The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greater pakistan[edit]

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

A content fork from Pakistan and Kashmir, consisting solely of one editor's view what of Pakistan's boundaries should be if the Kashmir dispute was resolved in its favour. The dispute is adequately covered in the Kashmir article, and disagreement over its wording should be resolved there by consensus, instead of by creating a rival article. Per the Content Fork policy the article was converted into a redirect, but this was reversed by its creator so I've brought it here for a wider set of eyes. Euryalus (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 11:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons given by nominator as well as WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX. The author would have England claim all English-speaking regions as part of Greater England, or have the Vatican City claim all Catholic-majority countries as part of Greater Vatican City. Drawn Some (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: as original research. --Ragib (talk) 17:38, 4 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baxall business centre[edit]

Baxall business centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

building with no assertion of notability. Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable building named after a non-notable company.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above, with a hint of spam on the air... Peridon (talk) 21:07, 6 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal music in El Salvador[edit]

Heavy metal music in El Salvador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was created by a single-purpose account whose only contribution to wikipedia was to promote heavy metal bands from El Salvador. The only references in this article are to blogs and other non-reliable sites like the Metal Archives, through which the article boasts that the country has 59 bands. Just to keep things in perspective, countries with smaller population include Norway with over 1,000 bands and Finland with over 2,000 bands. Outside Europe, countries like New Zealand and Singapore also boast a larger number of metal bands (175 each, according to the same unreliable source) despite a smaller population to El Salvador. Need I say more? Article is clearly about a non-notable subject. Bardin (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Bardin (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 13:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge To Music of El Salvador. The heavy metal scene in El Salvador may not require its own article, but some of the information here can be placed in the existing article on the country's music heritage. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what exactly? It's all original research supported by unreliable sources. None of the bands mentioned are even notable enough for an article on wikipedia. --Bardin (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the nominator: this is OR, the sources are not reliable and the article is full of weasel words and random factoids. I don't think there is anything to merge, and this is an unlikely search term. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Pastor Theo. Even if not sourced, it is verifiable information that can be done later. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure there's verifiable information in the article? Have you tried searching for reliable sources to verify anything in the article because I have and I found nothing. --Bardin (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. There's nothing to merge after all the non-reliable references are removed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original nonsense. Nothing to merge. --Anarchodin (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as this is no original research, fantasy or non-notable information. It's part of a country's heritage and culture. The argument used by Bardin is not valid because he is comparing highly developed countries with one of the latin-american countries with the lowest HDI. --Crimson33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • 60 non-notable bands do not make part of some country's heritage and culture. If that were so, there would be reliable sources in newspapers and books about heavy metal music in El Salvador but no, the article only have sources to unreliable sites like the metal archives and blogs. Most of those bands do not even have any album out. This is not a vote, your argument amounts to nothing more that "I Like It". --Anarchodin (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, YobMod 14:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Google books has quite a few hits, for example in Zentralamerika heute Von Sabine Kurtenbach i find:" Many Spannish groups began the boom in Rock in the spanish language, known as Guanarock in El Salvador....Now Heavy metal, Trash and black metal have become popular in these lands, as interpreted by the bands Renegado and Tabu. In 1989, rock-fans organised a concert for peace for a youth the was sick of war." Kinder im Abseits Kindheit und Jugend in fremden Kulturen Kindheiten Von Manfred Liebel has "Music preferences cover a wide spectrum, from spanish-language melancholic music, to English language Rock, particularly Rap/Hiphop, Heavy metal and Punk...Since 1992, 8,000 El-Salvadorans atend the Annual Peace-fest.

