "per him" votes. However, a five-part TV miniseries is not a "major series" in any way, and I stated above why a merger or redirect doesn't make sense [anymore]. Plus, this is an unlikely search term. I'd like the closing admin to review and balance the presented arguments in this new AfD very closely against my full deletion rationale. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case this isn't obvious, the current cited sources (which were added after the nom) are also present in the main article, The 10th Kingdom. That's why I specifically named AVOIDSPLIT in the nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is just an extension of The 10th Kingdom, with even more in depth plot details that I do not believe are suitable for an encyclopedia. Can be adequately covered in the main article. Lacks any sources. Searching mainly gives plot summaries, and there doesn't seem to be much reputable coverage of the character. Quantpole (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The 10th Kingdom and trim. Edward321 (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Edward321, with no prejudice against a re-spin-out when sources speak to the character specifically. Jclemens (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the one line of reception to the main and per my original AfD; the rest is just an excessive repeat of the plot that was culled from the main and doesn't need to be added back. Generally, miniseries are considered films rather than a television series, as far as Wikipedia purposes are concerned, and this sort of split is both unnecessary and inappropriate. Articles had been merged before, but were resplit under new article names without discussion by a banned sockpuppet. Needs to be taken back that way again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included at Talk:Kimberly Williams-Paisley, Talk:Christine White, Talk:The 10th Kingdom Ikip (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP and further source the individual per coverages in WP:RS diff diff. While the nomination seems a tad WP:TLDR and perhaps more suitable to discuiison on the article's talk page, coverage in RS is available, a few sources HAVE already been added, and saying that a rewrite ("original research were removed as it should") would reduce the article to "plot details that fail" does not account for the fact that what is being called WP:OR might itself be found in the sources available, making it NOT OR. It is a pity that the article itself has not addressed all of these issues in what the nom considers a timely manner, but his timeline for improvement is not Wiki's, and Wiki never demands that it itself be perfect. Bringing his concerns to AfD is laudable, and may now force improvement, but even that may not satisfy him ("If few new legitimate elements were added to the article, I'd still argue to WP:AVOIDSPLIT"), (Sorry, but I DID read the entire nomination summary). As for the name being an "unlikely search term", I found enough even through google to show that it is not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed the added content and found less than 2.5 kB worth of non-redundant information (most of which is the refs themself), which I have added to the main article while paying particular attention to rephrase the sources so that the COPYVIO and GFDL don't apply and doesn't necessitate an ((R from merge)). The main article is now 14.5 kB big, still in the lower part of WP:SIZE's 1-40 KB range of prose size where "Length alone does not justify division", which is exactly the point of AVOIDSPLIT. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unjustifiable spinout per the well-formulated and presented nom. Eusebeus (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed last time. Also there is enough information to warrant its own article, and it has a reference section. Dream Focus 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no utility in merging, the material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information in this article that isn't either plot duplication of the parent article, original research, or just flat out unsourced, amounts to the following:
Virginia Lewis is a fictional character and the main protagonist of the Hallmark Entertainment's, and NBC's 2000 cult miniseries The 10th Kingdom by Simon Moore. She is played by Kimberly Williams. Ron Wertheimer describes Virginia as "that plucky waitress...on her way to self-confidence." John Levesque writes that "Kimberly Williams is annoying yet somehow captivating as Virginia."
The portrayer information, as well as the 17 words of critical reception, fit easily and handily into the 10th Kingdom article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By that same argument, all of wiki could be set as a 3 word redirect: "Wikipedia: See Britanica". How one trims something and how it is then sourced is a matter for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as MichaelQSchmidt has offered a pretty good rebuttal to the nomination. Now here's what we have in this case:
- 1. WP:PRESERVE - at least the reception section is mergeable as even the above editor who despite the bolded delete agrees as well as the first bolded delete who also says it can be covered elsewhere.
- 2. WP:N - concerns the main character in a multi-part show that aired on a major network is played by an actress worthy of a Wikipedia article and that has been made available on DVD as well
- 3. WP:V - subject can be verified through multiple Google News and Google Books hits that include The New York Times and TV Guide, which discounts the first bolded deletes claims of "lacks any sources."
In an instant such as this, we should be able to at least agree on a merge and redirect with edit history intact as the article is clearly a valid search term for those who created and worked on the article as well as those who come here to read it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Argument (1) could always be used to defy any merger attempt, so it doesn't have much weight for a particular article either. Argument (2) is rather subjective considering that WP:N calls for sufficient sources (since the article isn't even C-Class, I'd be wary to call the present sources "sufficient"). Argument (3) ignores much of my deletion rationale where I specifically said that the available sources and the main article together do not justify a WP:SPLIT. I would have been fine with a merger (by someone else; I didn't see mergeable content myself) or a redirect the first time around (and am still), but the past AfD result and the continued article restorations defeated attempts to implement these changes without an AfD (and the alternatives of an RfC or dispute resolution would simply have been overkill). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources demonstrate the topic is notable by providing some in-depth critical discussion of the character, and all of the reviews cited establish her as necessarily notable. Moreover, the article passes User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable, which probably has more consensus behind it anyway than the divisive WP:FICT, which has had so many versions, this probably passes at least some of them. And the bottom line is that there is no consensus to delete this article. After all notability is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because if we go by any reasonable inclusion criteria, i.e. it is verified in multiple reliable secondary sources and appeared in a multi-part series on a major network that got a DVD release, we would obviously keep, as has happened twice before already (note both closed as "keep," not "merge and redirct," or even "no consensus" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10th Kingdom character articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine White). I can somewhat understand renominations when something was deleted but recreated or the close was "no consensus", but we have two "keep" closes already and no one can deny that the article has improved since then. What is more, are video interview with the actress, too ([54] and [55] for example). Wasn't one of the compromises of WP:FICT that we can use such DVD interviews as a reliable source for these sorts of articles? Anyway, please note that I have been making numerous revisions since nomination: [56]. At this point, the right thing to do would be to not have a deletion discussion when the community has twice spoken already against redlinking and most of the bolded deletes within this discussion actually call for merges, which means we can't deleted per the GFDL. Given the suggestions by some in the first AfD for creating a character list as some sort of compromise, I strongly encourage you to withdraw this nomination and start a merge discussion concerning such a list. When I have more time, I would gladly help, but per WP:PRESERVE, we absolutely do not delete cited material that has any potential for mergers or redirects. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nothing has been shown that this character is notable in the real world. Notability isn't inherited from a notable show to its characters. Each subject in itself must meet WP:N by being the subject of in-depth discussion by reliable, third-party sources, and nothing in this article, or in my searches, has shown that it meets WP:N. This article also violates WP:WAF as its written from an in-universe perspective. Everything mentioned about her from the real-world has only been a trivial mention. There hasn't been a degree of discussion about her that warrants an encyclopedia article. Most of this information shouldn't be preserved as its not encyclopedic. The in-universe plot summary is much too long per WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. No offense to Michael Q Schmidt, but no amount of cleanup in the world can magically make a subject fit for an encyclopedia if it doesn't meet the notability guidelines and isn't discussed adequately in the real-world. The other material can be cited and look nice, but its still inappropriate. Verifiability != Notability. A redirect would also be acceptable, but I doubt that many people would search "Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom)" and Virginia Lewis already redirects to the 10th Kingdom. Them From Space 20:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An argument for proper cleanup, not deletion. That you do not belive it can be done, does not mean it cannot be so done in the time constraints Wikipedia allows for such. And again, as for the name being an "unlikely search term", I found enough even through google with exactly THAT search term diff diff to show that it is not an unlikely one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You misread what I said. Proper cleanup is impossible for this article, for the reasons I listed above, which you haven't addressed. Them From Space 05:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I read was your opinion that cleanup was impossible. I and others disagree and I am pleased to see that it is indeed being improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources that establish independent notabilty for this fictional personage. Redirect to the show after delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding sources diff diff is a matter for WP:CLEANUP per WP:ATD, not one for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But how many of those sources are reliable secondary sources about the character rather than about the show. From a quick look through those links I couldn't find any that were mainly about the character. Rather, she is mentioned generally in the context of plot summaries, which isn't enough to show notability. Let's see some specific reliable secondary sources mainly about the character, then you might be onto something. Simply quoting ghits establishes nothing. Quantpole (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since the character exists only within the context of the 10th Kingdom, such an expectaion for individual notability would be neigh impossible and is not expected nor required. There are numerous precedents on Wikipedia for inclusion of major characters that exist because of their shows, not because they exist apart from them. Not being offered as Other Stuff Exists, but solely as examples of existing and established precedent... Hawkeye Pierce, Radar O'Reilly,Hot Lips Houlihan, Adrian Monk, Archie Bunker, "Tim The Tool Man" Taylor, Al Borland, and many, many others... all of whom are discussed in WP:RS in direct context of and because of their shows. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the main character in a TV series, some of the printed (but not online) sources will discuss the character in an out-of-universe fashion. This highlights the importance of printed material Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per A nobody and Michael, noting the cleanup and sources added. Ikip (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved--there are now, considerably to my surprise, enough sources. (I had advised A Nobody it wasn't worth working on, but I was wrong). DGG (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator's statement indicates that he thinks that the article should be redirected not deleted because this is what he has just tried. Bringing the matter to AFD again after failing to establish consensus for that redirection/merge seems an abuse of process contrary to WP:GAME/WP:POINT. The topic is clearly notable as the sources demonstrate. The organisation of the material and which article it belongs in is not a matter for AFD, being instead a matter for ordinary content editing. AFD is not dispute resolution and per WP:BEFORE should only be used for hopeless cases. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only two ways to handle redundant subarticles that have no content to merge. Gentle und undramatic redirecting (didn't work), or a dramatic AfD. Unless someone presents a third option, I guess I'll just have to accept my damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation on my quest for a better wikipedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources don't demonstrate the topic is notable, the sources demonstrate that The 10th Kingdom is notable. I'd like to seem some in-depth critical discussion of the character, but none of the reviews cited establish her as necessarily notable. AniMate^talk 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then just a matter of adding sources per WP:CLEANUP and per WP:ATD. Deletion diminishes wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note this AfD has been canvassed by one of the editors here. Them From Space 07:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice above he actually posted "Note: This debate has been included at Talk:Kimberly Williams-Paisley, Talk:Christine White, Talk:The 10th Kingdom Ikip (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2009(UTC)" That does seem like an odd way of doing it. The articles are all related, so those involved in one, would want to know of the others I suppose. Wasn't done in secret, since he mentioned it four days ago, when two of these other articles were up for deletion too. Dream Focus 10:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked Ikip for canvassing. the wub "?!" 10:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Three impartial, neutral, friendly notices, do not a canvas make... and such courtesy is fully supported by guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability has not been established as required. Verbal chat 12:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither WP:PERNOM nor WP:JNN are valid reasons for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good thing I didn't use those, or WP:DICK. Sincerely, Verbal chat 08:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U can haz Badger-ring… I'll go find it sometime. Jack Merridew 07:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm sure you meant to say was "An essay suggests that WP:PERNOM and WP:JNN are not strong arguments." Stifle (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice to normal editorial process undoing the merge if consensus considers it appropriate. Direct merge should generally be used to accomplish the goals of this AfD, and then normal process followed in the event of conflict over merge. Far less disruptive than AfD, more likely to result in stable consensus. As noted, merge would allow efficient restoration of the article if better coverage appears in RS. --Abd (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And here we have the problem of Wikipedia reduced to one afd. The article is contentious to teh community, and good faith efforts to edit the page become confrontational because neither party will compromise. The plot borders on entertainment as opposed to information and also borders on copyright violation, if not going beyond. However, how likely is it the plot summary could be reduced? If it can't be, and the article still proves contentious... we're basically just gaming the system and turning Wikipedia into a battleground by insistences on black and white absolutes which can't be entertained and respect WP:CONSENSUS. I pity the admin who has to close tis, because no-one is engaing with teh actual issues that face the article. It's just become the latest venue to have a fight. Best of luck with it. Hiding T 18:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per excellent, well-reasoned nomination. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And with respects, the opinions to keep are themselves well-reasoned and support the continued improvement of wikipedia... for the readers and the future of a paperless encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Non-notable fancruft. The reception section states that someone said "Kimberly Williams is doe-eyed and pretty" and that's what this piece of shite article is about; fans of a hottie prattling-online. Use the "doe-eyed" bit in Kimberly Williams (which does not mean 'merge'). sgeureka and others have covered all teh good reazons twoz delete; juz dooz-zit. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that the character is simplistic, and the whole work derivative, does not detract from notability, or give a reason for contempt of the articles. I am as little a fan of this as anyone is likely to be, but then I dont expect most people here to be fans of some of the stuff I like. The presentation of the plot gives information about the plot--viewing it might conceivably give entertainment, but merely reading the bare plot could not possibly --whether or not one liked the series. Nor is this very rough outline anything like copyright vio. Even for doe-eyed, that remarkably trite method of visual characterization, any pleasure is perhaps seeing it, not reading about it. The few short quotes are used appropriately. all this article really needs is sources for the generalizations in "personality and traits". DGG (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge (with preference to the former) per excellent, well-reasoned nomination countered by inapplicable and badly argued arguments. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable character of a notable series. Also the article is too large to be merged in The 10th Kingdom unless we trim it significantly. However, I see no reason to trim it down since the article is properly sourced. Laurent (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources cited refer to the series as a whole — there is no coverage or consideration of this character in particular, depriving it of the real-world notability that our inclusion guideline requires. Merging would not be suitable; given the history of this page I would expect it to be demerged against consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. No worthy independent content, no notability attested by outside sources. Dahn (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Hiding touches upon a good point. This AfD has now become the subject of two ANI threads and it is pretty clear that there is a degree of bad faith and inaccuracy in some of the above as relates to these ANI threads. It is also clear that there absolutely is no consensus to delete. Thus, rather than persist in augmenting any animosity here, we should be able to do what Hiding suggests, i.e. come to a reasonable compromise. Clearly a good segment of our editors and readers believe these articles are Wikipedic, hence, why they were kept in two AfDs already and why there is no consensus to delete this third time. As such I have started a location where we can merge (no, I have not yet merged this particular character's article yet) and a discussion at Talk:List of 10th Kingdom characters. Character lists are a sound way to compromise on these sort of things and if we use the many interviews, previews, and reviews of the mini-series that discuss the characters as a whole, we have a good chance to develop such a list into three sections: 1) on development; 2) the list of characters; and 3) on reception a la what I did when I revised this particular character's article. Plenty of out of universe information exists and it is undeniable that these characters are indeed notable as a whole. So, let's follow Hiding's suggestion and work together on this compromise solution. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blessed are the peacemakers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference: file an ANI report then use it as a reason for shutting down the AfD... If you can improve the page, fine, but I don't see it yet. Verbal chat 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 10th Kingdom or the list article. As has been pointed out previously, the sources here are also in the main article. There is, in my opinion, insufficient mention of this character in those sources to justify a stand alone article; however, deletion clearly is not appropriate. I see no reason why this can't be merged back to the main article given the identical sourcing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until peaceful route to a "characters of" article is created. Also a suggestion to look for likely redirects of other character names so newby articles don't create more problems. Fictional subjects are some of our finest articles and there's no reason that compromises can't be sought that address the needs of our readers and adheres to policies. -- Banjeboi 23:22, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Mongolia relations[edit]