No idea why sources appear in German, but I suspect other language (eg spanish) searches would also find enough sources to find at least enough for a section.YobMod 14:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you would think any of those sources are relevant to this article's subject. None of those sources are about El Salvador or even heavy metal. One can find many results through a google book search by coupling two random words together like metal and a country's name. --Bardin (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments by nominator I want to emphasize that the article is filled with nothing more than original research and that it is unlikely to ever be more than that. There are 11 citations at present. Three of them are to the metal-archives.com; two of them are to metalcritico.com; one of them is to spirit-of-metal.com; and another one is to resistenciamusical.com. All four are unreliable sites that rely on content are submitted by their users. Two other sites are to blogs (obolog.com and blogspot.com); one is to myspace; and another is to a fanpage on geocities. One citation is to some kind of forum that I cannot view without signing in. In response to Crimson33, El Salvador is actually in the middle range of HDI according to this list. Countries with lower HDI to El Salvador includes Indonesia (280 bands), South Africa (101 bands), Bolivia (105 bands), Philippines (119 bands), etc. There is nothing remarkable or extraordinary about El Salvador having 62 heavy metal bands, none of whom are even notable for an article on wikipedia. I went through each and every band entry on the metal-archive site: 30 of those bands have not released anything more than demos. 6 have managed to release an EP but have yet to release a studio album. 22 bands have only released one studio albums. 1 of those 22 bands (Vertigo) have also released a live album. 3 bands (Dreamlore, Kabak, Kabala) have released 2 studio albums. Only 1 band (Raices Torcidas) has released 3 studio albums. That's it. The grand total number of studio album released by heavy metal bands in El Salvador is 31. How anyone can possibly think that a heavy metal scene that has produced only 31 albums up to now is a notable subject is quite beyond me. It is not even notable enough for an entry in the Music of El Salvador. Do you think the music industry in El Salvador pays much attention to a genre that has only produced 31 albums up to now? More important than anything else though is the sheer absence of a single source that even treats as heavy metal music in El Salvador as a notable subject. Not even a passing mention, let alone a discussion. The subject is simply not notable to have a presence anywhere on wikipedia. --Bardin (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also in Nicaragua & El Salvador Von Paige R. Penland, i find "The music scene in El Salvador is thriving....Heavy metal and Funk are styles embraced and developed by younger Salvadoran musicians. Multiple general reference books mentioning that El Salvador has a thriving Heavy metal scene does indeed convince me that deletion would be a mistake. Note, i don't read Spanish, and there are likely many more such sources in the language of the land.YobMod 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that you are doing is proving the existence of heavy metal music in El Salvador, something that is not in dispute. Heavy metal is a global phenomenon and can be found in many countries around the world. There is nothing remarkable about heavy metal music being heard in El Salvador, a country that has only produced 62 bands with 31 studio albums among them. Many other similar sentences to your example can be found for other countries, eg. Mongols now have access to a variety of culture ... While some express a pride in their old instruments, songs, and beliefs, others are dripping the ends of their curly-toed boots into new performance arts, including heavy metal, rock and "world" music. here; An Egyptian teen's preference may range from popular to heavy metal. here; Bangladeshi band music was the precursor to modern Bangladeshi rock and metal music. here; etc. There is no source indicating anything notable about heavy metal music in El Salvador. --Bardin (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, i am showing that general books about the region specifically mention Heavy metal being socially relevant in El Salvador, more than the vast majority of other music generes. Another: Seeing Indians Von Virginia Tilley has "the country (El Salvador) was simultaneously saturated with American pop, rap and heavy metal....The older Generation frequently complained that rock...were eroding traditional social values and leading to gang violence". Multiple general reference books mentioning that El Salvador has a thriving Heavy metal scene, and that its scene has a social impact does indeed convince me that deletion would be a mistake. Note, i don't read Spanish, and there are likely many more such sources in the language of the land.YobMod 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted wrongly. It's "American pop, rap, heavy metal and other music." It is also American heavy metal that this source describes El Salvador as being saturated with. No mention of an El Salvadorean heavy metal scene at all, let alone a "thriving one". --Bardin (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Would anyone mind if we asked some of the El Salvadoran wikipedians if they can do quick search? A spanish-reading editor saying there are no reliable sources would be convincing i think, but i don't want it to look like canvassing (eg. if people think that editors from the country would be biased to keeping), but the wikiproject is dead.YobMod 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, ask away. You can also raise the issue at the wikiproject metal talk page too. When the heavy metal scene of a country consists of just 62 bands with only 31 studio albums among them, I doubt that there would be any reliable source about it in any language. --Bardin (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment Please stop relisting this. It seems that it's an attempt to force a deletion. If no input has been given in the original 7-day window, it should be closed as keep by default. Lugnuts (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing wrong with relisting an article to find consensus where there is none. This is not the only AFD that has been relisted more than once. Yes, an absence of consensus should result in keep by default though it would be a peculiar thing indeed if an article is kept when not a single person in the AFD has actually supported that. That said, I do believe a "no consensus - default to keep" would have be a more accurate closing decision than "merge". --Bardin (talk) 17:22, 8 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Ashen[edit]

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

Notability Capitalismojo (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC) This is a page about some young man who puts humor videos on youtube. He also has reviewed video games. It could be saved as an example of non-noteworthy pages. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Source. None of the sources are third-party; all the sources eventually take you to his own website or youtube page. Toad of Steel (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would say that Stuart Ashen is an actor (He played Noseybonk In Screenwipe, Appeared in many game review shows) and should be kept. Hayama317 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless citations can be found to show notability as WP:ENTERTAINER -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Reliable sources have not been found to establish notability. tedder (talk) 01:11, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Value Engineering[edit]

Environmental Value Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable term, it seems. Outside of papers published by the creator it has been used twice, once in an unpublished masters thesis and once in an academic paper. Ironholds (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NEO. Drawn Some (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable neologism, and a one-man theory, likely inserted for commercial gain. Kemosabe, the herd has passed this way! This analysis methodology combines the late Dr. Howard T. Odum's emergy analysis with traditional value engineering. Environmental Value Engineering accounts for the inputs to built environment alternatives and can be used to compare multiple built environment alternatives over a life cycle consisting of 10 phases: natural resource formation, natural resource exploration and extraction, material production, design, component production, construction (assembly), use, demolition, natural resource recycling (feedback), and disposal. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pri-fi[edit]