another random pairing from the obsessive article creator. a very insignificant relationship In 2006, Mongolia was Estonia’s 134th trade partner (53, 000 EUR) and 125th export partner. For the second year in a row, there were no imports from Mongolia to Estonia. !! LibStar (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, official visits by heads of state are routine and highly staged events. JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts DGG (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - good comic relief perhaps, but little actual notability to the "relationship" demonstrated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email | Editor Review 08:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or re-direct and merge into Foreign relations of Estonia. If relations between these two countries are not be notable by Wikipedia standards, they exist never the less. There are 192 countries within the UN, the Estonian foreign ministry lists relations with 72 and this is one of them. So it is not a random pairing. Martintg (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Come on guys, let's not be parochial. Much more important than Canada – United States relations to the people that live in these countries, just a bit less content available in English. I added some material with refs from a very quick search, and am sure there is much more out there. Too much to be a sub-entry in Foreign relations of Estonia or Foreign relations of Mongolia, and which would it fall under? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there is little trade between Mongolia and Estonia, there's significant cultural exchange -- both now and during the last century. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the expansion contains nothing unremarkable for this kind of relationship, and fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Canvasback (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Canvasback (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DGG (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as JustOneMoreQuestion. Uncle G (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Documenting nothing. And no, no "parochialism" here: I don't think anyone is opposing the aricle on grounds that it's "not American" (neither am I!), though I knew that the very principles on which the "X-Y relations" articles, American or whatever, were tolerated would come back to bite all of us in the ass. personally, i feel that all these articles are ill-conceived (I have said this before), but in this case, and in many others, no matter what the principle, we're simply dealing with nonsense. Dahn (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not nonsense - reliable independent sources attest to the fact that Mongolia and Estonia have relations, which may go a long way back. They are talking about strengthening economic and cultural ties - unusual maybe, but a good thing. Surely this article will grow as interested editors add detail. There are many reliable independent sources - that is enough for me. More important than some punk rock group from Halifax. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What those reliable independent sources "attest" is something which an editor has chosen to interpret as relevant for the article, not something relevant in itself. For one, we have the utterly non-encyclopedic info about visits (significant only because the editor who wanted to find something on the relationship attributed them significance) which, btw, are not attested by independent sources, they come to us as passing mentions from the parties involved - the government, the NGO participating in bilateral meetings, the Mongolian News Agency. Aside from these, we have the info about Von Sternberg, which has nothing to do with Estonia, and very little to do with Mongolia. And just how "far back" can these "relations" reach, with Estonia having had two terms of independence, interwar and post-1991, and Mongolia having dropped its puppet state status in 1991? To add: the frankly atrocious manner in which the article is written (see what the WP:MOS has to say about linking, capitalization, punctuation and other things) attests to the haste in "rescuing" this article, which, in this case, as in several others, only bundles up trivia. So, yes, the article is nonsense. And who, pray tell, is discussing punk rock groups from Halifax? Dahn (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus is achieved at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Martintg (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources establish this as a notabie relationship. The puff tossed up there now is a violation of SYNTH as well.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not WP:SYNTH. That principle is that editors should not string together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. An example would be: "A said the USA stands for freedom. B says the Tamil Tigers are seeking freedom. Therefore the USA supports the Tamil Tigers". Obviously this is unacceptable. The "puff" or "diplospeak" in the article supports the fact that there are indeed relations between the two countries, and tells something about these relations. As one would expect, they are not very intense. But the article is clearly factual, backed up by various solid sources. Is the subject important? See WP:BIAS. It may be quite important to the people of Mongolia. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It may be quite important to the people of mongolia?" I strongly doubt that, but of course my opinion is worth as much as yours in this case (zero). Do you have reliable sources on how important this is to the people of mongolia? Alrighty then.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you were a Bandy fanatic, you might have a different point of view. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but since when are we creating articles to keep users with a certain POV content?! Dahn (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just meant that if there are a lot of Estonians and Mongolians who are passionately interested in Bandy, like a lot of Canadians and Americans are interested in Ice Hockey, they could be interested in the relations between their two countries. English is sort of the global language these days, so they might look in the English Wikipedia to find out. It is plausible to think that people in these two ex-Soviet satellite states may have some interest in each other. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back. In the Bandy World Championship 2007, Mongolia was trashed by Estonia 5-0. My guess is that the Mongolians don't want to hear anything more about Estonia right now. Could be wrong - I don't know what is happening in the playoffs this year. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Estonia was not a satellite state, it was *in* the Soviet Union. My question still stands, but let me rephrase it for clarity: since when are we creating and keeping articles because people may be passionately interested in something that may be said to relate to the object of their passion? Wikipedia does not structure itself around POVs, does it? As for the (otherwise valid) observations about the status of English, let me note again that you are discussing this with me, a Romanian in Romania, and that I have already answered about what works and what doesn't work in that argument. Let me repeat my points: writing on obscure but contextually notable subjects (which we have both admittedly done) is not the same as compiling trivia to create a topic which may not exist at all; we already have equivalent coverage of even the more minor topics in Mongolian contexts, so this is certainly not an issue of bias. Let me add a relevant fact: as a Romanian who has contributed countless articles on Romania, I obviously want to improve coverage of my country, but I have a realistic expectation that this will not, could not and should not even try to reach a level comparable to America's or Britain's. No matter how you stretch it, something will not necessarily apply to Romania just because it applies to the US. I can't ignore the simple facts that we are a comparatively small culture/society with a total number of people you could fit into NYC, that we speak an insular language, that we were not patrons of anything resembling Hollywood (or even Bollywood). In these terms, I can accept that Romania's relationship with its neighbor Bulgaria may factually not as important as the US' relationship with Nicaragua (not the same stakes, logistics or global doctrines involved). Working my way down from that, I'm certain that Romania's relations with Mongolia/Estonia/Cambodia will be as worthy a separate article as is the US' relations with, say, Andorra. Mutatis mutandis. Dahn (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I have been in any way offensive. I am so used to finding editors who think that "foreign stuff" is unimportant, I suppose I throw in WP:BIAS almost as a reflex when I seem to detect the argument that this cannot be important because it is about a pair of trivial little countries. My people come from a small country too. At risk of repeating, I prefer to be as non-judgmental on the value of articles as possible. Everyone has different viewpoints on what matters and what does not. Deleting an article on the basis that "I don't think this is important" seems totally wrong to me. If an article is coherent, describes a clearly identifiable topic, is not a fork and presents sufficient well-documented information, I think it should stay - and that is almost always the consensus in an AfD discussion like this. Not always. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should clarify this: aside from the reservations I have toward the "bilateral relations" system in general (if anything, because it created a problem where there was none), I had and will have the same objections to articles compiled from similar trivia and involving any of the "major players" (US, UK, France, Russia, whatnot) or countries "in-between" (from Romania to Chile, passing through Libya). If the articles in question only cover a vacuum, they are not around for any reason. Of course, that would primarily (always?) apply to articles where the other term is a [comparatively] minor country, so the "systemic bias" argument could be resurrected as a twist in the plot in just about any case. Regardless, "bias" is not the real issue, whatever the X and Y.

I take no offense at any of your comments, and did not want to come across as such. In fact, given the precedents, I would even expect the comments I made about my own country to be taken as offensive by some of the less realistic of my compatriots - but they are nonetheless accurate. The awareness of these truths certainly does not make me bitter. In terms of absolute importance, Romania does not rank below other countries because of subjective issues ("Americanocentrism", "Anglocentrism", "Francocentrism" etc. - however relevant these may actually be in general). It does so because of objective, easily determinable, issues. Here's a couple: the population of the US is 14 times that of Romania; while Britain was already home to a railway network, published the most trusted newspapers, and owned an empire upon which the sun never set, Romania was starting to consider building its first railway, adopting the Latin alphabet and a literary language, and finding a powerful patron to finance its emancipation from an empire; throughout the 19th century, qualifying as a schoolteacher in France would ensure you a lifetime of cultural prominence in Bucharest. Given that I wouldn't consider a relationship between US/UK/France and X state inherently notable, what is left to say about Romania, or Mongolia? Let's not delude ourselves. Dahn (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add: whatever anyone of us says can be transformed into "I do/don't think this is important", and therefore be seen as subjective. That said, I do believe I and others have presented arguments as to why it is unimportant, and, what's more impractical, ill-conceived, and against wikipedia's nature (every part of "coherent, describes a clearly identifiable topic, is not a fork and presents sufficient well-documented information" has been challenged, not to say refuted, by now). It's always assumed that none of us has access to an absolute truth, but that doesn't mean it's all in the eye of the beholder. And, even if it did, it still doesn't mean that the article discussed with such arguments should be kept because it has had a beholder. Furthermore, once expressed, that attitude would primarily endorse the notion that any article (existing or conceivable) should be kept by default. After all, who's to say what article is "coherent, describes a clearly identifiable topic, is not a fork and presents sufficient well-documented information" - using the "viewpoints" argument you referred to, it too is a matter of opinion. Dahn (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a synthesis in the sense that it strings together various stuff (the last two paragraphs also having nothing to do with Mongolia and Estonia as such, and already covered in more appropriate venues) and concludes "notable relationship!" But that's not how it works. We don't take Presidential visit + ambassadorial consultation + e-governance experts' visit and deduce from that "notable relationship". Putting aside that that is trivia and news that we would never, ever be covering here if this series of nonsense articles hadn't been created and editors now felt the need to fill them in, it also constitutes a synthesis, given the lack of sources about the relationship as such. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I note how those sources are no longer "independent", but are now "solid" - even though they are entirely primary. WP:SYNTH applies to the measure where these articles don't discuss anything other than courtesies exchanged, and outline basic activities for which they are payed; no commentary on these notions exists in secondary sources, the editor who used them simply tried to replace that void with info that asserts no relevancy, and attributed it a personal relevancy. Why? Simply because it was believed that editors who objected to this article say "it can't be done" (as opposed to "it shouldn't be attempted"). For the third time: trivia + trivia does not make notable.

And the WP:BIAS claim (btw, why are we finding that relevant what other editors in some project perceive as a flaw?): adding trivia on Mongolia is equivalent to adding trivia on the US, and neither should eventually be spared "the scissors". If we are talking about notability, lack of coverage and weird dynamics, let me note this and that - I'd say we're beyond "bias" claims now. Yes, Mongolia will get less coverage than many other countries. For quite valid reasons, such as it being an underdeveloped country, and - with only a fraction of the media and academia other countries can afford - producing less coverage of its own stuff at home. But, regardless, we already have reasonable coverage of even its pop scene. As for the expectation that a Mongolian internet user would visit this article and this article over all, needing this exact piece of trivia, puh-lease. Let alone the ridiculousness of probabilities invoked, but it's quite clear that wikipedia should not even begin to strive to create articles around specific needs, otherwise we'd have articles on any potential subject for any potential high school paper, we'd start including DIY guides, etc. In other words, we'd be discarding WP:NOT. Dahn (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What started the article" is not relevant, or "I am not interested". I prefer to stick to the criterion that the content is backed up by multiple reliable sources. They attest to the fact that there are relations and give some information. Boring maybe, but "I think this is boring" is not a criterion for deletion. Look at all the trivial articles in Wikipedia - maybe someone is interested in Balmaclellan - beats me who. Are the sources reliable? Well, maybe the government of Estonia is lying when they announce a visit by the president of Mongolia, and maybe the government of Mongolia is lying when they say their ambassador presented his credentials to the Estonians. I am inclined to believe that in this case the sources, although primary, are reliable. Perhaps an editor who spoke Estonian and/or Mongolian could dig up newspaper sources. (I deleted the last two paragraphs - agree they are distractions.) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are fairly trivial (or at least routine) news stories that would never feature here were editors not now feeling compelled to "fill in" details, and say nothing about Estonia–Mongolia relations as such, but rather bring together trivia that editors - not reliable secondary sources - have decided constitute evidence of a notable relationship. And by the way, you do realise that ambassadors present credentials every week of every year, right? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Nobody has claimed this article is not worthy because it's "boring" (it's not, I for one find it rather amusing), but that it's trivial (meaning that the factoids it contains are not up to the standards). Speculating about the possibility of more random newspaper articles (on what?) only highlights the idea that this article cannot possibly go anywhere. And no, the primary sources are not worthless because they may be false, but because they don't actually establish notability. It's like citing Jesus to establish why Christianity is important. Dahn (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about citing the Pope on why Jesus is important? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a hugemongous article such as Christianity/Jesus, once you're done with all the reliable third-party sources, you could of course cite the pope somewhere if you really think it adds anything relevant, with what the pope says. You'd have by then established notability. However, even in that unlikely scenario, I'd think you'd want to avoid the whole issue, since it would also be a good idea to cite the leaders of all other major branches (just to be on par), and since everyone of those branches has expressed its doctrine in a corpus of works far greater than the pope's press releases (not to mention itself discussed to death in academia). But let's assume Christianity was a cult whose importance is not immediately apparent, and Jesus its prophet. Would you establish their notability by relying on quotes from the cult leader? Dahn (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, some editors appear to be taking a fundamentalist approach to notability, when the issue hasn't been decided yet at Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Bilateral_international_relations. Martintg (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure deeming that opinion "fundamentalist" when the issue has not been "decided" there is okay... Dahn (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what do you expect? This is Wikipedia. It views notability through the teen POV, and teenagers never were into international relations. But soon they'll lose interest and go after obscure cartoon characters from a bygone era instead. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 04:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what all of us voting oppose have been doing, me especially...

(And I can't help but notice: this argument about irrelevant subjects being prioritized over serious content is brought up here, in a discussion about an article relying on primary sources about a couple of visits which no one in Mongolia or Estonia is likely to honestly have remembered for some reason. Now that "teen POV" is mentioned, let's note how bandy games and what Mongolian people may find interesting for no apparent reason were brought up as arguments in favor of keeping the article...) Dahn (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Miacek (t) 11:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC). Digwuren has explained this humorously and yet very well above. --Miacek (t) 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

above should be disregarded as per WP:JUSTAVOTE— Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)

Comment: I have expanded the article a bit. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming surreal. What you added is yet more clutter about Estonian being related to Mongolian and about two teams facing each other in the game of bandy (with the mention "which is similar to hockey"!), neither of which has anything whatsoever in common with the conceivable topic (see WP:COATRACK). I'd picture this sort of editing to save a topic is in itself a reason not to keep this article. Dahn (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pattern with these uncalled-for "expansions". See Canada–Haiti relations: "here's a thumbnail sketch of Haitian history for you! And by the way, the Queen's representative in Canada comes from Haiti, not that her biography and the article on Haitian Canadians don't mention it already, but hey, we have nothing else to say, so why not mention it again?" - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:25, 26 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]
Delete The basis for this article is the usage of non-academic sources belonging to the Estonian government. Non-resident ambassadors. Presentation of credentials of ambassadors is a routine thing in diplomacy. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:54, 27 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 support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOHARM is not a valid rationale. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aymatth2 and Marting have done a fine job of digging up interesting facts about this relationship, well supported by citations. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to look like a coterie voting blindly. Aside from the one visit, which I understand you would assume is inherently notable (even if it is not covered by independent sources, contrary to what WP:GNG, WP:PSTS and WP:NOT require), what "facts" would those be, FeydHuxtable? The lack of an embassy on location? The minuscule trade? The glaringly non-notable info about a game of bandy? The info about Von Sternberg, which Aymatth himself deleted before it was reintroduced from a primary source, and which, outside of that primary source, is not mentioned in connection to Estonia? Let me remind you that we are not here to discuss whether those facts are interesting, but whether they are encyclopedic. Dahn (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, btw, for all you editors out there who are ready to assume that such sourcing helps the subject achieve more notability. If you think that the (distant) relationship between the Mongolian language and Estonian is a relevant detail and establishes something, consider what a similar level of detail would mean for any article on any two countries were Indo-European or Semitic languages are official. (And do take some time to read the corresponding edit summary...) If you think it's cool that the article mentions a face-off in bandy, have the good sense to consider what it would mean for the corresponding Canada-US or France-UK articles to mention all the similar confrontations in hockey, football and whatever other sport. If you think mentioning Von Sternberg adds anything relevant, imagine what it would mean if a Canada-US article would reserve space to detail the achievements of any Canadian-born American and American-born Canadian. Btw, judging by the article on him, Von Sternberg wasn't even a Baltic German per se, since he was born in Austria! In other words, this sort of absurdity is biased in favor of minuscule relevancy, and favors trivia in articles where there's really not much to say. It is therefore a clear violation of WP:NOT. I have already confronted FeydHuxtable with this on the centralized discussion page, but, you see, he can't hear me.

I hear you loud and clear Dahn. You’ve made a strong case that the keep votes for some of these bilateral relations articles aren’t consistent with existing guidelines. I’ve agreed you’re right. Where we differ is you and your supporters seem to want to maintain the status quo (or possibly have guidelines amended to make deletion of borderline articles even more clear cut) , whereas I and others would like an amendment to more tightly define the criteria that would establish notability for these relationships. This would be similar to the existing specific guidelines for music or academics – which allow notability to be established for reasons that wouldn’t be accepted by a strict reading of general policy. With a change the community can keep articles that many clearly want while staying with in guidelines and also provide useful topics for our audience. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you still can't hear me, since the above in no way answers the points I raised, but outline an idea which has nothing to with the relevancy of the info. And if you want a special guideline to say that sport events or other such trivia count as relations between states (do you, or are you just speculating?), and hold this article accountable to a non-existing guideline, your vote is nothing more than one of these. So is your circular argument about "borderline articles", which is being fed by your perception that such info is relevant. Dahn (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sporting encounters can be significant in the early stages of an international relationship. There are several studies that suggest sport can effective in developing relationships between nations, and in easing tensions between ethnic groups within a nation. Now your comparison with England / France seems strong at first glance, but consider how in the early stages of a relationship certain actions are immensely notable, whereas in a mature relationship they are not. Considering a human relationship might help, lets take the courtship between Elizabeth I and one of her Spanish suitors. Now these never even got as far as a first kiss as far as Im aware – but say it did that single kiss would have been immensely notable!! Not just as Beth was very notable in her own right, but it would have signalled much better prospects for the whole England – Spain relationship at the time. The Spanish Armada might never have happened! Whereas with any couple once they've been together for a while, a single kiss or even a mad all night session isnt likely to be all that noteable, no matter how significant the couple. Back to the matter at the hand, the world is now in a unique epoch where just about every nation is reaching out to every other – a hundred years back many either didn’t exist or only had formal relations with their immediate neighbors and the great powers. These fledgling relationships are significant because they have a bearing on international trade, cultural exchange , collaboration at international summits etc. So yes sporting events can sometimes be most notable, belong in articles , and yes Id ideally like that stated in a guideline. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH. I'm obviously not asking you about the "sometimes" when such a sporting event etc. is mentioned in a work dealing with international relations, I'm asking you about editorializing events whose notability is not established by outside sources, but by editors. I. e.: this case. So, back to my original question.