Pri-fi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unreferenced neologism RadioFan (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NPOV, WP:NEO, WP:SOAP Cnilep (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NEO Drawn Some (talk) 20:03, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Pogan[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a news source--this individual is only notable for one current event in NYC, already covered at Conflicts involving Critical Mass, which is what the Patrick Pogan article actually describes; any relevant content should simply be merged from the latter to the former. evildeathmath 16:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep why not simply merge the article instead of having all the unnecessary drama of an AfD? Well referenced article, meets notability. Ikip (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused as to what you're suggesting merging. If you're suggesting that the content of the Pogan article be merged onto Conflicts involving Critical Mass (which I'd supoport), I don't think that there remains any need for a separate article for Pogan, as there's nothing here that's unrelated to the Critical Mass incident, so I'm curious as to why Patrick Pogan should be retained as separate article.evildeathmath 16:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Proposed merges is that way. Please read WP:BEFORE in future prior to starting a deletion debate. Skomorokh 17:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete merger would be fine but then the info needs to be checked for POV. Although I agree that merger should have been brought up before deletion it is really easy to have a knee jerk reaction when articles are created that clearly violate WP:BLP1E and do not even come close to meeting notability standards. Also, Pogan already recieves mention in the article devoted to conflicts during critical mass so it would be less of mergin and more of adding a few lines to that section.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to check in here and see if I could get you to flesh out your POV concerns. I tried to keep it neutral as best I could and ensure that there weren't undue weight issues, but it sounds like I didn't quite hit the mark. If you're willing to elaborate, I'd like to take a look and see what I can do to improve the article. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:BLP1E allows for biographical entries when an individual has a substantial role in such an event. That is clearly the case here. Merger might be appropriate, but that's a different discussion. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in Talk:Critical Mass and ‎Talk:Conflicts involving Critical Mass Ikip (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge and redirect. Well sourced, ongoing news coverage, so doesn't fall foul of BLP1E. Seems to be enough to justify its own article, but don't feel strongly against a merge. Quantpole (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge; upon closer examination, I believe I jumped the proverbial firearm by listed this for AFD; content is well sourced, reasonably balanced, and the topic is notable. evildeathmath 20:49, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Plan (band)[edit]

The Plan (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is about a band (comprised of one man), though appears to give no allusion to notability and cites absolutely no references. If the band had any significant achievements in its time, there is no mention of any ion the article. It appears to give no information besides a discography and links only to a radio station and to the band's myspace page, neither of which qualify as WP:RS and neither of which suggest notability. Other, reliable, sources are conspicuous only by their absence. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it fails Wikipedia:Notability for a band unless they have a single or album that made it on a chart. Toad of Steel (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware there are 11 other criteria a band can meet other than getting on a chart?  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per WP:MUSIC; I'm surprised CSD didn't work. Ironholds (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Keep, gah I'm an idiot.[reply]
• Strong Keep. A good example of why we have WP:BEFORE. This Allmusic bio indicates members of another notable band and, to quote: "the Plan's self-titled debut album was hugely successful in Scandinavia. They received four Swedish Grammy nominations in 2001." The band's first two albums have been on Virgin Records and EMI, which passes another criterion of WP:BAND, and they both charted in the top 40 of the Swedish album chart, which passes another.[18] "This Google News search indicates plenty of significant coverage. Surely these results from 5 minutes of Googling show that it's obvious that this should be kept?--Michig (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and I know we don't treat YouTube as a reliable source, but this TV performance surely also indicates notability.--Michig (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Inclues typical band material, and an iw link, seems verifyable. Tomas e (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:MUSIC#C2 for their albums Embrace Me Beauty getting to #31 on the Swedish Top 60 charts; [19], and Walk for Gold reaching #38; [20]. The song "Friends Getting Cold" reached #57; [21]. And as pointed out earlier, they pass WP:MUSIC#C5 for their EMI & Virgin releases; [22]. While I wasn't as quick as Michig, that only took me 6 minutes.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:57, 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 19:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F. C. Rabbath[edit]

F. C. Rabbath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a minor filmaker who has won some local news production awards as well as some local film festivals. Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. RadioFan (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If the guy has many mentions online and interviews in a book. Not to mention IMDb seems to have accepted then how is that not worth a page on wikipedia? --Shawnjohn9 (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMDb is only considered a reliable source for one very narrow definition which doesn't apply here so it's not much good for establishing notability. Also, references to blogs aren't considered reliable either. The ISBN number listed on the book claimed as a reference is not correct.--RadioFan (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Okay, I attempted to check out every single source given in the article. Ref1 is a local TV blog page which praises Rabbath's work. Ref2 and Ref3 both verify that Rabbath won 2nd place, apparently in a contest of films made by Florida students. Ref4 is a friend's personal website, which also praises Rabbath. Ref5 merely indicates that Rabbath shared an award for "investigative" given to a local TV station. I was unable to verify or locate the "Further Reading", as both ISBN's came up as "invalid" when I selected them. External link1 is the subject's own website. External link2 is an anonymous (by "Joe") mini-biography. I've spent enough time on this. There's no evidence that Rabbath comes even close to meeting WP:CREATIVE. Tim Ross (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As an editor who tried to help out this author with suggestions regarding the verifiability of his claims about Rabbath, I find that no further verifiable information is forthcoming. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI'm contesting this because i believe it's worth having a page for. In fact i'll be bring more references once i have more time. --Shawnjohn9 (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:16, 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 (NAC) --Unionhawk ^Talk 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhianna Pratchett[edit]

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

I am unsure whether this article has been nominated for deletion before. The talk page does carry the comment, 'Not a speedy. Does not meet any of the criteria.Dr Zen 01:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)' I am nominating the page for deletion because I fail to see how the subject is notable enough to have an article of her own. She is apparently a former journalist who now works in the computer games industry. I am sure that there are lots of people in computer games who do not have articles on Wikipedia. Surely the most notable thing about her is that she is Terry Pratchett's daughter. Oxonian2006 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per no. 2 in the article 'Game Industry's 100 Most Influential Women' Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this, but does being (according to one magazine's opinion) one of the 100 most influential women in the games industry make somebody notable? Take a list like this, Thirty-five under 35/this, Alpha females on the way up. Only two of the thirty-five have Wikipedia articles; shall we create articles for all of them? It must be said, some of them sound considerably more notable than Rhianna Pratchett. What about the other ninety-nine most influential women in the games industry? Do they all need articles here? What about the most influential 100 men? These aren't even the most influential 100 people, but only the most influential women. Assuming that influence in the games industry is split 50/50 between men and women (which it obviously isn't), that would make her one of the most influential 200 people. Do we need articles on the 200 most influential people in, say, soft drinks or tobacco? It looks to me like she got here because she has a famous parent.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for keeping the article, as a Terry Pratchett fan reading the name Rhianna Pratchett in a Overlord newsbulletin stirs my curiousity, and therefor i wiki'd the name, if not for this article i would never have know that she is indeed Terry's daughter. Koesper (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents. Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Notability_is_inherited--Oxonian2006 (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - easily meets the notability guidelines independent of any family relations. The extensive coverage provided in the references, from websites such as Ars Technica, Joystiq and others, is sufficient for notability. As the primary writer of several notable video games, and according to one list the 2nd most important woman in the game industry, she's pretty clearly notable. As for the fact that 'there are lots of people in computer games who do not have articles on Wikipedia.' - that's probably true, but that means you should create articles on those people, not delete this one. Robofish (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second most important? Number 2 on the list? If these comments refer to this list - Game Industry's 100 Most Influential Women - there has been some mistake. The list is arranged in alphabetical order and she appears at no. 2 on p. 9, between Powers and Ray. Or is there another list that I haven't seen?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, you're right; I misread the list. I still think the significant coverage in the references provided is enough to justify keeping this article, though. Robofish (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Article passes notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - The nomination appears to have been done without following WP:BEFORE as a simple google search produces plenty of useable reliable sources, eg Joystiq, The Guardian, 1UP, Kotaku, Newsarama.com, the British Writer's Guild, also mentioning she won that organization's 2008 award for video games script, Rock Paper Shotgun and all of this within the first 15 search results. Come on now. This passes WP:RS and WP:V without a shred of doubt even if the article is in a poor state. AfD shouldn't be used for cleanup. MLauba (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that this article had been submitted for the old VfD process in 2004: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rhianna Pratchett. --MLauba (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. Please do your homework before proposing deletion. MuZemike 01:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did plenty of homework, thanks. I even realised that she was not no. 2 on that famous list, but no. 2 on p. 9 of an alphabetical list, which nobody else had spotted before. I just didn't realise that other people would think she looked notable. I haven't played a computer game for about twenty years, which might explain why I failed to spot her notability. Likewise I have had to argue for not deleting an article about a theologian, presumably AfDed by somebody who knew nothing about theology and hence did not understand his notability.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 10:43, 6 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 speedy delete. Per G12, taken completely from [23]. SoWhy 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shultz tables[edit]

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

Contested prod. Speed reading technique. No assertion of notability, no third-party references. Actually, the article as it currently stands is a copyvio of the one reference provided, http://www.st.vstour.info/ShultzTables.html, but cannot be tagged as speedy G12 because it was not inserted all at once. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:04, 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 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wee web[edit]

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

recently founded, non-notable social network site Passportguy (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:WEB.

• subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Not that the article makes out, and I highly doubt it-while google returns over 7 million returns, the majority of the hits are simply promoting the site (as evidenced by the top results).
• won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization Nope. None that the article makes out, and searches give the same result.
• distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators Not at all. It's no different than the other million sites out there. A million other sites are also up. Cheers. I'^mperator 18:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable and very spammy. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The people who founded this and its investors are very notable. Check out the internal links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vp2420 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC) — Vp2420 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete, possibly ((db-web)) speedy. Google news search finds no reliable sources. Also consider the articles on its founders Matt Meeker and Peter Kamali (created by Vp2420) for deletion; I've tagged them with ((db-bio)). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 3 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 Nominator withdrew. NAC. Iowateen (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhatia[edit]

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

Just a list of names and nothing more. I suggest this be deleted and Bhatia (caste) be moved here. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. "Bhatia" is a disambiguation page for people with that name and related articles. There are dozens. It appears that the nominator is unfamiliar with disambiguation pages. Drawn Some (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid disambiguation page. It may be that it should be renamed Bhatia (disambiguation), but not deleted.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful disambig. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw I wish to withdraw the nom. Thanks - Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:58, 3 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 speedy delete. hoax Acroterion _(talk) 17:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zach berger[edit]