In this particular case, my guess would be youre probably right the game of brandy might well be trivial. But that’s just speculation on my part , very possibly the editor who added that knows a lot more about the Estonia Mongolia relationship than me. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the "unique epoch etc." theory - WP:NOT. You see, even if I'd want to be interested in this sort of speculation, several sections of that policy tell me that I shouldn't. Dahn (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I weren't more interested in WP:POINT than these users are, I'd remove all such "interesting" ad lib detail and leave you to ponder the bare article; see if the remainder phrase or two on something sourced on primary material is worth keeping on what strives to be an encyclopedia. Dahn (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pending Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations outcomes and working groups' recommendations. -- Banjeboi 23:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assess the notability of the topic, and try not to invoke as a "keep" reason a discussion that will drag on for a long time and may not even reach a conclusive result. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see plenty of sourcing on this article and these one by one noms rather disruptive. To me it's rather foolish to even nom them as one can find numerous sources to support the topic. What's more helpful is to establisha guideline how best to integrate the material to best serve our readers. hence I fully appreciate those willing to work on a task force dedicated to exactly those issues. We aren't in a rush here. Shorthand, keep unless that working group works out amore appropriate solution. -- Banjeboi 01:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd be surprised if you could actually show sources meeting WP:GNG here. And that's the crux of the matter - not the uplifting "let's all wait until the working group reports back" rhetoric. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of good sources, past colonies of USSR, relatively large trade, ongoing high-level contacts, etc. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's see you provide some of those "plenty of good sources". Dahn (talk) 01:19, 30 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 Babylon A.D. (band). MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syrym[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. GripTheHusk (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Syrym District. The band itself fails to establsh notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Dunno why the admin closed off the first AfD, it wasn't much of a discussion!!!!! Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a non-admin closure by the nominator as they withdrew their nomination, hence the reason for it's very early closure. Dpmuk (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhhhhhhh, I see. Thanks. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep: appears to meet #6 at WP:BAND by having members who were in a (dubiously?) notable band Babylon A.D. (band). --JD554 (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B.A.D.'s self-titled album charted at #88 on the Billboard Top 200 [57], so their notability is without question. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MUSIC, validation for a band or musician entry might include magazine articles. Syrym has been written about in PowerPlay Magazine, Fireworks Magazine, and Hardline Magazine (German publication), among others. I have physical copies of both the PowerPlay and Melodic Rock publications that I can scan if I need to provide proof. Also, why would you refer to Babylon A.D.'s notability as "dubious?" It seems they meet the WP:MUSIC criteria and, thus, the comment about their notability appears much more subjective (your personal opinion of the band or music) than objective (based in fact, and in keeping with the overall purpose of Wikipedia). Jenxer (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As this AfD is about Syrym and not Babylon A.D. my comment was indeed meant to be subjective and tongue-in-cheek. --JD554 (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understood. Thanks for the clarification. Please let me know what else I can provide to further establish the validity of the entry--physical magazine articles, music featured on television broadcasts, radio airplay, endorsements, online media coverage (articles, awards, interviews, reviews, etc.). Jenxer (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to band Babylon A.D. (band). They don't appear to have done enough for their own article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Babylon A.D. and then fully prot the re-direct so that this doesn't happen anymore. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Syrym has been written about numerous times worldwide, both online and in print (PowerPlay Magazine, Fireworks Magazine, and Hardline Magazine, among others); receives radio airplay worldwide on a regular basis, including being featured on the playlists of Play Radio UK and ARfm (both in the U.K.), Activ'Radio (France), Hurricane Rock (Germany), 97 Underground and Amped FM's Rock and Hits stations (two of many in the U.S.), and Antenna2 Radio (Italy), among others; their music has been featured on a San Jose Sharks' television broadcast; and has appeared in several "best of" and "Top 20" album lists for 2008, including Best New Band of 2008 in the HardRockHideout Reader Awards, Artist of the Week on MelodicRock.com, Hair Metal Mansion included them in their Top 20 Albums of 2008, Steve Price showcased Syrym as his Album of the Week on ARfm's The Steve Price Show, HellSpawn.be writer Thierry listed them in his Top 20 - 2008, and they were listed in Heavy Harmonies' Best of 2008. All these references are verifiable and combine to make Syrym a notable band, worthy of inclusion. Jenxer (talk) 06:53, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Isaias Lora[edit]

Contested prod. Prod reason was: "Self-published (PublishAmerica) author without claims to notability. Fails WP:BIO". Prod removed without improvements. Author's books are self-published[58] or could not be found (the other two). 52 Distinct Google hits[59], no Google News hits[60]. The author reviewing his work (Roberto Carlos Martinez) is an article created by the same editor, and is also put up for deletion by me (although that one at least has some claim to notability). The cited review seems to come from Martinez' page on Amazon. Fails WP:BIO quite clearly. Fram (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable selfpublished author. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information on the page can not be verified by non-trivial sources, and the only critical response I can find is from the author the article quotes, who is himself non-notable, making the source less-than-non-trivial Mrathel (talk) 16:14, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fremont-Elizabeth City High School[edit]

This page should not be here as Fremont-Elizabeth City High School has its own website which all information is kept up to date. Data can be changed on this page (As it has been before) to include non relevant material. People wanting to know more about the school should be going directly to the schools website and not to wikipedia. Chadinsky (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large secondary school, appears notable from quick look. Nominator's reasons are spurious. Quantpole (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General consensus seems to be to keep secondary level institutions and merge/delete lower level ones unless particularly notable. ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long-standing consensus is that all high schools are notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are available to meet WP:ORG. Also, no valid deletion reason by nominator who seems to have a COI. TerriersFan (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the community consensus, sources and the fact that no valid reason for deletion was given. Speedy keep anyone? --J^mundo 18:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - As per notability arguments above even if the article is currently a stub. Also, the nominator's first (and only) actions are to create this AfD. Mark Hurd (talk) 05:08, 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 13:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Carlos Martinez[edit]

Contested prod. Prod reasn was: "Self-published (PublishAmerica) author who has received nominations (according to the article, this could not be verified) for some minor awards, but hasn't won any. Has not received significant attention in reliable independent sources, so fails WP:BIO" Prod removed with addition of a source for the nominations for one award, which make sit more verifiable but still insufficient for WP:BIO (author's collection is one of twenty poetry books nominated that year). Evidence that the books are published through PublishAmerica:[61][62][63]. The many other people of the same name make a Google or Google News search harder, but e.g. for the Library of Virginia nomination, we have no Google News hits[64], and the same goes for the Indie Excellence nomination[65], which could not be verified at all. So fails WP:BIO, despite having one (or two) nominations for a literary award. Fram (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject does not have any notable references from non-trivial sources; none of the information on the page meets the requirement of verifiability Mrathel (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: an editor has added a link to the 2007 Indie Excellence Awards to the article. Martinez was supposedly nominated for one in 2007, but the list of 2007 winners and finalists[66] does not list Martinez anywhere, even though the poetry section has a winner and 8 more finalists. He's not included in the 2008 list either[67]. It looks as though everyone can nominate a book, making a nomination for these award essentially worthless, with only winners an finalists having some potential notability. Fram (talk) 07:05, 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 redirect to Churchill College, Cambridge. The sources still do not establish that the JCR is notable; either they are primary or they do not mention the subject. Allowing for the merger of any useful content. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill College Junior Common Room[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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)).

After closing this article's first AfD as a "delete", I was contacted by the author who indicated there were more sources available for the article. I restored the article so they could add the sources. This is a procedural nomination to see if consensus has changed based on the new sources in the article. I have no recommendation as to the outcome of the discussion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possible redirect to Churchill College, Cambridge). The Independent source does not talk about the JCR. The compassyouth blog source makes a passing reference to the sixth reform act, but no mention of the JCR. The Times reference is the best in that is does mention the JCR, but only in passing in an obituary on Dick Tizard, not good enough to establish notability. The Hansard reference doesn't mention the JCR either, and the remaining sources are from it's own website. Searching does not reveal any extensive coverage by secondary sources, and a google scholar search comes up with nothing. Though the 1969 act is very notable, the JCR's involvement is discussed on the page for the act itself, and there is not enough to establish notability for the JCR itself. Quantpole (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Churchill College, Cambridge (and possibly add a link from there to Representation of the People Act 1969, I don't know). Quantpole gives a good summary of the sources: none of the third-party sources give significant coverage (ie, more than a line or so) of the organisation itself. I think there's definitely enough to justify some mention of the JCR's role at Representation of the People Act 1969, but not in its own article. The author, WikiWebbie, says here "This is the main organisation which brought about one of the most major pieces of legislative change in the UK in the 20th century. How is that not notable?" The answer is that Wikipedia editors are not responsible for making that decision directly: per Wikipedia:Notability we rely on coverage in newspapers, books, journals and so on. Since the best we can find there is a mention in passing in an obituary, the JCR doesn't seem to warrant an article of its own. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. As the author of the article, I am obviously going to be biased, but I believe it warrants its own page for a number fo reasons. For anybody who is not sure, I should specify that the Junior Common Room is not a literal room, but a students' unions. In general, students' unions serve a large number of people. They often do not become notable for one thing, but for being a large organisation over a long period of time. A google search (as of 22/04/09) gives 2,080 hits for "Churchill JCR"[68], shich signifies this. Over the 50 years of existence, the JCR has had around 8,000 members. There are many articles on Wikipedia which describe a hamlet in which 5 people lve. This has affected the lives of thousands of people.

In addition to its notability as an ordinary students' union, Churchill JCR led the NUS to push for the Representation of the People Act 1969. the Act itself lowered the voting age across the whole country, so has affected most of the population of the UK! NUS is mentioned several times in Hansard and the other reference shows that it was the JCR that led the NUS. Without Churchill JCR, the NUS would not have had a stance and the issue would not have received parliamentary consideration. Given that this was 40 years ago, it is not surprising that this is not covered much by the internet which did not exist at the time. Instead, it was featured in the newspapers at the time and so is hard to reference in this article. There are huge amounts of documentation in the Churchill Archives Centre such as the communication between the JCR, the NUS, the Government and the High Court, right alongside the papers of Churchill and Thatcher. Unfortunately it is very hard (especially at a time of my exams) for me to be able to scan in the files and put them online as evidence within the next few days. If you have any doubts about the notability, please contact the Churchill Archives Centre and ask for their opinion first.

There are many students' unions listed on Wikipedia, which are nowhere near as notable as Churchill JCR. See UFV_Student_Union_Society for example and for the large number of student unions, see [69]. All college boat clubs also have their own pages. Churchill JCR is older than the boat club, has many more members, has a larger influence on college life and is far more notable. To delete this page, would be to imply that nearly all students unions should be deleted off Wikipedia. It would be ridiculous to keep the 30 boat club pages (e.g.New Hall Boat Club) and not keep the page of the student union which has affected the lives of tens of millions of people.

I hope this clarifies things. I'm happy to reply to any questions. WikiWebbie (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)/[reply]

With regards to student unions, they are not inherently notable (see Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Student_life). Please note the information regarding coverage in secondary sources. Also, just because other articles exist with dubious notability, does not mean that gives a right of existence to an article with slighlty better notability (see WP:OSE). In terms of Churchill JCR, the 1969 act does give additional reasons for inclusion. However, we still have to give secondary sources. At the moment the problem is that it's hard to comment without knowing what the sources are. Also, if the JCR really is notable due to their involvement in an act from 40 years ao, I would have thought there would be secondary sources detailing the story. Letters and so on between the JCR and NUS do not prove notability, as they are not secondary sources (in my understanding). Sources should also be mainly about the article, not a passing mention. For instance, there would no doubt be lots of coverage of the 1969 act from newspapers at the time, but how many of these are about the JCR itself, as opposed to the Act? Quantpole (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a conflict of interest from WikiWebbie, as the user identifies themself as being a member of the organisation. However I have also noticed that there is a similarity between the username and the current president of the organisation. I think this could be a potential COI problem per Wikipedia:Coi#Close_relationships. Quantpole (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that I have a COI because I have been mandated as a representative of the JCR to speak on behalf of the students annoyed at this decision. A COI is separate from the notability of this article, however.

It sounds a bit weird that people have mandated you to come on here to be honest! A COI can be a problem because it means you may not be able to assess the notability or otherwise of an article neutrally. It is something that I imagine may be taken into consideration when the closing admin reviews the discussion, but so long as you make your case in accordance with wikipedia guidelines then it shouldn't be a problem. Quantpole (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ - On behalf of sociality, who posted their comments in the wrong place, see Talk:Churchill_College_Junior_Common_Room.

In response to sociality's points on the Talk page, I have heard about the Varsity page and that is certainly a secondary source as some have asked for. The 50th edition of Varsity in 1981 identified the campaign as one of the top 5 most significant news stories for Cambridge University. In response to the COI identified earlier, I have checked that sociality is not a student here, so the same COI does not apply. I feel that at the very least we should give sociality a week to receive a reply from them.WikiWebbie (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through the vote. I think it's fine to refer to these other points posted somewhere else, but I don't think you can vote on their behalf (no doubt someone will be along to tell me otherwise!). Quantpole (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I studied the original before tentative removal and thought it added some useful history. I know the poster and his credentials in this regard seem impeccable. Quibbles seem to have been addressed in subsequent talk, my vote is to restore the page with whatever clarifications and move on, why not? Kirbyurner (talk)Kirbyurner —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Do Not Delete I've reinstated the vote on behalf of Kirby Urner (no doubt someone will be along to tell me otherwise!). Sociality —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete University wide student organizations can be notable, but not those for individual colleges like this one. DGG (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are straight away saying that it can't be notable, but ignoring the Representation of the People Act completely. The article also now has a secondary source, so meets the notability requirements in the guidelines. WikiWebbie (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read Wikipedia:Rs#News_organizations. Quantpole (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Source - I have uploaded the secondary source you require onto our website here: http://jcr.chu.cam.ac.uk/theforum/index.php?topic=3591.msg9349;topicseen#new. This details the correspondance between the Home Secretary and Ian Benson, President at the time. It also shows the newspaper article, which is a secondary source. I will reference it on the article soon. WikiWebbie (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this effort WikiWebbie (I appreciate you must be busy as Easter Term begins). The trouble is neither the letter nor the Times article make any mention of the role of the JCR specifically: in the former case we have no indication that Ian Benson was acting in his capacity as JCR President rather than just as a concerned student, and in the latter the JCR or College is not mentioned at all. So this source is useful for information about the event, but not for establishing the need for an article on the JCR itself. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, the letters are primary sources, not secondary. if someone were to write a book or paper that is deemed a reliable source, referencing the correspondance, then it would be a secondary source. Quantpole (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I am a scientist, not a historian, but my understanding was that a secondary source was something writing about the event, which is the case for this Times article. If you want anything else, then ask, but please give me time to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWebbie (talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Times article is secondary but makes no mention of the JCR. The letter is primary. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"*Do Not Delete 24.4.203.234 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Ian Benson was acting in his capacity as JCR President, and the costs of the Churchill Students were met from Legal Aid and the [[70]] National Union of Students (as this was a test case for all students in the UK)"[reply]

— 24.4.203.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete No significant third-party coverage. Most of the sources in the article are either self-published (or from Churchill college's own website), or are other things and don't really mention this organization (for example, the various obituaries). Notability requirement not met. This article might be more appropriate on Churchill College's own wiki, but the organization doesn't appear to be notable outside that institution. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have a COI, but I really can't see how this isn't notable. Everybody I have spoken is very surprised by this and hence why I have been desperately taking time away from my exams to find these sources for you. It is most definately notable outside of Cambridge and has affected the lives of tens of millions of people who were given the right to vote at an earlier time. I guess that most people involved in this discussion have benefitted from the actions of the JCR. It meets the notability requirements that have been specified. It was written about heavily in the newspapers at the time and has featured in the Times obituary in the past few years. I have provided tons of primary sources and loads of secondary sources as you require. Please can you specify which line of the notability requirements it does not meet. WikiWebbie (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The part of WP:Notability it fails to meet is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Some of the sources you've provided are reliable sources independent of the JCR, such as the Times obituary. Some of the sources give significant coverage, such as the JCR's own page. But none of them is both: we don't have a single independent newspaper article, book or the like which actually covers the JCR rather than just mentioning it passing. That is what you'd need to provide. (And sources that mention the event but not the JCR are not enough, any more than newspaper articles about an influential court case justify Wikipedia pages about the judges and lawyers involved.)

Wikipedia does not judge notability on having effected millions of people: there are plenty of unsung legislators, judges and activists who've done that. Those with significant coverage in secondary sources get articles; those without don't. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiWebbie: like someone said above, what's notable is Representation of the People Act 1969. That's the article that needs to be written. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"*Do Not Delete Sociality (talk)sociality is working hard to supply (a) copies of contemporary newspaper articles surrounding the JCR's campaign (b) confirmation from Varsity - a reliable source that is independent of the JCR that not only did it run the story on the JCR's campaign on its front pages in 1970, but reran the JCR victory front page in 1997 as one of only 5 notable front pages since 1947 and (c) legal citations to an earlier Cambridge Students Appeal on this issue which followed the passing of the 19th Century Second Reform Act. The Court of Appeal alluded to the defeated earlier attempt by Cambridge students when it overturned that precedent in 1970. The 1970 Court of Appeal was independent of the JCR. Unlike books and articles and similar secondary sources the Court's findings are primary. Surely Wiki editors also need to take account of a substantive argument that is in the public domain such as the case marshalled by the JCR, presented by its Counsel, Leonard Bromley QC and recorded in Rickett's et al vs Town Clerk of Cambridge (High Court Ref to follow). Or does due process not apply here?

- Just a question, but if all this information available, why is it not being used to make Representation of the People Act 1969 a better article? Also, there is no problem if information isn't immediately available. If an article gets deleted, you can always add it again, provided that it isn't the same as the previous article (otherwise it may be speedy deleted). In other words, if the article gets deleted now (though I wouldn't want to predict the outcome), there's nothing to stop it being created again if/when better sources are found. Quantpole (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"*~~Do Not Delete~~ Sociality (talk){struck second vote Quantpole (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC))* If this article is deleted the information below that is publically available in the College Archives (and lexis-nexis) will not have been collated for publication under this rubric. Quantpole and Jimmy Wales are of course free to visit the Churchill College Archives if they wish to read about a subject such as the 6th Reform Act more generally. The principle that is being debated by Editors here - we imagined - was whether wiki editorial policy permits UK Court of Appeal judgements to be cited as primary sources. If this is good enough for BBC editorial policy surely its good enough for the Welsh Volunteers.[reply]

Reference for 19th century case. contained in the Court of Appeal judgement: is Tanner v Carter 1885 16 Q.B.D. 231, D.C. "the cases of Oxford and Cambridge students under the Act of 1867"

In the Court of Appeal hearing held on May 12 1970, Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, said:

"There is one case which much influenced the judges below (ie the judges in the Cambridge county court): It is Tanner v. Carter (1885) 16. QBD.231, when it was held that "Students in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, who occupy room in their colleges under regulations which do not allow them to reside in or visit their rooms during the vacations withouth the express permission of the college authorities, are not entitled...to be regarded as voters....

"The judges below (ie the judges in the Cambridge county court) treated that case as establishing this general principle: A student has not the right to be on the register unless he has the right to occupy his rooms at all times throughout the year......

"....On this account the judges held that the students were not resident.........

"I think the judges were in error in placing so much weight on Tanner v Carter. That case was decided under the Representation of the People Act, 1867, which said that in order to qualify a man had to have been "during the whole of the preceding 12 calendar months...an inhabitant occupier, as owner or tenant, of any dwelling house within the borough." Tanner v. Carter was rightly decided under that statute. It has no application whatever to the present statute in which there is no qualifying period but only a qualifying date, namely one day in a year, October 10."

" I reject altogether the test of whether the students had a right to their rooms throughout the year. I prefer to go by the ordinary meaning of the word "resident". I follow Viscount Cave in Levene v Inland Revenue Commissioners 1928, where he said: 'the word "reside" is a familiar English word and is defined in the OED as meaning "to dwell permanently or for a considerable time, to have one's settled or usual abode, to live in or at a particular place."

He goes on to apply various tests as to whether a person may properly be said to be "resident".

Ending with the sentence

"I would, therefore, allow these appeals and hold that these young men are entitled to be on the electoral register."

The other Court of Appeal judges, Lord Justice Karminski and Lord Justice Widgery, also refer to Tanner v Carter, noting they agree with Lord Denning's view.

Newspaper references were given to the JCR Campaign in: Varsity: 28 Feb 1970 "Court ends student votes - for now." in which Brian Eads writes "student spokesman Ian Benson of Churchill was not disappointed by the decision "because we couldn't have expected a county court decision to go any other way." .. Both Ian Benson and his solicitor feel that success is more likely before an Appeal Court. "It would have a free hand," said Benson, whereas he feels that "stupid precedents .. and ambigious law" had led to the case's dismissal." There is at present no clear guidance from the Law. Students and Bristol and Oxford, in addition to Cambridge have been refused the right to vote in these towns, whiles students at East Anglia have been successful in their bid for registration. It seems that if the appeal which is being considered (Ed Sociality by Churchill JCR) meets with success in a higher court it could establish an important legal precedent." Varsity: 19 May 1970. "Students Win Vote." in which Keith Baird writes a lead story which included the words "Student representation has come of age. Eight thousand undergraduates will be able to vote in the Cambridge Parliamentary Constituency as a result of a Court of Appeal decision last week. In a test case by Hugh Ricketts (Churchill) the Court reversed the ruling at Cambridge County Court last February affirming the refusal of the electoral registrar to include undergraduates. Ricketts was put forward as a representative case among a group of student dissenters. He received legal aid from the state to finance his appeal. He said, "I am very pleased indeed and it was all very worth while."..... Says Ian Benson (Churchill) one of he organisers of the voting campaign, --Sociality (Emphasis talk) 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)"You can defeat bureaucracy if you try hard enough."[reply]

The Guardian: Feb 23 1970 "Confusion over student votes," in which is written: "Mr Ian Benson, aged 21, president of the Junior Common Room at Churchill College, said last night: "The case could set important precedents for students all over the country....." The Times: May 12 1970 Law Report section "Students want to vote in university towns" Cambridge Evening News: May 12 1970 "Student franchise: Judges sit in appeals"; May 13 1970 "Students to Sway the City Vote?" May 16, "New Force in City Voting" There are many other cuttings from National Press, including: a)"Students Can Vote where they read Judges Rule" b) "Students win the voting argument." which includes the words "Mr Jack Straw, president of the National Union of Students which sponsored yesterday's appeals, said last night that student votes would be much more noticeable in local elections - but parliamentary seats in university or college towns could also be affected."

I've got no idea what you mean by you first paragraph. In respect of the rest, you still have not shown how Churchill College JCR is notable. The whole bit you quoted does not mention the JCR at all, and I'm not sure what your intention in posting it is. Sorry. Quantpole (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"*~~Do Not Delete~~ Sociality —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC). {struck third vote Quantpole (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

The substantive aspects in the first paragraph are:

1) Rubric means ``heading on a document, statement of purpose or function, category : eg party policies on matters falling under the rubric of law and order (source Apple OSX Dictionary v202). In this case the rubric is ``http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_College_Junior_Common_Room

2) In this discussion the claim has been made that "Wikipedia editors are not responsible for making the (notability) decision directly they rely on coverage in newspapers, books, journals and so on." This suggests that wikipedia editors might usefully be guided by the best practice definition of media editorial policy.

3) Editorial Policy means a statement of values and standards. The BBC's are at http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/

The relevant paragraphs from the BBC guidelines are we must ensure that when a product, service or organisation is named in a news report or factual content it is clearly editorially justified. (page Producers Guidelines, page 120)

And, before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that:

• material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation; and

• anyone whose omission could be unfair to an individual or organisation has been offered an opportunity to contribute. (page 184, Producers Guidelines, Ofcom Broadcasting Code)

4) If we delete this entry under this rubric we are choosing to disregard material facts and we are adopting a lower standard than other media such as the BBC.

5) Material facts in this instance mean the funding, selection and promotion of 13 test cases taken to the Court of Appeal. These individuals were selected by Churchill JCR to go forward in a test case as clients of Leonard Bromley QC. The Appeal is known as Ricketts vs Electoral Registration Officer of Cambridge, Queen's Bench Division, May 17, 1970. (No.104 - CCA - 1970) Organisations per se have no standing in Court in matters of electoral rights - the only way in which the students' case could be heard was by means of individual appeals. This meant that the students had a considerable financial risk. That is why they chose to coordinate their work through Churchill JCR. The JCR officers raised funds on their behalf, instructed Counsel and were accountable to the students collectively for their action.

The Master of the Rolls noted in his finding that

Another important fact found was that in Churchill College the undergraduate members might without permission spend time in their rooms during university term but that during the vacation they had to get the permission of their tutors or other college authority if they wished to occupy their rooms, though such permission was readily granted if the tutor was satisfied that the undergraduate required it to be near the library or laboratories or in any way to further his studies; but that it was important that permission might be refused if thought proper.

The Court found that these individuals, selected by the JCR's officers, were indeed representative of all the students of the UK. They concurred by accepting the remaining appeals without further hearing (QBD No.15 - CCA - 1970). In all 29 student appeals were upheld. These included 16 Bristol University students whose case was heard alongside Churchill JCR's by the Court, as Fox vs Stirk and Bristol. The Bristol case arose when Mr Peter Stirk, Conservative Agent for Bristol North West, challenged the right of Julian Fox a student at Churchill Hall, Bristol University to be on the electoral register.

6) We hope that this explains what we meant by our first paragraph. That is, why the Master of the Rolls mentions Churchill College -- but not its JCR, and why his finding in support of Churchill JCR's campaign warrants this entry being retained as submitted by Churchill's JCR President (2008-9).

Sociality said "If we delete this entry under this rubric we are choosing to disregard material facts and we are adopting a lower standard than other media such as the BBC." The BBC exists to report newsand Wikipedia exists to be an encyclopedia; as such we have a different standard for inclusion. The bottom line remains that Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is laid out at the notability guideline, and requires significant coverage of the JCR in third-party sources. A newspaper article that simply quotes the JCR president does not count as significant. If any of the other newspaper articles you mention does contain significant coverage of the JCR then feel free to provide us with copies: but so far no-one has produced a third-party source which mentions it more than in passing. Until they do, everything else is irrelevant.

Also, please sign your posts at the end rather than the beginning, as it makes conversation easier to follow. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The principle that is being debated by Editors here - we imagined - was whether wiki editorial policy permits UK Court of Appeal judgements to be cited as primary sources." No, I don't think it is. The relevant debate is over WP:N as I said above. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia has many rules. According to WP:COMMON (which qualifies WP:N) , it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something disruptive is not forbidden in a written rule doesn't mean it's a good idea (e.g., don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). The principle of the rules is more important than the letter. Invoking the principle of ignore all rules on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. A skilled application of this concept should ideally fly under the radar, and not be noticed at all. Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. While it is quite acceptable to justify your own actions by saying, "it seemed like common sense to me", you should be careful not to imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be seen as uncivil. Sociality 11:53, 27 April 2009 (PDT)

According to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law. A procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Similarly, do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy (see Wikipedia's guideline on gaming the system). If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.Sociality 11:53, 27 April 2009 (PDT)

According to WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users.

[edit]

I'm afraid I fail to see your point, Sociality. By citing WP:COMMON, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND are you suggesting that my request for sources somehow violates the spirit of WP:N, defies common sense, or is not aimed at improving the encyclopedia? If so why? Simply quoting policies is rarely as useful as explaining how they are relevant. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Source - Here's a new source from Churchill Archives Centre - http://jcr.chu.cam.ac.uk/theforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3591.0;attach=274;image. I believe this is a secondary source as has been requested. The article therefore meets the strict notability rules as well as the common sense rules. WikiWebbie (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I disagree, WikiWebbie. Sociality quoted from this article above, and I replied "A newspaper article that simply quotes the JCR president does not count as significant." This article is about the legal challenges which led to the change in law: notability could be established by an article about the JCR, as I have said previously. A one-line quote from someone named as the president of the JCR is not significant coverage of the JCR. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for coverage in newspapers. National newspapers like this rarely write an article just about an organisation. Newspapers express news and write about the things these organisations do. This article talks about what Churchill JCR has done. By your logic, nearly all Wikipedia pages should be deleted. WikiWebbie (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, perhaps I was slightly unclear. The point is not that the article is about "an action of the JCR" instead of "the JCR"; the article is about an event which it doesn't really connect to the JCR at all, except to give us a short quote from its president. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't think you have a point. The other references clearly show that Churchill JCR was the main player. There were no other student unions it could have been. The Hansard records clearly point to the NUS. The only NUS-affiliated body in Churchill was the JCR, but I realise that if you are not from Cambridge, you may not understand that.

This whole argument seems to be extremely nit-picking. It is common sense that this organisation should have a page. I urge you to step back from the endless arguments on definitions and see that. I am unable to continue responding to your queries as I have exams very soon. 'Neutrals' who contribute to AfDs are by definition interested in deletion. To those people whose sole aim is to delete stuff, please just admit it that every question you have asked has been answered. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and was hoping to contribute a lot, but now I just feel disappointed by the system. I wish I had time to give you complete copies of all sources from the Archive Centre. If you wish to reopen this discussion in July, I can sort that for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWebbie (talk • contribs) 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect This particular Student Union seems to meet the the criteria for inclusion within the Churchill College article and would be simpler to include within that article to improve it. There's no reason we can't redirect it. The list of previous presidents takes up almost half the article space. Short version: keep the info (mostly) and just redirect it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bodo's Bagels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bodo's Bagels

Fails WP:CORP. Non-notable bagel shop (perhaps local interest), which has gotten some press (ghits = 1,330 but many are citysearch type repeats) but does not qualify as significant secondary coverage. Smells like advertising, though certainly not blatant, with a deep-link directly to the menu (I have changed the link to be to the corporate home page).