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

Apparent hoax - no sources indicate this person has performed for Obama, or with the Who or Dead. Acroterion _(talk) 17:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YO YO YO! You are so wrong. If I put up sources can it stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berman619 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete and protect from re-creation. Simple vandalism. Drawn Some (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC) (changed to speedy per passportguy's comment) Drawn Some (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Couldn't find any evidence for this person. Not on Columbia records website. Quantpole (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is a re-create of a previous article which was deleted as nn-bio. The spurious claim of notability was now apparently included to avoid a speedy delete. Could even be considered as a speedy delete as borderline vandalism Passportguy (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, snowball - My searches on Google found someone by this name on various social networking sites, and by the user name Berman619 on YouTube. I found no other references to anybody currently alive by this name. I don't expect to see any references from reliable sources added to the article. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People... I get what yall are sayin but it just aint true. I aint makin it notability to make it more believeable. Come on now... answer my question. You are too scared to respond. IF I PUT SOURCES FOR WHAT I SAID CAN IT STAY UP?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G10) by WereSpielChequers. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caffin Hayes[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP. Ironholds (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:MADEUP or WP:NEO, take your pick. Drawn Some (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Probably created to make fun of a person named Caffin (or Catherine?) Hayes. Deor (talk) 20:34, 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 per A7, non-notable autobiography. Tan | 39 19:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Altman[edit]

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

My previous attempts to tag this for speedy deletion have resulted in the tag being removed by the creator of the page, who is probably Rich Altman. Seems to be advertising, there are no references mentioning him and I don't think he meets the notability guidelines. God Emperor (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. No notability, obvious self-promoting article. Tan | 39 16:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Drawn Some (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as one of the editors of the article, I'll not vote, but I want to point out that whatever I edits I made to the article (or what's left of it) were made in good faith and with full awareness of the WP guidelines. Sorry, but I couldn't let that material stand. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 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 00:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Posusney[edit]

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

"Aspiring actress, singer, model, and dancer", but the highlight of her career seems to be a bit-part in a soap opera. Unnotable. . . Rcawsey (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable even though she is a Gemini according to the article. Drawn Some (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER - the "aspiring" might be a hint. No IMDb entry. Of course, should her aspirations be fulfilled, the article can be re-created; but not until then. Tevildo (talk) 15:59, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gece Gündüz[edit]

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

Non-notable television show. (Prod was contested) ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep even though it's Turkish, it seems to be notable enough. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 16:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep According to the Turkish article it's broadcast on Kanal D (a national channel in Turkey), which the channel confirms on their website. Although the sources in the Turkish article are lacking too, I'd be surprised if a current national television show would lack notability or references. Since the nominator doesn't seem to have made any attempt at cleaning it up or doing any research, I can't support deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garfield Avenue[edit]

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

non-notable street; prod was removed GDonato (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely non-notable street.Doesnt even earn consideration.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - rescue-able, meets my standards. This has public transportation that runs along it, and intersections with several Freeways. See WP:50k. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable nothing in article that could not be seen on a map. MilborneOne (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a prosified map. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Rather long road through suburbs of Los Angeles that serves several communities and intersects many major roads. There are many shorter, mainly numbered, roads that are able to have Wikipedia articles. Just because the road is unnumbered does not mean it is not recognizable enough to have an article. I would suggest the article be wikified and have an infobox added; it could be a decent article. Dough4872 (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A very long avenue in the Los Angeles area. I say "area" because it traverses many cities (Paramount, Bell Gardens, Commerce, Montebello, Monterey Park, Alhambra, South Pasadena). A lot of news coverage over the years [24], some of it incidental, but some are lasting, like spending $1.3 million in 1968 on it (a ton of money back then).--Oakshade (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep per precedents set for inclusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not having any notability as there aren't any reliable third-party sources that ascertain the significance of this street. Wikipedia isn't a directory nor is it a place to include an article on every single street in existance. If the street is notable for something, such as Broadway or 5th Avenue than it should have an article. If it isn't notable for anything, than it shouldn't have an article. Verifability != Notability- for all articles. ThemFromSpace 23:40, 3 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Kyrgyzstan relations[edit]

Hungary–Kyrgyzstan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, but I'm not sure why. It's the typical random bilateral pairing, with no sources, no substance, no assertion of notability, no content. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no evidence or even assertion of notability. Locke9k (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another random combination with no evidence of notability. LibStar (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think keeping requires more than "Both countries are far from each other". Now if one were close, but the other far, that might be interesting...:-) Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete again, presidential visits are random events and no indication of any kind of relationship. Likewise parliamentary cooperation and arms sales. BeyondLiesTheWuzz (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, like Nyttend, I feel it's importance to mock contributions from non-native speakers of English who should stick to their own projects and not pollute ours with their non-idiomatic constructions. BeyondLiesTheWuzz (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User indef blocked, see ANI thread --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG. But according to BeyondLiesTheWuzz ("to mock contributions from non-native speakers of English") I shouldn't be concerned with this wiki (I'm a Norwegian speaking Norwegian as my mother tongue)? Nsaa (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note user BeyondLiesTheWuzz has been blocked. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included on the  and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
• Keep per Nabucco. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since i can find no coverage in reliable sources that would help to establish that this is a notable relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not in favour of the blanket deletion movement going on with these articles, however, some of them, like this one, are just no use! There is something of a relationship but not enough to justify an article, I fear. Anybody reading this would leave knowing no more than they did when they arrived, except perhaps that, as Nyttend points out, "the two countries are far from each other". HJMitchell You rang? 18:56, 8 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 speedy deleted after being blanked by creator and main contributor. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Seal[edit]