On a separate note (I realize web popularity does not equal corp notability) but their website has low alexa ranking with only 11 non-notable sites linking in. JCutter ^{{ talk to me }} 06:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm rather undecided on this. There are some Gnews and Gbooks hits, but a lot of the coverage seems trivial and/or local in scope (as opposed to regional/national/int'l). Here are the best of those sources, in my opinion: [71], [72], [73]. Are they enough to establish notability per WP:CORP? I think they fall just short of the bar. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I attended the University of Virginia, Bodo's Bagels on the Corner was infamous for having been "coming soon" for years. It was "coming soon" for the whole 4 years I was a student there and the next year when I still lived in Charlottesville. I don't know if that would give it any notability by itself, but I would expect there to be some coverage in the Cavalier Daily or local Charlottesville papers. Also, I don't think there is any reason to expect high website traffic for a small bagel store chain, regardless of if the chain is notable. Calathan (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found some of the coverage in the Cavalier Daily [74] [75]. Since this is local coverage, I'm not sure if it is enough to establish notability. Calathan (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, does not really claim any notability outside its own city. JIP | Talk 17:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stealthy advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 23:16, 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, WP:SNOW consensus. Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 20:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hawking in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

STRONG DELETE Wikipedia is not a collection of useless prime time cartoon TV trivia. This article is unencyclopedic. Ever wonder why people mock Wikipedia? It's because of articles like this that are just references to Family Guy and Simpsons episodes.George Pelltier (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed nomination. Place ((afd1)) on the article, ((afd2)) on the nomination page, and ((afd3)) on the AfD log page. Thanks, cab (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination reasoning basically amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Popular culture is a perfectly valid subject, and describing the multiple cultural depictions of a particular individual seems perfectly reasonable to me. JulesH (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And in answer to the nominator's suggestion of mocking, I've _never_ heard anyone mock Wikipedia for having articles like this. I have heard people mocking Wikipedia for being too ready to delete articles because a small minority (that's us, here) didn't like them. JulesH (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful page which is inside our policies. Also per Jules Kingpin13 (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he were an actor, his appearances or credits would've been notable without question. The reason this is being questioned is because of the article title and the fact it lists a lot of cartoons. Neither is a particularly good reason to delete. It could use some more references, but the topic is notable enough to cover and obviously can't be covered reliably in the article about Hawking himself since it would cause bloat and doesn't fit with the academic context in there. Viable split. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom does not give a good reason for deletion other than "I don't like it". Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Stephen Hawking is one of the best-known physicists alive today, and he's bound to be noted by the entertainment industry. Wikipedia is there to take notice of this. It's true that many "in popular culture" articles or sections get crufty, but that doesn't mean popular culture is inherently evil. Also, the Stephen Hawking article is already over 44 kilobytes long, so merging this into there is not really an option. JIP | Talk 17:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - people mock Wikipedia because anyone can vandalize it and some of the "information" incorporated in articles here is less than definitive, not because it contains pop culture. I consider this AfD very poorly thought out, especially at a time when the man is in the news. - Denimadept (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment If it's just his "credits" as you say then why not merge with Stephen Hawking. This article sets a bad precedent for other celebrities to have their own 'in popular culture' pages. There's already Three's Company in Popular Culture which I also nominated. There now could easily be Mick Jagger in popular culture, Bart Simpson in popular culture and other articles which are just TV trivia. This is completely unencyclopedic.George Pelltier (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't. - Denimadept (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can we have Bart Simpson in popular culture? Bart Simpson is part of popular culture. JIP | Talk 06:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep this appropriate article. Could a passing admin please close this debate?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and you have some suggestions there for some good articles. I find it amazing that we don't have the two you mentioned. (the other nomination you mention is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three's Company in popular culture--I think it too is justified, though it obviously does not have anywhere near the same importance. DGG (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly WP:trivia, anything useful could go into the Stephen Hawking article, if anything it should be speedily deleted Aurush kazemini^talk 05:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ordinarily I'd say merge, but the sheer volume of material here warrants its own article as proof of his being somewhat of an icon. (I sure had no idea there were this many!) Link to it from the main article. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this topic is quite notable. It's not up to the deletion process to define "useless". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Isaac Newton in popular culture; Albert Einstein in popular culture, but not Richard Feynman in popular culture. i take it, some have a problem with "popular culture" articles, but the sociologists don't. pohick (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose Richard Feynman isn't much in popular culture. :-d - Denimadept (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Irrelevant WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination aside, an article on pop culture references does not mean we should immediately delete. I would prefer a merge, but there appears to be so many pop culture references here that merging looks unlikely, so keep and reference the thing. — Moe ε 13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial notability. This biography, for example, contains substantial discussion of his television appearances. DHowell (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article seems fine given his notability and there's rather too much information to merge into the already long article Hideki (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To show how such a brilliant scientific mind has become so well known, through references in popular culture, has great encyclopedia value. Dream Focus 03:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SNOWBALL Jwray (talk) 05:42, 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) 07:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zishan Engineers[edit]

Previously speedy deleted page and nominated again for speedy deletion. Although I don't think it would be speedy deletion candidate, I see clear problems with notability and I think it should be deleted through AfD procedure. Beagel (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Is there any indication of notable projects they worked on? If not Id agree that they are probably not notable enough for an article. Ill do a quick check myself Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt seem to be any notable projects i can recognise http://www.zishanengineers.com/projects.htm, They do have a few international jobs as well as numerous projects on the go, looking furtherOttawa4ever (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete after reading Wikipedia:Notability and doing a quick check on the web, I can find primary sources establishing interantional nobility in their projects, but aside from job postings and business directories I cant find anything (yet) to suggest notability in secondary sources Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:12, 6 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 00:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quick check did not provide enough notability to be listed in en.wiki. weak delete Neozoon 20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just a further comment I was able to track down another source that mentions it as a partner to another firm. I dont know if this is eaxactly a secondary source but it may allow some indication that this article could be saved. Ill post in the articles discussion page Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:40, 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 05:59, 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 no consensus. The article does have some sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yourenew.com[edit]

Fails WP:Notability/Near advertising Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No RS; basically just an advertisement/directory entry. Sources added do not provide significant coverage. Springnuts (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete A7, no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --neon white talk 07:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have now been added. --neon white talk 08:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia may not be a web directory, but look at sources - relevant to consumers, relevant to recycling. 07:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC) (128.36.43.81 / 128.36.43.122)
Keep Fox News, New Haven Register, New Haven Independent and Yale Daily News are notable sources. This isn't promotion, it just explains the platform. 07:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC) (128.36.43.81 / 128.36.43.122)
Comment. Please note the two IP contributions above are by the same IP address and within a few minutes of each other ... and the IP address location is in New Haven which is also the location of the YouRenew company. Springnuts (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are both slightly different ips making valid points, well the second one is at least. --neon white talk 15:20, 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, MBisanz ^talk 05:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Springnuts - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email | Editor Review 08:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been provided disproving this point. New Haven Independent , New Haven Register and FOX 61 News have all covered the site. --neon white talk 08:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with this - nothing substantial has been added. FWIW much of what has been added amounts to further advertising. I still say - delete. Springnuts (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still believe it's a delete for the same reasons as Springnuts.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is significant to exclusive coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources in the article (Norwell Mariner, New Haven Independent, New Haven Register, Yale Daily News, and Xconomy) that establish notability per WP:WEB, if not WP:GNG. Note that the Fox 61 News link seems to be broken. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The video is available but cannot be directly linked to. if you follow the link and go to page 2 of the video player, it's the top one titled 'Recycling Electronics, TV on the Web' dated 3/20. it contains significant coverage including interviews with the founders. --neon white talk 18:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. One month old site that is making a nice marketing campaign, gets news published on a few places, but... far from notable. - Nabla (talk) 03:45, 30 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) 07:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Hits (Korn album)[edit]

Non-charting "greatest hits" album. While a compilation may be notable for either containing unique material, or selling well enough to achieve notability, this release fits neither requirement. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons stated above:

Delete all, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as they pass WP:NALBUMS, Dalejenkins | 12:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: no significant coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 03:24, 16 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]
Delete all, this is another case of users that think Wikipedia is an online database. Cannibaloki 03:53, 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, MBisanz ^talk 05:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all although merging the tracklistings in with some sort of discography article (Is there one?) is probably worth it. Other than that, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about these. ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:41, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Campagnola[edit]

Non notable musician - 327 ghits (includes many blogs and wiki mirrors), names dropped but proving unverifiable, eg. [76], no solo releases or awards TheClashFan (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not recieved sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to warrant an article:

Google web search finds his website, facebook profile, and nothing else related.
Google news search brings up nothing at all.

It actually reads like an advertisement to me.--Patton^t/c 13:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – The nominator has been indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:29, 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, MBisanz ^talk 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable as above. I browsed through the artist's website but could not find resources there either. Hazir (talk) 06:31, 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 02:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Paraguay relations[edit]

another random almost laughable pairing from the obsessive article creator. non resident ambassadors. no bilateral agreements whatsoever [77]. LibStar (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a shred of notability to be found in this random pairing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bizarre article. Not suprisingly, a Google search of 'Croatia Paraguay' doesn't return any usuable sources: [78] so WP:N isn't met Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with many of these, the foreign embassy sites of each nation involved supports the lack of notability. Is it worth establishing guidelines so we can PROD some of the more obviously pointless ones? ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:25, 22 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 15:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:24, 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) 01:47, 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[79]. Martintg (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random and pointless article, going nowhere and helping no one. Dahn (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails my standards, appears to fail WP:N. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 30 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 Foreign relations of Estonia. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Peru relations[edit]

another random pairing from the obsessive article creator. even this says no agreements between 2 countries and modest trade. http://www.mfa.ee/eng/kat_176/7100.html LibStar (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no embassies, located on opposite sides of the world, no cultural/historic ties, etc. Non-notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - marginally more notable than some of the others in that at least there is an Honorary Consul, but that just means one businessman conducts trade between the two countries from what I can tell. ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong re-direct and merge into Foreign relations of Estonia. While relations between these two countries may not be notable by Wikipedia standards, they exist never the less. There are 192 countries within the UN, the Estonian foreign ministry lists relations with 72 and this is one of them. So it is not a random pairing. Martintg (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Estonia and Foreign relations of Peru. The content currently available does not appear to merit a separate article, and is better understood in the context of the overview articles. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus is achieved at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Martintg (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched in English and Spanish for information and am unable to find anything of note which could be used to build an article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:49, 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. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 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[80]. This behavior is rather disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is some evidence of relative notability, but I missed this one, and it may be too late to rescue. :-( Bearian (talk) 01:08, 30 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 13:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece-Guyana relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

another random pairing from the obsessive article creator. this link demonstrates no notable relationship.

Delete - granted, this just went through AfD, but the sources found then showed no evidence of a notable relationship (presidential visits and the like generally being the stuff of news), and no possibility of expanding the article has been shown in the interim, either. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Keep trying as many times as necessary. Goesquack (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some hint that this might just possibly be notable, perhaps, on a good day - but there are so many of these that I think it has to be up to the article to establish notability or we'll be here all day. ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:26, 22 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 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. In addition, a renomination after only 2 weeks seems a bit excessive. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above should be disregarded as a vote for keep as it does not assess the notability of the article. it was heading for WP:SNOW in any case. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. And what do you mean it was heading for WP:SNOW? Another nomination of this article at AfD not even 2 weeks ago was closed as no consensus. Not a case for SNOW by any standard. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNothing substantial, indeed nothing logical in this pairing. Why it wasn't deleted the first time is beyond me. Dahn (talk) 17:13, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians of South Africa[edit]

No evidence that migration of Romanians to South Africa or the community today as a whole has been written about non-trivially by reliable sources. There are trivial mentions that confirm this community exists, but that's all I can find. I searched mostly in English with just some limited searches in Romanian because I don't speak it. If you do some searches in Romanian whether with positive or negative results, please mention the queries you used. Old proposed deletion in December 2007 removed by creator without improvement. Thanks, cab (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Google searches

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- one article about a dance festival [81]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- a bunch of hits of the form "..., Romanian, South African, ..."; nothing about Romanians in South Africa that I can see
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- two bulletin board threads discussing an individual Romanian winemaker who trained in South Africa
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- just discussion of the Romanian Embassy in Pretoria
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- trivial mention of the embassy

List of Google searches 2 because ((hidden)) breaks if it's all in one box

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- one article about a Romanian athlete who visited Cape Town for a competition [82]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- passing mention from a Romanian government website that there's a "large" Romanian community in South Africa, with no discussion or even a population figure [83]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- 97,000 hits, but most seem to be duplicates
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- a mention that Romanians and a bunch of other nationalities travel to South Africa for illegal organ transplant surgery [84] and that South Africa will open an embassy in Romania [85]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- 15 trivial mentions of Romanian investors, Romanian tourists, Romanian lions, and the Romanian ambassador
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- nothing
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- a trivial mention that representatives from the Romanian community of South Africa and several other countries were invited to a Romanian diaspora conference [86]
site:za "Romanian community", site:za "Romanian immigrants"; just gets hits about Romanians in other countries, not South Africa

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after several searches in Romanian, all I found was this, saying there are 3,000 Romanians in South Africa. But: a) that's not a reliable source (the site isn't professionally edited, and has an agenda of promoting the Romanian diaspora, often inflating its numbers/significance) b) if all even they could say was a number, we clearly can't write an article on this subject. The present one appears to be original research. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The size of the community alone makes it trivial. The sources that would establish notability haven't been shown to exist – and (almost certainly) don't exist in the first place. 9Nak (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Edison (talk) 15:27, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain–Cyprus relations[edit]

another random combination from the obsessive article creator. only a rather insignificant agreement between the 2 countries Cyprus Ministry of Foreign Affairs: list of bilateral treaties with Bahrain LibStar (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - deliciously random, but otherwise non-notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with all the others ~Excesses~ (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:30, 22 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 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:23, 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) 01:52, 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[87]. 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) 01:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another one in a long series of spam. I don't see how any ongoing debate could "salvage" this article, if that it what's expected, and in case it matters naught that it's ongoing. Dahn (talk) 17:20, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch my A**[edit]

Non-notable film. Doesn't even have an IMDB entry, and a number of Google searches turned up nothing except this article (well, and a whole bunch of unrelated vulgarity). Prod removed without explanation by an IP. Would appear to meet neither WP:MOVIE or WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi Lankiveil... thanks for your input. Not every film will have an IMDB entry. It's slated for production in the middle of this year. There are references to notable production houses in Singapore, though we do consider ourselves a small industry.

I'm trying to see if we can collect more information on the film industry in Singapore, so as to add to the internationalization of content in wikipedia.

Please consider reverting your deletion.

cheers.

michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadbard (talk • contribs) 04:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Unreferenced article about a film that's not yet in production. None of the links mentioned in the article provide any information to verify the film. It's nearly speedy deletable is being blatant advertising, the way it's written. —C.Fred (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how a film that's not even in production yet has any place on an encyclopedia. It would take a seriously controversial production plan that had attracted comment (or something) for a movie to make its way onto WP at the pre-production stage. Hazir (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely due to lack of IMDB entry - there's plenty that's been deleted that is notable enough to have an IMDB entry but still fails WP:NN ~Excesses~ (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable and so far nonexistent. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: still too far from gaining fame. Alexius08 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Warning the article's creator has been spamming my talk page with nonsense, presumably because I voted to delete his article. You may wish to check on your own Userpages. Thanks Hazir (talk) 00:38, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas financial group[edit]

A procedural nomination to determine editorial viability. This article was already the subject of a declined speedy delete nomination (a justified admin action, IMHO) and a removed Prod tag. A Google news search only turns up a single BusinessWeek article on the subject: [88]. WP:ORG requires coverage in more than one media source, which is lacking here. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:58, 22 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)).

DO NOT Delete - It is one of the largest groups at the most renowned academic institution in the world. It is indeed referenced in the Harvard College page - and it has the most widespread and noted sponsorship of any pre-professional club at Harvard, and likely the United States. It is also perhaps the most well represented group in the financial services industry for the past three years- with many graduates going on to work on Wall Street. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvard1995 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - how can an organisation that's not even 2 years old have a "global reputation for producing leaders and innovators in the financial services industry" already? It's not notable enough to be even referenced on the Harvard Business School or Harvard College pages - sounds to me like a student society with a posh name. The news story linked to from the article itself says "it's the 13th undergraduate business organization available on the Cambridge campus alone." ~Excesses~ (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clubs at individual colleges aren't generally notable, and this doesn't seem like an exception to that rule. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Notability clearly not established by sources. ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Harvard is notable and this prominent campus organization should be by extension. Other less notable groups Leadership Institute at Harvard College, [Radcliffe Pitches]], for example have pages.

Neutral/Comment, If anything, the article is misleading. The article reads "...has a global reputation for producing leaders and innovators..." and uses reference #2 to back this claim. However, the reference listed makes no such backing to this claim, and states that Veritas is one of many such organizations on the Harvard campus. At this point, I really can't say for one way or the other. If expanded upon and given additional sources, it could be notable for it's pramirly minority membership and if it actually has any notable alumni (which may be unlikely given the relatively short span of time since it's inception). Again, this is only provided it is backed by reputable 3rd party sources, and properly referenced in the article. JogCon (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, so far the arguments only validate an edit. The page should exist because the article attracts interest from many Harvard students who wish to learn more about the organization. Although it can be argued that the "misleading" parts of the article should be changed, deleting the page all together would not be fair to the club and those who simply want to find out more. It would undermine the services that wiki provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rendude (talk • contribs) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC) — Rendude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Non-Notable "club". ttonyb1 (talk) 14:38, 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 keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Beginning[edit]

Appears to have no independent notability per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Beatles as musicians: the Quarry Men through Rubber soul by Walter Everett (ISBN 0195141059, 9780195141054) states the song was first recorded for inclusion to the White Album, which is backed by The rough guide to the Beatles by Chris Ingham (ISBN 1843531402, 9781843531401) but strange enough is doubted by Everett's second part of The Beatles as Musicians (Revolver Through the Anthology, ISBN 0195129415, 9780195129410). The Complete Guide to the Music of the Beatles by Patrick Humphries (ISBN 0711966222, 9780711966222), The unreleased Beatles by Richie Unterberger (ISBN 0879308923, 9780879308926) and The Lennon companion by Elizabeth Thomson and David Gutman (ISBN 0306812703, 9780306812705) also mention the song, but I don't know to what extend. Maybe someone has additional secondary literature. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 23:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as minor as a Beatles song can be, but it's still a Beatles song, if only just barely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, my problem is that if this were by *insert random band name that isn't the Beatles* it'd be redirected in a flash - it in no way passes WP:MUSIC - ("Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."). Obviously it gets mentioned quite a bit (see above) because it's related to the Beatles, but still ... Black Kite 12:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We mustn't forget that WP:MUSIC (and similar) aren't a blood oath: they offer guidance toward what, in general, indicates that a subject is likely to pass general notability, specifically coverage in reliable sources. In cases where a band is so epically notable that every song is scrutinised in not just one but several complete discographies published as books, the general notability guideline extends notability to potentially every song by that band. Of course, the number of artists to achieve this sort of notability in the post-classical era is so small that they can be counted on one hand, so it's not like such coverage is going to flood the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You can insert a *random band name* and you'd have a footnote song by a random band, but The Beatles aren't a random band. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Or merge to Anthology 3) I agree with the above comments that Beatles songs have greater inherent notability than those of many other artists, however this particular song has no external references (except the liner notes) which establish the notability of the work. It didn't chart, it wasn't written by the Beatles, and it wasn't released in any format until 1996 when it was only included as filler for another track what was unavailable. Given that, I can't see how this meets our notability criteria, even given its pedigree. JRP (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent notability, no charts, not a single. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A-Kartoffel is a sockpuppet of JamesBurns. Comment struck out. Uncle G (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent notability; only our cultural and generational biases give it even an illusion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:06, 26 March 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 03:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anthology 3. I'm happy for Beatles articles to have a slightly lower bar for notability than other artists, but even then this extremely minor throwaway track wouldn't meet that bar. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I am in agreement with Mr. Lenahan and Mr. Cardinal regarding the notability of the subject. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Or merge to Anthology 3) - Yeah, it's the Beatles but this is really scraping the notability barrel. Hazir (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my above comment. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 00:12, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dielog[edit]

The article is about a supposed "international movement," although attempts to confirm this via Google produce nothing. The article does not meet WP:N or WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No outside refs, no news hits, no reliable sources found. The Lien Foundation might be notable -- it's got a few news mentions -- but Dielog isn't. Graymornings_(talk) 03:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you can try to check dielogue... it's linked to the actual life before death campaign. The site dielogue.org, dielog.org is basically the same movement... its a defination of what it is... a conversation about death, or the dying. A movement is also defined by the people... and its a concept. I don't understand why a certain concept cannot be accepted in wikipedia. It will only add value... you can define what dielog is on your own terms...

please revert your deletion statement. there is really no reason why you should not consider such a noble cause as futile.

thanks... pastor.

hi pastor and wikipedia team ... i added 2 reference and some definitions of what will possibly work for the article. Just to state that dielog and dielogue are the same thing, just different in spelling only... its something totally meaningful and you should also be part of this as well... please add what is your definition of DIELOG in the page and start contributing your story to the movement. I'm sure you have much to say about death and the dying...

thanks and regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadbard (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I can't find much in terms of notability for the different spelling. It may be a noble cause, but it first has to gain widespread attention before it merits a Wikipedia article. Check out our notability guidelines for more details. You might also find this page on how to create your first article helpful. Graymornings_(talk) 22:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info... I added the ref for Die-logue... and some new definition on the page. One notable one was by a Minister in Singapore... will that qualify? I've read the page on how to create your first article. Thanks... DIELOG, Dielogue, Die-logue is not something out of thin air... its a serious subject with real people behind this. Thanks again for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.247.102 (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The links provided don't make it clear that there's a movement, per se. Plus, they're all related-party links. In the absence of independent coverage, delete. —C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's [no third party coverage] for this 'movement'. Hazir (talk) 06:36, 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 redirect to Abacab. I've left a note for the people at the article so anything useful can be merged later. Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like It or Not[edit]

Fails notability per WP:NSONGS. Album track only, never released as a single. No chart performance Paul75 (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abacab as plausable search term. PC78 (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Abacab - Non-single album tracks can be notable, but this article as it stands right now doesn't establish notability. But the content is appropriate for the Abacab article. Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redir oto Abacab. ThuranX (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-charting song that fails to demonstrate notability WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable song. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A-Kartoffel is a sockpuppet of JamesBurns. Comment struck out. Uncle G (talk) 03:44, 22 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 03:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abacab as likely search term. Graymornings_(talk) 03:40, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Senegal–Turkey relations[edit]

Random X-Y country relations pairing. Fails WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 03:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any evidence of notable relations between these two (outside of football). - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some of the agreements listed on the Turkish foreign affairs site are in some way significant, but they all look like collective agreements at first glance. ~Excesses~ (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and no context. The article contains no actual info. TheAE talk/sign 19:39, 22 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 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notable relationship. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:56, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Vietnam relations[edit]

Looks like another random X-Y county relations pairing, fails WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 03:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a couple of propaganda releases saying the two "should strengthen ties", but that a) is symbolic fluff and b) would indicate ties are not that strong at the moment. Which is unsurprising, given the two have fairly little in common. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they have little in common, regardless of what WP:N might say about the relationship. JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a lot of room for expansion. 5,000+ news results indicates there is something that could be built from this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Filter out the mirrors of press releases from the 2 countries, and the results having nothing to do with diplomatic relations, and there are not so many results. Edison (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What Edison said; besides, none of these articles study the relationship as such, merely interactions between the two countries that you have decided constitute evidence of a notable relationship, in violation of WP:SYNTH. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, many of the news reports are about non-diplomatic relations. Canvasback (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as JustOneMoreQuestion. Uncle G (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bilateral relations do not just relate to political/diplomatic relations, but relations between those countries which come about by those political/diplomatic relations. Such things include trade/economics, military, cultural, etc, and there is plenty just within the google news results in which to build an article. More sources would also be found in Russian and Vietnamese languages. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:01, 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. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Russavia, see also Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --Miacek (t) 17:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stub remains unsourced, and i can find no reliable, independent sources that discuss this relationship in any non-trivial depth on my own. Clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline hoax, and per precedents. Dahn (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the official Vietnamese government view can be found in English here. there's a complete lack of formal agreements, just more friendship statements and we will look to cooperate in future. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:57, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand–Uruguay relations[edit]

Looks like another random X-Y country relations article pairing, no evidence of notability. tempodivalse [☎] 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they're on opposite sides of the world and don't have that much diplomatic clout, so it's no wonder sources are not forthcoming. Non-notable pairing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:34, 22 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 15:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of significant trade, cultural or diplomatic ties. another laughable random combinationLibStar (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Nightingale[edit]

No citations, personal opinion, non-neutral point of view (lines like "Today, Earl Nightingale is remembered as the greatest philosopher of his time, and his best selling programs and books continue to sell daily, and inspire new generations around the world, to reach their highest potential." have no place on Wikipedia. Scalethink (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Badly written article, but certainly notable as a quick Google search can prove. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 04:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It is easy to nominate to delete. However, I was always under the opinion that we should require all editors to do a little work such as background investigation before nominating. A quick Google News search gives the following results [89]. Does the article need a rewrite, Yes. But that is not a valid reason for an AFD nomination. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Easily satisfies WP:BIO. A Google Book search shows 641 results. Many are books by Nightingale, but a number are significant coverage in books by others. He starred on the 1940's radio show Sky King. He started the audio self-improvement industry. His recording "The Strangest Secret" was a gold record as the largest selling non-entertainment record. He was a syndicated radio speaker with a program heard daily in 38 countries, and is in the Radio Hall of Fame. See "Secrets of superstar speakers"(2000) by Lillet Walters, pages 52-57. He is discussed in a great many self-help books and described as a pioneer in that field or an inspiration to the writer. Edison (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trimmed the POV with a chainsaw, but the article is still quite lacking in sources. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Cleanup; I have a passing familiarity with Nightingale, and would say that his notability has been established. This article DOES need to be cleaned. Badly. --mhking (talk) 14:37, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Uruguay relations[edit]

Another X-Y country relations article that might not meet WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 03:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsurprisingly, evidence of notability is not forthcoming on this one. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:55, 22 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 15:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:58, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Kenya relations[edit]

Another X-Y country relations article that probably fails WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability in the form of strategic interests, shared history and the like to this relationship. True, Ireland does give tens of millions of euros to Kenyan NGOs and relief programmes, but rich countries giving to poor ones is hardly unusual, and isn't really something a viable article can be constructed out of. It's much more useful to mention this in a Foreign aid to Kenya article, especially as that's the only place they seem to intersect. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a relationship which is only notable in terms of aid. People searching for this title are looking in the wrong place. JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, visits from foreign ministers are routine and highly staged events. JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and discussion of the Irish in Kenya probably belongs somewhere else too. JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:51, 22 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 15:53, 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 User:Plumoyr is 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) 20:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:NOHARM for why this is invalid. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Mbhiii sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...not if shared or not used to circumvent policy. Do you see both (or either) here? -MBHiii (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable independent sources discuss this alleged relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources are available to verify this relationship, which has a significant enough impact especially in Kenya to surely merit an article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:28, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angola–Bulgaria relations[edit]

Another X-Y country relations article that may not meet WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 03:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources to indicate a notable relationship. There may have been one under Communism, and it's true Bulgaria sold arms to both sides in the Angolan Civil War, but there's probably not enough there to write a viable article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notable relationship. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Biruitorul points out precise reasons why the relationship is notable. [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], and on and on they go. It seems to me that many of these nominations smack of WP:RECENTISM. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Edison (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above.Biophys (talk) 03:34, 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. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Russavia. -- llywrch (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, me too for the reasons brought by Russavia. I also agree regarding the problems with recentism in quite a number of these sort of rfd.--Aldux (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:00, 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 01:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguay–Romania relations[edit]

another random almost laughable combination. non resident ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find no sources in English, Spanish or Romanian on this one. There's unlikely to be much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well.Edison (talk) 15:52, 22 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 15:53, 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]
Delete No sources found which give this any degree of notability. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly non-notable, and a discussion elsewhere is no substitute for this one. For those who assume foreign language sources exist, here are the results for a "Paraguay" search on Romania's foreign ministry site. Dahn (talk) 15:11, 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 to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–Paraguay relations[edit]

another random almost laughable combination. non resident ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two fairly small countries on opposite sides of the world are unlikely to have notable relations, and no sources indicate they do. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous directory-type information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to establish notability on, and not likely to, either. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, weak keep I managed to find one source after roughly 30 seconds of searching, [101], and there may be more out there... Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- a) You can't really have a viable article saying "Bulgaria and Paraguay have relations, any by the way, they also have a treaty regarding visa suppression for holders of all types of passports"; b) We would need a secondary source telling us why that treaty matters; see WP:PSTS for details. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:24, 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) 01:48, 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[102]. Martintg (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random and trivial. Dahn (talk) 15:45, 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 merge to 2009 NBA Playoffs. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NBA Eastern Conference Playoffs[edit]

An unnecessary content fork of 2009 NBA Playoffs. All useful content can be merged with the main article. The original merger discussion is here where the creator suggested afd. —Chris! _ct 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.—Chris! _ct 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. NBA Conference Playoffs are as notable as the main Playoffs and Finals. Several content not found at the main playoffs article, and probably won't make it to the <year> NBA Playoffs such as game highs, referees, tip-off time, attendance and the like are there, thus making it not "unnecessary". Plus, if the NJIT Highlanders with a Google result of 17,800 has an article, so should this article with 66,100. Yeah, this is basically WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but this is rather a good comparison. –Howard the Duck 06:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: 2008 NBA Playoffs currently stands at 54 kilobytes, and all of the "unnecessary" information isn't even there. If this doesn't warrant a WP:SPLIT, I dunno what will. –Howard the Duck 06:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with 2009 NBA Western Conference Playoffs. Mandermagic (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the above, wouldn't merging with the Western Conference article be the same as merging with the main Playoff article? Digirami (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.—Chris! _ct 05:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this to any 2009 NBA Playoffs-related article will violate WP:SIZE regulations in the long run. –Howard the Duck 14:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even after merging I don't think the article will be extremely long. Also WP:SIZE is just a guideline. Even the banner on top said "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions."—Chris! _ct 23:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, byt 54kb? Isn't that a tad too much? And my "merge" that means adding the players that had game highs, attendance, quarter scoring and the referees. –Howard the Duck 12:00, 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 merge to 2009 NBA Playoffs. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NBA Western Conference Playoffs[edit]

An unnecessary content fork of 2009 NBA Playoffs. All useful content can be merged with the main article. The original merger discussion is here where the creator suggested afd. —Chris! _ct 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since apparently all the other NBA playoffs articles are in one page per year, e.g. 1998 NBA Playoffs. No reason why 2009 should be different except recentism. But, do we really need 2 AFDs here? It's not like we'd keep the Western Conf. playoffs article but merge the eastern Conf. one. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I guess I should've afd both in one nom.—Chris! _ct 04:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge with 2009 NBA Eastern Conference Playoffs. Mandermagic (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The 2009 NBA Playoffs is the main article. So do you mean merge with 2009 NBA Playoffs?—Chris! _ct 05:38, 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 speedy keep. per WP:SNOW (no prejudice against relisting in a couple of months if no improvements occur). Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France–Serbia_relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/France–Serbia relations

Another one of those ridiculous articles on foreign relations between two countries that states nothing beyond the fact that diplomatic relations exist. Delete Pstanton (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - France had a lot to say during the Yugoslav wars, participating in bombings and hosting the Rambouillet Agreement; there are a healthy number of Serbs in France; the two were allies (albeit in different theatres, and with a WWII "France" operating from London) in WWI and WWII; France was deeply involved in the Little Entente (France saw itself as Yugoslavia's protector); and relations were strained in the 1960s because de Gaulle would not forgive Tito for having executed General Mihailovich. The question is: is this enough for a coherent standalone article, or is the material better covered across several articles? I lean toward the latter, so I guess this qualifies as a "weak delete". - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable and has great room for expansion. Relations established in the late 19th century, and then there's that whole World War I thing that happened. In light of history, relations between European nations would generally meet basic notability, and should be expanded. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be expected that these countries would have substantial involvement, from WWI, WWII, and later. At the very least, lone should conduct a minimal search before nominating. it does not help get rid of the many inappropriate articles here to nominate the expandable ones without discrimination. The material Biruitorul found is enough for an unambiguous keep. DGG (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the relations articles that is worth keeping. It could use some referenced expansion, but the history of these two countries justifies an article. Shadowjams (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the history between both countries, I think this is a bilaterial relations article that ought to be kept. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Unlike most of the X-Y foreign relations articles, this one has a significant history behind it (especially with two World Wars). Pastor Theo (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep Easily meets WP:N Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep This is what happens if we start throwing the baby out with the bathwater with these bilateral relations articles. It makes one wonder about how much thought has gone into the deletion rationales of some of the other articles listed recently. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:32, 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 No consensus. In the case of an unreferenced BLP, this no-consensus result should default to delete, with a clear understanding that it can be created once properly referenced. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khristine Hvam[edit]

proposed by an IP address Hekerui (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason is given for deletion... In light of that fact, lets err on the side of caution and keep the article. It is admittedly a stub, but I can't see any reason to simply delete it at this point. Lets keep it and try and expand it. --Pstanton (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No indications of notability (the character she played on the TV series was 1 episode) and no third party sources are reasons to me. TJ Spyke 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pokémon:_The_Rise_of_Darkrai#Cast; concur that this is a disappointing nomination. JJL (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Calathan (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on her work on notable audio books as well. http://www.khristinehvam.com/clients.html Dream Focus 11:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources that discuss the subject of a BLP? Then no BLP.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Nom didn't state an opinion as to why this should be deleted. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks any secondary sources and any assertion of notability. It's been around for 10 months with no improvement. It's had time to be improved. I support keep/recreation if secondary sources are added. Otherwise delete. The fact that the deletion didn't have a good rationale is irrelevant. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced BLP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nominator withdrew but there are still outstanding delete comments. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if the article isn't improved. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid (role-playing game)[edit]

Non-notable, possible COI ViperSnake151 Talk 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G2 and possibly A1. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This also qualifies possible as G11 per the author's username (HYBRID.RPG). --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a question as to whther HYBRID should even be considered an RPG, but it has been reviewed. [103]. It's also been rated by rpg.net as the second worst roleplaying game of all time [104] and the second worst roleplaying book of any kind. [105] Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So hold on, I'm going to rewrite this article. Consider this a withdrawl. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:22, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Nominator has withdrawn but there are outstanding delete !votes. Relisting for further comments on the nominator's rewrite. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep, I have seen HYBRID discussed previously, and always wondered what the hell the author was on about. Should be kept for now if the nominator is going to work on it, without prejudice for renomming further down the line if nothing is turned up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as per Lankiveil. Edward321 (talk) 06:03, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Promotions[edit]

Non-notable company per WP:Notability (companies), no reliable sources per WP:RS supporting notability, prod contested by author MuffledThud (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does have some coverage here: "LaPorte pointed out a number of VW Drag Buses, each with a very involved paint job. He said these were the work of a Liberty Promotions of Dallas, Texas, which has exotic graphic work applied to existing Hot Wheels models and sells them in limited editions for about $35.