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

Article about a product by a company. The article gives no indication that is os as such notable. Passportguy (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to objectively describe a product for reference by its users. Will including more references and objective material prevent the deletion of this post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoffittAJ (talk • contribs) 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You must describe why this product is notable, i.e. why it is of interest to the users of an encylopedia. If it is just another sealing product by a particular company then it is not notable enough for inclusion here. Passportguy (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, ive tried to change the language to make it notable for encyclopedia users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoffittAJ (talk • contribs) 14:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A different make-up does not make it notable. E.g. it would be notable if it were widely used by a large percentage of dentists or if it had been involved in a widely publicized scandal. Passportguy (talk)

• Delete Truly non-notable. References support verifiability but not notability. Also, an assertion of uniqueness is not the same as an assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In searching for Gluma, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluma , another desensitizer, I wanted to create a page describing an alternative for a harmful product. How is this Gluma post notable and my page not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoffittAJ (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gluma is notable because it is (quote from page) :"the most widely used product in the United States for the treatment of dental sensitivity." Passportguy (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment -- I have tagged that quote from the Gluma article as needing a reference. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, wouldn't then SuperSeal being (quote from page) : "the only non toxic water-based desensitizer available from dentists and clinicians" qualify it as notable. The product is not harmful, like other desensitizers, I would want to know this information if i had to choose between products. I would think the users would too. thanks for your help btw, im a newbie. --MoffittAJ (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be considered notable? --MoffittAJ (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not by itself, no. According to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, notability is established by the article subject receiving in-depth coverage from reliable sources.

  The issue here is that a lot of companies would want to have a Wikipedia article for marketing purposes, and if we let any old thing receive a Wikipedia article, then users wouldn't be able to find the useful content among the spam. That's why the concept of notability exists.

  Effectively, "notability" for a product means that news sources, independent journals, etc. need to be talking about it (and not just running ads or advertorials about it).

  Thus, Coca-cola or Microsoft Windows are highly notable and have several articles each. Sony Walkman or Chicken McNugget are notable and each has a long article. Bic biro is a bit notable and has a short article. But this isn't playing in that league.

  You ask about people who "have to choose between products", and the answer is, when people do this, they don't normally refer to encyclopaedias to help them. Wikipedia is not a directory of links for prospective purchasers to follow; that's not why we're here and it's not why we're funded.

  Does this make sense?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - strong delete. Non-notable. (On a side note, this is still a COI because MoffittAJ appears to be the replacement account for PhoenixDent which the group account that created the article and matches the company name that makes/distributes the product - that was blocked at 23:10 [25], and then MoffitAJ was created and took over editing. Simply changing username does not remove a COI.) JCutter (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertising for a non-consumer product, a non toxic water-based desensitizer available from dentists and clinicians. Curiously, HEMA redirects to Historical European martial arts. I always suspected that dentistry was one of them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 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 speedy keep as the nominator explicitly is not requesting deletion requesting the article be fixed/rewritten, and no !votes have advocated a delete position. AfD is not the forum for this discussion; having said that, I have opened an RfC at Talk:Chojoongdong#RfC:POV discussion (non-admin closure). KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chojoongdong[edit]

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

The word "Chojoongdong" itself is a degrading term against the three media corporations and therefore is a political POV minefield. Not to mention the article has so many gramatical and informational errors that some one would need to write the entire article over again rather than waste their time trying to fix it. Whoever first posted this article is clearly far from neutral and I'm sure no one'll disagree with me on that. Abrakazam689 (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An IP user vandalized the AfD template on the article, which resulted in users wanting to comment on the AfD being directed to a dummy AfD page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/hani). I NAC'd the other discussion, and the good-faith comments placed there have been copied and pasted below. I am neutral. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This article, which I wrote, has been vandalised. The headings have been changed to nonsense terms so that it is now largely meaningless. Rather than resorting to sabotage, these unregistered users should discuss here any issues they have with the article and justify its deletion. Please indicate exactly which facts you consider to be false. You must also specify what needs to be added.

  Maybe through dialogue we can make the article more accurate. If this article ended up being deleted without this kind of information being offered, it would be unfair because no effort has been made to have a proper dialogue.

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawhiti25 (talk • contribs) 2009/04/30 11:02:00

• Keep. The article is apparently about a Korean initialism for three major newspapers and their influence. Lacking context to make much sense out of this, or knowledge of South Korean politics, it is a rather confusing article as it stands. The current version seems strongly slanted in a hostile direction. But absolutely no grounds for deleting the article are given here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End copied comments. KuyaBriBri^Talk

I have also re-listed the correct AfD discussion in the April 30 AfD log. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, I apologize for any mistakes that I've made attempting to fix the article. Though I have read the instructions over and over, the HTML stuff is still very confusing to me. Having said that, I don't want anyone to have the idea that I want this article to be deleted completely. Though I think the article is very much a political minefield which will call for more discussions such as this as long as this article is existant, what I would like for the article is to be deleted, and perhaps rewritten. This is because the quality of the article is clearly very poor and as it is being discussed in the talk page, very biased. Though I've made attempts to make contributions toward the page through rewriting large portions of the page, this only caused me to have wikipedia make a as a vandalism user.Abrakazam689 (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ihcoyc, it probably helps to know that English-language sources call these newspapers the "Big Three". There is an interesting source, by Seung-Mock Yang, here that will provide some context to this.