“We take existing pieces and paint them different colors,” said Liberty president Lee Pearlman, adding, “We often send them back to the factory in China where they were originally made.”

He said the 1996 VW Drag Bus, which was designed by Phil Riehlman (Larry Wood is another big designer) and is jacked up with a large spoiler angling off the rear of the roof, had been one of Mattel’s most successful Hot Wheels. “It was the Michael Jordan of Hot Wheels,” he said, adding that his company bought about 250,000 of them to customize and release in limited editions. The company also customizes vehicles for companies, trade shows and conventions, such as the current Rhode Island expo. Steve Zalimas of Leominster, Mass., said he has been collecting seriously since 1995. He said he focuses on “Mainliners,” or the basic cars that were priced at a dollar when they first came out and he now has about 10,000 cars in his collection, which is stored throughout his house. “I’m big into variations (of any one model),” he said." [106] I'm leaning towards a weak keep and some severe pruning. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:34, 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 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The above link to the Providence Journal found above by CoM is the only reliable source so far, and it has about 150 words on Liberty Promotions. (Much of that article is about the Hot Wheels cars generally, and not specifically about Liberty Promotions). It's not that the idea itself lacks significance, it's the fact that hardly anyone writes about this company. There are a few words about Liberty Promotions in our Hot Wheels article, and I think that's about all that the sources can justify. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not independently notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 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) 12:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.

I have proposed this page for deletion, because its only purpose is to promote the company. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Copyright violation of [107], also A7... well sourced factually but no assertion of notability. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the speedy. I could only see one sentence in the whole article which matches that on Zoominfo and it is not clear which came first. Nancy ^talk 17:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he might have refactored some of the text after the fact (that problem is solved), because when I originally looked several paragraphs were infringing. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not the greatest article in the world but it it is reasonably comprehensive, is well sourced, shows notability as influencing the design of notable buildings as well as receiving various awards and does not strike me as particularly promotional - certainly not to the extent that it should be deleted. Nancy ^talk 17:31, 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 00:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after some trimming and rewriting. A major company in its field, as proven by the awards. DGG (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability asserted by awards and demonstrated by coverage in reliable sources. The article is still contains some excessive information and some slightly unencyclopedic phrasing, but certainly appears salvageable. ~ mazca ^t|c 09:22, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Slovenia relations[edit]

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that may not meet WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 00:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as typical random bilateral pairing with no notability established; the salient fact of their both being EU members is covered at Member State of the European Union. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply existing does not establish notability. --Pstanton (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous directory-type information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, nothing of merit to this topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:01, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

India–Paraguay relations[edit]

Another X-Y country relations article that might fail WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 00:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - aside from the fact that the two "agreed to explore prospects of stepping up trade" in 2002 (which is to be expected, given India's size), there's no particular evidence of notability in this relationship, and the embassy is already documented at Diplomatic missions of Paraguay. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No particular reason for having this article. Diplomatic relations existing isn't reason for an encyclopedia article. --Pstanton (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having searched in English and Spanish for notable relations I have been unable to find anything of substance. There are relations with MERCOSUR, so that may have to be investigated, but as a standalone, I'm edging towards delete on this one. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous directory-type information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, there's nothing to this topic.--BlueSquadronRaven 15:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:01, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

India–Malta relations[edit]

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that seems to fail WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - India is large enough that its bilateral relations may more often than not be notable, but this particular relationship lacks that notability. Even the Indian government notes that relations have been "friendly and cordial", but says little else. No sources indicate any deeper relations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lets just say this is a WP:SNOWBALL and delete it, its just another one of those uninformative fluff articles that serves no purpose. --Pstanton (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please please please do not use WP:SNOW or WP:SNOWBALL without understanding how it works. You were the second !vote yet you take it upon yourself to misuse policies which often messes up AfDs. Anti venin 10:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, deployment of Indian troops in Malta is no indication of a notable relationship, neither are bilateral trade treaties or visits by foreign ministers and heads of state. Could there be a blizzard on the way? IfYouDontMind (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above user has been blocked for abusing multiple accountsDGG (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having searched for notable relations I have been unable to find anything of substance. Trade statistics is basically the only thing I can find, and this is perhaps more suited to an article on trade of both countries, i.e. Trade statistics of India or something similar. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous directory-type information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of embassies gives an idea. Punkmorten (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources and aspects of relationship uncovered by User:Marcusmax at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta-Asia relations, who I quote: [ Keep India–Malta relations ] "per per this circa 1800's New York Times article detailing the invasion of Malta by the government of India, BBC article on Indians who were arrested my Malta, article detailing buisness relations between two, One of many articles detailing some kind of boat incident and on top of that both countries are former British colonies." Abecedare (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as once again, there's nothing of note here. Of the above given sources, one has to do with relations before either became a modern sovereign nation, one has to do with relations to Indian businessmen, not the government, Indians being arrested in Malta is a criminal matter, not a diplomatic one and a boat accident, again, not really involving government on both sides except as victims might be concerned. The fact that they were both former British colonies makes their relations to the U.K. notable, not to each other. Non-notable on the world stage. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hold up real quick, since when do sources mean nothing? Let me do a once over and start attempting a rescue. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated - I have updated the article to the point where it is not like a directory article, work is still needed but it should be good enough for a keep. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have struck my delete above, and am changing to keep based upon work done by Marcusmax in establishing some notability which can be further expanded. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what we have here is a juxtaposition of random bits of news that Marcusmax (with all due respect) has decided are notable. We don't have any source that covers the relationship as such. As pointed out by BlueSquadron, what happened in the 1870s and WWII is a subject of Imperial British history, not of "India–Malta relations". And then the rest of the article is basically "they meet, they trade, they seek 'stronger cultural ties'" (sourced in part, I might add, from primary sources, in violation of WP:PSTS) - not really a viable article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many thanks to Marcusmax for tracking down some sources. While it seems that bilateral relations articles have become the great inclusionist-deletionist battle of our times, the fact of the matter is that we do have a neutral, verifiable article on this subject now. Yes, the article is short and imperfect, but that is not the criteria for inclusion. Cool3 (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, what we have is a hash that violates WP:PSTS (assigning importance to treaties without secondary sources having done so), WP:SYNTH (randomly selecting a pastiche of trivia and deciding that together, it forms a notable whole, without having that validated by secondary sources), and WP:NOR (consigning activities in two parts of the British Empire to the realm of "India–Malta relations"), stringing together bits of information about a subject covered nowhere as such in order to generate the appearance of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I don't see the WP:SYNTH in this article nowhere am I adding a+b to give me c. Perhaps I need some more secondary sources, but in a short period of time it is easier said then done (but I am working on it). Plus ignoring the cultural treaty and looking toward the economics section I have provided a 3rd party source stating a rise of 300% in trade in the past few years. And finally as for the NOR you will have to give an exact example for me to know where the issue lies so it can be corrected. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like many such articles, this breaks with WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT. Dahn (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, the british government moved forces from British India to Malta in the 19th century. This has nothing to do with these two nation's relationship. There is no relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marcumax has built this into a perfectly acceptable article. -- llywrch (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:SYNTH, WP:PSTS and WP:NOR problems remain glaring. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I have stated above, you have yet to show where the WP:SYNTH is taking place, and an exact instance of the WP:NOR. As for the primary sources, I am working on the issue but keep in mind there are plenty of other refs besides the treaties. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've laid out the problems before, but I'll do so again.
  - The overriding concern is that no single work (let alone multiple works) - no newspaper or magazine article, no section in a book, not to mention an entire book - deals with "India–Malta relations". Thus, the only remaining option, the one you have chosen, is to take disparate bits of information from very different contexts, decide on your own that they form evidence of notability in the India–Malta relations, and put them together. In other words, you're putting together A and B and C to advance the conclusion that an India–Malta relationship deemed worthy of attention by reliable sources exists - but it doesn't.
  - As to specifics: what happened in 1878 was a) very minor and not something we'd ever cover were we not looking for trivia to dump in here b) an internal matter of the British Empire, not a function of India–Malta relations. What happened in WWII is marginally more important, but again an affair of the British Government, and can be far more logically covered in one of myriad other articles: Indian Army (1895–1947), India in World War II, 10th Indian Infantry Division, etc.
  - Footnotes 1, 2, 4 and 8, along with the text that they support, are primary sources and thus, since their importance has not been assessed by secondary sources, cannot be used by us to validate anything.
  - The remaining information on economic ties is essentially trivial and again selected more to fill the article than because we'd ever mention it anywhere else, but if genuinely notable, Economy of Malta can use some expansion.
  - I think I've explained the SYNTH and PSTS problems. To the extent a notable relationship is being derived from this string of trivia, that's also original research, as is the inclusion of pre-independence events that have nothing whatever to do with the purported topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pre-Independence or not two entites can still have relationships that date back before being independent, a perfect example of this is Montenegro and Serbia, or the US colonies and Britain, or France. Perhaps I am a coming an out of the closet inclusionist as my recent trends appear to show, but on Wikipedia we do have room for "some" relations articles if we can find sources for them. Perhaps an article never came out with a title "India–Malta relations" but not trying to cry other stuff exists, but in all honesty it does we have at our disposal many articles that offer facts on economics and political relationships on these countries that can justify a keep. But thanks Biruitorul, for your opinion and I will look into what you have said with urgent need. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That claim is at best iffy, and in the present situation, as I've pointed out, the WWII stuff is far better covered in more relevant articles on the Indian Army during the war. As for the 1878 deployment - yes, it's mentioned here, but as part of a wider article on operations of the Indian Army (1895–1947) - an article that also mentions deployments to Cyprus, Burma, China, Afghanistan, South Africa, Malaysia and Yemen. That article needs further development and the Indian Army's various operations put into their proper context - not one operation of a dozen plucked out of context and mentioned, implausibly, in an article on "India–Malta relations" entirely divorced from a wider discussion of what the Indian Army was, what it was doing and why. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Biruitorul, I am honestly scratching my head over your claim that Marcusmax advocates a new or original conclusion. What claim is that? That India & Malta had contacts & a relationship? He simply set forth the facts which he found, & added no interpretations which lead the reader to novel conclusions. No interpretation about the treaties the 2 countries signed. This is what those acronyms you allude to mean. -- llywrch (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        However, he's setting them forth out of context ("here's what was going on in the British Empire in 1878! And here's some agreements these two former British colonies signed!") and without the benefit of a secondary source that deals with the relationship itself, not isolated bits of what we may consider to be notable. Regarding the treaties in particular, we need secondary sources telling us they matter, and matter in the context of this relationship. Otherwise, they're really not worth mentioning, because no secondary sources have deemed them worthy of mention. Compare, say, Jay's Treaty or the Treaty of Portsmouth with the India-Malta Agreement on economic, industrial, scientific and technological cooperation - the first two are meaningful because multiple authorities have bothered to study them; the latter is irrelevant, as no one outside the respective foreign ministries has likely written a word about it.
        
        The point I am driving at (and I agree throwing out acronyms can lead to confusion sometimes) is simply that the notability of a relationship is confirmed by scholars or at least newspapers telling us it (it - not random aspects thereof) is notable; not through us selecting bits of what we consider notable information and trying to ascribe notability to the resulting product. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Although your command of alphabet soup is very impressive, I have to question the validity of the acronyms which are being quoted. Often acronym arguments are not challenged in AfDs, which is a shame, because often the acronyms are improperly used.
        WP:PSTS states that we are to use secondary sources. This article only used secondary sources. So this acronym is misued here.
        WP:NOR WP:Synth can you give any examples of original research or synthisis? Other than WP:IINFO, WP:Synth is probably the most misunderstood and misused acronym in a deletion debate.
        RE: "We don't have any source that covers the relationship as such." this is now an invalid argument (see ministry quote below), and I would apprecaite that you strike it.
        Thank you. Ikip (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have further expanded the article adding a few more secondary sources, including a news report by Press Trust of India, a published study on the historical immigration of Indian traders to Malta, and a book chapter on immigration in Malta that discusses the local Indian community. Note that these are in addition to the secondary sources (New York Times, MaltaMedia and the Economic Times) already added by User:Marcusmax . Abecedare (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Abecedare, for your assistance. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two more sources added to explain the geo-political significance of the Indian troops in Malta in 1878. Abecedare (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the vast improvements by Marcusmax and Abecedare. Though Biruitorul may still think otherwise, the article now looks encyclopedic. Salih (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Salih FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per major improvements by Marcusmax and Abecedare. Ikip (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please note this source, which was just added to the article from the India Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
"India's relations with Malta have been strong. Foreign Minister Dr. Frendoin a speech in the Parliament mentioned he wanted to make India a focus area in Malta's foreign policy. PM Frendo visited India in March 2005. The six-day visit was the first high level visit after a gap of 13 years, when the then President Tabone visited India. At present, Malta has an Honorary Consul in Delhi and Mumbai. It is planning to open a Mission in Delhi. The year 2005 is marked by the visit of our Commerce Minister to Malta for CHOGM in November and that of a Parliamentary delegation from West Bengal Legislative Assembly, led by ShriHashim Abdul Halim, Speaker, in August 2005."
Other than WP:IINFO, WP:Synth is probably the most misunderstood and misused acronym in a deletion debate. Ikip (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - footnotes 1, 5, 7, 8 and 12 are primary sources. Not to sound pedantic, but the Ministry blurb about the relationship (aside from detailing a relationship that, when you peel away the inflated language, is pretty trivial) is a primary source, and thus cannot be used to validate the argument that this relationship has been studied by secondary sources. (Unlike, say, US-Cuba or Britain-France.) That is where the heart of the synthesis lies: in the gathering together of disparate bits that we, as opposed to scholars or journalists, consider evidence of a notable relationship. And it veers into original research when discussing pre-independence events that have nothing to do with India–Malta relations.

Regarding more recent additions: information on Indians in Malta could be included in an Indians in Malta article, since it doesn't directly deal with the title topic (though I agree that if kept, it doesn't make sense to split the article that way). As for what happened in 1878: again, it makes far more sense (even overlooking the fact that there was no Malta to have relations with any India at the time) to cover this as part of a wider article on operations of the Indian Army (1895–1947), rather than pulling one such operation out of context and proclaiming it as evidence of a notable relationship between the two modern-day republics. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sorry but you do sound incredibly pedantic (overly concerned with minute details or formalisms), and the interpretation of the rules are also incorrect.

This article excedes notability requirements, with several primary and secondary sources.

Original research is research not pulled from books and secondary sources, this is not "original research or original thought" when editors cite books from the period.

The first sentence of WP:SYNTH states: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." There is no sythesis here. Again and again these sources show by themselves, that their is relations with each country. How can you read the "India Ministry of Foreign Affairs" section and state their is no relationship? Your position seems more like WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR then those who have found sources confirming the relation. Again, WP:SYNTH is abused a lot in AfDs, with no one ever bothering to reread what WP:SYNTH actually says. The primary source I provided have been confirmed by secondary sources.