  Abrakazam689, if you don't want an article deleted, don't bring it to AFD. AFD is, as the name says, for deletion. If you want an article rewritten, rewrite it yourself. Rewriting does not involve use of the deletion tool, and is not the sole remit of administrators. Every editor, with or without an account, has the tool for performing a rewrite. And as an editor with an account you also have the tool for, say, renaming the article to Big Three (Korean press). Neither AFD nor deletion is involved in those tasks, and the correct tag is ((cleanup-rewrite)). AFD is not cleanup; and editing and renaming are tools that you yourself have. Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 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 14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter Marketing[edit]

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

Essay piece, NPOV ("Examples of good twitter marketing"), Original research Passportguy (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:OR spam for book. Drawn Some (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research, contains a lot of how-to information, and seems likely intended to promote a book or a consulting business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Montenegro relations[edit]

Estonia–Montenegro relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random laughable combination from the obsessive creator. no resident embassies, not 1 bilateral agreement. In 2006, Montenegro ranked 111th among Estonia’s trade partners. Estonia in 2006 exported goods worth 132.1 thousand euros to Montenegro. According to the Bank of Estonia, there were no mutual direct investments between Estonia and Montenegro. http://www.mfa.ee/eng/kat_176/8142.html minor indeed. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the one salient fact, Estonia's recognition of Montenegro, is already recorded at Foreign relations of Montenegro; in no other way is the relationship notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom
• Delete So Estonia's ambassador to Montenegro is in Estonia, and Montenegro's ambassador to Estonia is in Montenegro? Sounds more like evidence of an insignificant (and clearly nonnotable) relationship to me. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and laugh at someone who spent a lot of time doing what they think was best for Wikipedia. Will you still be laughing when the print edition comes out and includes a long list of errata because I didn't reveal my sneaky vandalism until the last moment, I wonder. BeyondLiesTheWuzz (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User indef blocked, see ANI thread --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included on the  and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
• Comment - Estonia and Mart Laar may have had a major role in the Breakup of Yugoslavia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources whatsoever that discuss this relationship in the article at all, and none that i can find of sufficient weight to begin approaching a demonstration of notability? Clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:20, 7 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. SNOWed Nja²⁴⁷ 09:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–Montenegro relations[edit]

Canada–Montenegro relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. I'm aware Canada provides some aid but that can be covered in 1 sentence in Foreign relations of Montenegro LibStar (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the one salient fact, Canada's recognition of Montenegro, is already recorded at Foreign relations of Montenegro; in no other way is the relationship notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Locke9k (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was ready to rescue it, but read it and the source 1st. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Cheers Kyle1278 03:32, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Mercedi[edit]

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

concern = Non-notable per WP:BIO, can find no info on subject online, probable hoax MuffledThud (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete either non-notable or a hoax. Cannot find info even on the reference site given, MTV Italia. Drawn Some (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the MTV Italia thing seems a little hollow, and I wasn't able to find anything on it. Otherwise doesn't seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:MUSIC. Note this article was previously deleted A7 at Becca J Mercedi. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 22:28, 3 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 to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish inventions and discoveries[edit]

Scottish inventions and discoveries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is the first part of a few nominations to remove a couple of the pages similar to this in Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries. The basis for these lists is inherently flawed. Countries do not invent things. People do. It is sheer nationalism to pretend otherwise IMO, and hence WP:FRINGE. Quite apart from this, it is extremely difficult to establish good criteria for these lists, making maintenance tricky. Is inclusion restricted to X people? Or are people working in X allowed? What if they mostly worked in X, where of X nationality, but made their invention elsewhere? And the nature of inventions themselves is very tricky. Edison is commonly credited with the lightbulb. But many predecessors of different nationalities made less well-publicised inventions shortly before that were indeed rather similar. See also discussion at FTN.

All this leads me to believe that these lists suffer fundamental problems with Wikipedia:neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability that are unlikely ever to be resolved. Moreschi (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think that the nomination is overly nitpicky. I count about five separate concerns that I don't find worrisome. The only problem that I see is that this could use some better sourcing. You are right, "countries do not invent things", but the point of the list is that these are inventions made by people from Scotland. Take List of African-American inventors, for instance. During Black History Month, the contributions of African-Americans are celebrated in United States schools, not because all black people in America collaborated to invent peanut butter, but to point out something that might otherwise go unnoticed. I recognize that this may seem redundant to List of British inventions, but Scots, Welsh, Irish, Anglo-Saxon, etc. are all groups that have a separate identity secondary to their citizenship in the United Kingdom. Mandsford (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've only half addressed the issues raised at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#inventions by nation. The part that you haven't yet addressed is what the definition of "people from Scotland" is. As this article itself tells us, its definition of "Scottishness" extends to people who are not Scots who just happened to be in Scotland at the time that they invented something.

    And on the point of secondary identity, I refer you to list of Indian inventions and discoveries. If it weren't for systemic bias, you'd be seeing a lot of secondary identity arguments there. It may appear, from the outside, that "Everything comes from India", but within India itself there is controversy on whether inventions, buildings, and so forth are of Muslim or Hindu origin, as exemplified by the works of Purushottam Nagesh Oak and others.

    I suggest a comparison of the ideas of P. N. Oak with the idea propounded here that everything even remotely related to Scotland ("They were in Scotland when they did it.") is Scottish, to see where the difficulty, and the underlying problem, lies. It is not merely a sourcing problem. It's a scope definition and an agenda-pushing problem.