Ikip (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point we're just going around in circles (I've already explained the SYNTH problem): but again, the Indian Government is not a valid source for activities of the Indian Government. We need a scholarly or at least journalistic filter to tell us what is and what is not notable about this subject, and so far, nothing has emerged on that front. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/me smacks own face with palm. So now we're at the point where a subject is assumed to lie about itself unless proven otherwise? Whenever someone starts insisting on interpretations of the rules which challenge common sense, it's a sign that either (a) bad-faith wikilawyering (which I haven't seen any other important instances); or (b) an unhealthy obsession over getting one's way in a situation, which is likely to lead to WikiBurnout or being banned. (Neither I would wish on anyone.) Look, Biruitorul, this is simply one article out of a couple dozen of this type which have been nominated for deletion, & most of which will probably be deleted. Even if you are right in this case, keeping this article won't hurt the encyclopedia. Let it go, & move on. -- llywrch (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my points and will be glad to move on. But: I'm not saying the Indian Government isn't trustworthy, only that secondary sources are needed to validate its claims (specifically regarding the relationship) and their notability. Consensus disagrees with me here (or else others haven't investigated my claims closely enough), and that happens - it's something one needs to learn to accept. Also, WP:NOHARM. And could I please prevail upon you to drop dark talk of bans? Let's not use that cudgel unless we have to. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the WP:AFTER continued improvements made by User:Marcusmax since the article first hit AfD. Good job. Covering the relations between these two countries, including the historical and societal, are emminently worthy of wiki. Keep up the good work! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There is absolutely nothing notable between the relationship of these two countries to warrant its own article. The relationship does exist and there would of course be references implying this, but if such will be our basis then every country that has a relationship with another country should have an x-y relationship article at Wikipedia. Just imagine how many useless articles would result from that. If we let this one through then a precedent will be established that would allow such a dim prospect to materialize. – Shannon Rose (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As useless as articles on fast-food products, notable only as a result of their mass marketing and rarely for their quality? Your argument would seem to indicate a need for more such relationship articles in a paperless encyclopedia, not less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A central discussion is underway concerning bilateral relations articles, they are also mentioned at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) -- in both places I've suggested why these articles might be useful. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. certainly has more references than the usual X-Y relations article but the relations are not particularly strong but weakly notable. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Looks like it has more information and is more notable than the typical X-Y article. In addition, I looked over this article two days ago and today it's vastly increased in size and references. Not particularly notable but notable enough to keep.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not sure that it's either necessary or useful, and I'm pretty sure it's going to languish undeveloped once this AFD is over; but OK, I think it now meets current guidelines for inclusion. Rd232 ^talk 13:35, 27 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 support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the third of your basic tenets fail, so do the other two. You operate under the false presumption that these articles are inherently notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In no sense, is that a problem here. -MBHiii (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources indicated by Abecedare alone demonstrate the notability of this topic and passing of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with both countries being members of the Commonwealth, there is a relationship. Moreover, the article meets WP:V due to its refrences. And finally, it is exactly what we find in almanacs and encyclopedias, i.e. bilateral relations is a topic with real-world WP:Notability and one of interest to scholars and think tanks who research this kind of subject, especially concerning a country with a billion inhabitants. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:34, 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 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse Festival[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable festival. No reliable sources. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Notability is marginal, but reliable sources exist. See [108] (a passing reference). As a note to others trying to dig up sources, there seems to have been an unrelated eclipse festival in Britain in 1999 ([109] [110]). Go through the google results, there seems to be a reasonable amount out there, but this is unfamiliar enough to me that I'm having trouble determining the reliability of sources. If no more sources are turned up, though, one single sentence mention in the Toronto Star isn't going to cut it. Cool3 (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added two other sources to the links section at the end of the entry. One is an article from a published zine called Trancer's Guide to the Galaxy, very known in the psychedelic trance subculture, which mentions the Eclipse Festival in their article about the Canadian scene. The other one is written by a DJ from British-Columbia on Chaishop, a notable website in the culture as well. Equinoxia (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Those look like enough to satisfy me. By the way (@Equinoxia), you are allowed to make your own "keep" !vote in this discussion if you'd like, laying out the reasons you think the article should be kept. Cool3 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do i make a keep vote? Juat writing keep like this will do? Equinoxia (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a ballot, actually, but a discussion. ~~You should state on which grounds you are saying keep~~ (you already did, sorry), otherwise your opinion might be ignored altogether. And, even as nominator, I actually encourage you to make your point. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I say this article should be kept because Eclipse Festival is the biggest psychedelic party in Quebec. There are other notable parties like this in Canada, like the Shambhala Festival in British-Columbia, but they are not focused exclusively on psychedelic trance music. Shambhala is a bigger festival altogether, but Eclipse happens to be the biggest 'psy-trance only' festival in Canada. Psy-trance is an international music subculture, and Eclipse Festival is an important part of the Canadian psy-trance world. I have also managed to find mention of Eclipse Festival in reliable international publications pertaining to this subculture.Equinoxia (talk) 04:10, 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 00:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that it is notable, sourced entirely by it's own websites. We at least need some major news coverage and proof that this festival is a big deal. --Pstanton (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial coverage here [111] in a major Toronto newspaper. Has it been eclipsed or is it still jamming with the bright shine of electronica? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:43, 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 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fariba Nejat[edit]

The article is one of self-aggrandizement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraniantruth (talk • contribs) 2009/04/14 20:25:07

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current article is certainly self-aggrandizing, but that's a matter for cleanup and not AfD. What we're concerned with here is notability, that is whether Nejat is the subject of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The closest I can find are this and this, which are hardly 'significant', and a list behind a paywall at the San Jose Mercury News. From the summaries of the latter I can't see any evidence that they give significant coverage to Nejat, but if anyone finds the full articles I'd happily reconsider. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that although the article is a copy of this page, the user who created the article has previously claimed to own that website. I'm not sure what the ultimate outcome of that exchange was. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:05, 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 00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure why my article has been nominated for deletion; could you perhaps clarify for me to better understand? I have however confirmed with Wikipedia Foundation that I am in fact the owner of the website the biography is copied from. The information in the biography was attained by an interview that myself and my team had with Mrs. Nejat herself. I plan on posting more biographic articles in the future, all having been attained by personal interviews. This is why it's a bit difficult for me to cite my sources, and I can only post the link to the same biography on my website. I just hope not to run in to so many problems with each biography article I post. Glaan (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Glaan. The point is that for a subject to have a Wikipedia article it must be 'notable' per the policy Wikipedia:Notability - specifically it needs to have significant coverage in third-party sources. Articles about Mrs. Nejat in newspapers or coverage of her in books would suffice to demonstrate notability, but a self-published website such as yours does not for the obvious reason that anyone can easily set up a website to say anything they want (see WP:SPS). The two articles I linked to above don't give much coverage of her, but if you know of some that do the feel free to link to them. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response Mr. Davis. Once Mrs. Nejat has returned from her business, I will make sure to ask her of any articles relevant to this specific article. Is there a particular deadline for me to send in my sources of nobility before my article has been deleted?

This particular deletion debate will probably be closed shortly. If the outcome is Delete, then you will have to make sure the issues raised here are corrected before re-creating the article. decltype (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A greater problem I face is that the people subject to articles I plan to post in the future are not very well known today and thus haven't any legitimate news stories or biographies up anywhere. The purpose of my Wikipedia articles is to hopefully get the names of these people a little more well known. For example, one article is to be written about an Iranian actress from decades ago, who is now eighty years old and hasn't any source of nobility because when she was in her prime, these things weren't available. Does this mean my article on her will in no way be allowed to remain on the website? Is there anything I can do? Thank you. Glaan (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, if notability can not be established by reliable third-party sources your articles will most likely end up getting deleted. In the case of an actress who had significant roles, even if it was a long time ago, I would think it would be possible to find sources. The best advise I can give at the moment is to familiarize yourself with the notability guideline, and try to ensure your subjects meets those. decltype (talk) 10:09, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Markel Hutchins[edit]

Merely running for political office does not establish notability, and notability is not otherwise established. Perhaps redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia, 2008. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - his candidacy for public office is only one of his noteworthy activities. The controversies in which he has been involved, his civil rights and political activism also make him notable. The article includes references from reliable sources, although there is always room for more. Wikipedia would not be improved by this deletion. Ground Zero | t 20:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which controversies? Passing a bad check and calling on someone else to resign don't strike me as particularly notable. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, his one controversy, his role as Johnston family spokesperson, his leadership of the National Youth Connection and his candidacy for public office. A bunch of smallish things adding up to Wikipedia being a better place for having an article on him. I'm still not clear how Wikipedia would be a better place because of a deletion. This is not a vanity article on a high school student or a local used car dealer. Hutchins is a public figure. Ground Zero | t 21:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment This National Youth Connection doesn't seem particularly notable to me, either. In fact, this article is one of the first hits for the organization on Google. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing substantial coverage. The "notable" events seem borderline especially for a BLP. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:07, 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 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in 3rd party sources or evidence that candidate meets WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: no significant coverage, other than, of course, the articles from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and USA Today.... Ground Zero | t 17:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both Atlanta journal links are broken, so since the creator didn't bother to add access dates we've no way of assessing them. Consequently I can only judge them on the basis of the USA Today article which is not about him at all, it's about a guy called Andrew Young and quotes Hutchins briefly. The other source is his website and a campaign site linked to him. So yes, no significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Valenciano (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, third party sources are not limited to those available though the internet. Printed sources are WP:Reliable sources. Just because you can't find them easily, doesn't mean that they are not valid. The USA Today article states that Hutchins criticized Andrew Young, who was a prominent member of Jimmy Carter's cabinet, in an opinion-page column in The Atlanta Journal Constitution. If Hutchins is writing opinion page columns in the AJC, he isn't a nobody, and a quotation in USA Today is of significance given that paper's broad reach. Ground Zero | t 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Many people criticize political leaders; that does not automatically make these people notable. And a wide variety of people write guest pieces in the AJC. Not all of these are notable. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I wouldn't suggest that writing an op-ed piece makes someone notable or that running for office makes someone notable or that representing a family in a high-profile case makes someone notable or that being a civil rights activist makes somoneone notable. If you replace those ors with ands, I think he is notable. Above I was only pointing out that Valenciano's argument that there were "no third party sources" because s/he couldn't find them on-line was not a valid argument. There are third party sources supporting Hutchins' various notable activities that collectively make an article worth having. Ground Zero | t 20:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added references from the Marietta Daily Journal and USAToday, links to WSBtv.com and profiles of Hutchins in Blackpressusa.com and Atlanta Magazine, and a link to the transcript of Hutchins' appearance on CNN Election Center. This addresses the concern about reliable third party sources, and it also demonstrates that Hutchins is a figure of significant local importance, and of not insignficant national importance. Would Wikipedia be a better source of information by removing this article? I, for one, had never heard of him before seeing this article, and now I know something aout the man. Ground Zero | t 20:41, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Slovenia relations[edit]

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that does not indicate notaibility. tempodivalse [☎] 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no embassies, no hint of notability. Yes, Belarusian propaganda made note of Slovenia's intention to improve EU-Belarus relations, but that was in Slovenia's role as EU president, not acting on its own autonomous initiative. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having searched in English and Russian, I can't find anything giving notability or extended periods of contacts between the two countries. A search in Slovenian may find something, and if found I will change to keep, but in the meantime delete. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous information consisting of juxtapositions of countries noting whether they have diplomatic relations. Fails notability as well. Is speedy deletion possible for robo-articles created by now-banned sockpuppets? See the user page of Groubani: [112]. Edison (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some of them turned out to be viable. DGG (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And many didn't, even though speedy deletion and PRODding was contested. This is why they come here en masse. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete information is already covered in other articles, there's nothing to these "relations" except two non-resident ambassadors. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article on the Slovene Ministry of foreign affairs web page about a recent meting between the two ministers. I agree that relations aren't particularly notable and the article consists mostly of generic diplomatic babble about how they agreed to improve the already good relations. The only useful fact inside is the amount of trade between the two countries (54 million euros in 2008), but that's probably not enough for an article. So yeah, there probably won't be much harm if this article is deleted. --Yerpo (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally relations between two European can reach notability, but in a case like this one, involving one of the less important countries of the EU and a pretty isolationist one, I highly doubt.--Aldux (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:02, 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) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swimwire[edit]

Non-notable startup, fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. No reliable sources. (PROD notice was removed) ZimZalaBim ^talk 11:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No actual reliable sources for a brand-new company. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. KillerStartups is considered a reliable source by many - all original reviews and stuffs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.209.178 (talk) 09:27, 17 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, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 23:28, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Casric[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No reliable sources, fails WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC. —Snigbrook 13:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any useful third-party sources Vartanza (talk) 14:20, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ant Commander[edit]

Notability not asserted, similar to other projects (1, 2, 3); no reliable sources seem to mention this application, only sites offering it for download. In addition, the author is promoting his work. Simeon (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-15t18:58z

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, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if deleted, redirect to SimAnt 76.66.196.218 (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. A redirect would not be appropriate. So just completely delete it. Spiesr (talk) 17:57, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Martin (Irish Gaelic Games writer)[edit]

Non-notable Bothpath (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 20:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No suggestion of notability. Will have to wait until book is out or substantial coverage occurs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe following link clearly backs up the information http://www.limerickleader.ie/kilmallocksouth-east/Author-Henry-to-tell-Limerick39s.5044536.jp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.238.22 (talk) 19:54, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 84.203.238.22 (talk · contribs) removed the deletion template. I have restored it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He does have a link to real press coverage concerning his book. But I don't think one local news story about a book that hasn't yet appeared is enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete article doesn't mention the writings but title defines him as a writer. No claim to notability is made. Mrathel (talk) 19:18, 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 no consensus with no prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone wishes to do so in good faith (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Collegiates[edit]

Non notable band - many of the claims are unreferenced and unverifiable. No allmusic entry. No albums or EPs. States their biggest hit was the song "I Can't Get You Out of My Mind", yet Billboard has no record of them or their song [113] Nothing on cashboxmagazine.com either. No evidence they charted. TheClashFan (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no major coverage, in fact very little specific coverage of this band at all on Google. Nothing on Google books either. Iam (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of the nominator. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of the nominator. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:12, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Lantern (movie)[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to expand Threat's rationale. This article was created prematurely because per the notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article should not begin until it is confirmed that principal photography has begun. This is because factors such as budgeting issues, casting issues, and scripting issues can all interfere with projects before they enter the production stage, even major projects (see Spider-Man 4 and Jurassic Park IV as two examples). Part of the content of this article was copied directly (and without the proper edit summary) from Green Lantern in other media#Film. Filming is scheduled to start this September, but we cannot say for sure that it will take place and thus warrant added coverage about the production, reception, themes, et cetera, so this violates WP:NTEMP as well. In addition, the page is improperly named, so redirecting is not helpful in this case. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my argument above. No problem with recreation if filming is verified to have begun. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ——Erik (talk • contrib) 13:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. For the record, content about the film can be found at Green Lantern in other media, while there is a sandbox for the eventual film at User:Wildroot/Green Lantern. Alientraveller (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF.TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: nominators are assumed to !vote for deletion unless otherwise stated (e.g. a procedural nomination). Steve ^{T • C} 20:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the content appears to be info on the comic and rumors.--Iner22 (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability guideline for future films recommends that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. The reasons are very good, practical ones, as many issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. Lots are announced and then fail to materialise, so directed use of the guideline is the best way of ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline; all that would remain is an article based on a short burst of news stories that appeared when it was announced. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile, with major stars attached, that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Projects can be put on hold at the last minute while a director tackles another film (e.g. Spielberg's Lincoln). And many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike (e.g. Pinkville and Justice League). Projects unrelated to the strikes, but which are still in development hell, include the aforementioned Jurassic Park IV (many would consider this a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight; indeed, it was actually supposed to be released in 2005), and White Jazz. State of Play, which had Brad Pitt and Edward Norton mere weeks away from filming in November 2007, was a hair's breadth away from being abandoned after Pitt jumped ship. Green Lantern itself has gone through multiple incarnations, with several directors attached, during its protracted development. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. For now, the best place for the Green Lantern film adaptation information is in the wider context of the parent article, where it will best serve the general reader. Steve ^{T • C} 20:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per convention. If this movie does enter production, a far better article, based on verifable referenced instead of speculation.--RadioFan (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to delete an article concerning the Green Lantern film since it is indeed going to transpire dispite the fact that shooting hasen't occur yet. Homey104 (User talk:Homey104) 6:25, 22 April 2009

We can never be sure that a project will take place. Other superhero films have faltered. Batman was absent from the screen for seven years, during which there were several attempts that failed before Nolan came on board. Superman was absent even longer, with similar failed attempts. An attempt to adapt Wonder Woman failed. Captain America first began development in 1997, but we have not seen a film since. A film adaptation of the Justice League of America also faltered. Green Lantern's film itself has been in development for a couple of years already. So I disagree that "it is indeed going to transpire". —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF which has been based on a lot of experience with future films stalling. I see no good reason for an exception for this article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The movie is confirmed to be filming in Australia starting in November as recently reported on IGN and other notable news sources. Pre-production begins in July. I don't see why we would delete an article only to recreate it in a few months.--Cartman005 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Steve's comment and mine as well. We can never treat such projects, even high-profile ones, as certain productions. People tend to have short-term memories in following these kinds of films and do not realize how long it takes, if ever, for some films to be made. That's why the term "development hell" is prominent in the film industry. A lot goes into preparing to make a film, and like it has been said, there are often factors along the way that bring it to a halt. So there is the possibility that production will take place, but creating a stand-alone film article gives the false impression that the film is absolutely coming forth. Relegating details prior to possible production to the section of a broader article shows that things are still progressing but not certain enough for an actual film to result. Films can stop in the middle of production, but such halts are usually notable enough for it to be considered an unfinished film. In contrast, films that never start filming can't really be considered unfinished if they never started. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:34, 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.