    Can a NPOV scope for such articles even be defined in the first place? This is the question that you have yet to address. Uncle G (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fair questions; I'll throw some back to you. Hypothetically speaking, if this were a "List of Scottish inventors", comprised of natives of Scotland (like Alexander Fleming) and Alexander Graham Bell, would you still say that this was a POV problem? Do you believe that Wikipedia should not have lists that refer to a particular nationality or ethnic group? My answer to the first question would be that if someone was born in Edinburgh, the question of whether they were born in Scotland is not a matter of opinion. With regard to the second, I think that people who are interested in the history and geography of a particular nation are also interested in achievements made by persons within that nation. Regardless, it is fairly common in encyclopedias, almanacs and other reference works to see famous persons grouped together by nationality; it would be difficult, under those circumstances, to persuade someone that such lists were "unencyclopedic". When it comes to keeping a neutral point of view, the articles should be polished; by no means should they be sterile. Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • List of Scottish inventors (with the things that they invented) does alter the scope, doesn't it? The question is whether it would satisfy Dbachmann's and Moreschi's concerns. Certainly it addresses the "Countries do not invent things." argument, by focussing on the inventors rather than on the inventions. Countries do not invent things, and inventions don't have nationalities; but inventors invent things, and do have nationalities.

        Note that we, too, have people grouped together by nationality. We even have them grouped together by a combination of nationality and the fact that they are inventors. We have that at Category:Scottish inventors. Uncle G (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • Countries don't invent things, but isn't "inventions by Scottish inventors" a reasonable definition of "Scottish inventions"? Given that the former is unwieldy it seems reasonable to have an article called the latter which contains the former (and explains that in the lede). Of course that's of no help to those who think even list of Scottish inventors is too hard to define inclusion criteria for / NPOV / etc. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Remember what is written in this article's introduction:

            […] in some cases, the invention's Scottishness is determined by the fact that they were brought into existence in Scotland […] by non-Scots working in the country.

            This has been the scope of the article since its very first revision. And it isn't the scope that we're talking about. Maybe such a scope would satisfy the concerns of the editors who are objecting to this article. But none have spoken up since Dahn and Mandsford both made the suggestion. And even Dahn hasn't argued in favour of a simple rename and refactoring of the introduction (although that outcome does accord with xyr actual rationale and fully satisfy the concerns that xe expresses). Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mandsford. Edward321 (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Re. the lightbulb thing and similar contested inventions, couldn't we just say something like "Invention of the lightbulb is commonly attributed to Edison though there are competing claims" when mentioning it in a "list of American inventions"? Anyone interested in the whole story can follow the link to lightbulb and read the in-depth treatment there, and so there's no problem with POV. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is evidence of nationalist POV and manifest WP:SYNTH. Inventions are not attributable to a people, they are attributable to the inventors. If you want to highlight their origin in a neutral way, listify as List of Scottish inventors (which I notice is a redirect). But even in that case, the question remains as to "who is Scottish?" - and I see nobody leaning on the side of caution in such cases. Dahn (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the question remains as to "who is Scottish?"" -> that is not for us to judge. We must rely on reliable external references, per official Wikipedia policy, to determine what nationality the real world ascribes to notable people. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I obviously mean the question in general. And, no, reliable sources do not agree on: a) the meaning of nationality in general, outside general cases; b) the case of who exactly is Scottish (as either a regional or ethnic identity). Of course it is not for us to judge, and I view the assumption of such a thing as a gross misinterpretation of my point - the issue here is that the broadest definition is applied in defining who and what is Scottish, and applied whimsically to inanimate objects (which don't have an ethnicity or a regional identity), using WP:SYNTH to obtain the largest possible result, or relying on no sources at all. What's more, the article does not even bother to follow as a principle "Scottish inventor = Scottish invention", as absurd as that principle is in the long run. What it does instead, as others have pointed out, is to attribute "Scottish identity" to some objects and concepts only vaguely related to a Scottish geographical location, let alone to the Scottish ethnicity. It is simply fancruft, structured not what is needed by readers, but what is believed by some editors. Dahn (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list of Scottish inventors would have some redeeming value, but that article is full of POV nationalism, is almost totally unsourced, and can never have a reliable source define its scope. Let alone the fact that there aren't (and never can be) any criteria for inclusion and that the list includes items such as "the mail-van service" (a redirect to just Van) and the very first entry (which I can only conclude to be some kind of hoax/vandalism), this article simply can't hang on any longer. Heck, the second paragraph alone has been unsourced for three years... ninety:one 22:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have only looked at three entries in detail so far, and all of them were inaccurate. Something tells me it's not going to get much better. ninety:one 15:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dahm above Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If people from Scotland make notable inventions, its reasonable to have a list of them. DGG (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not, however, the scope of this article. See above. Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is not for Wikipedia to make subjective judgements about what is notable or not; nor to judge why a topic is notable. Eg. saying it is nationalistic is irrelevant: it may or may not be nationalistic, which may or may not be a good or a bad thing. But that is none of Wikipedias business: we must maintain NPOV at all times and in all respects. Just look at the publications and reliable ext refs on this topic: it is not an "invented" topic -> it exists out there in the real, wide world. Our job is to report the world as it really is, not as we would like it to be. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the world have the scope that this article does? Are inventions "Scottish" even when non-Scots invented them? You're not addressing the scope question. Have you checked to see whether this article is not subtly misrepresenting the sources, by using a scope that they themselves do not? Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Mais oui: Mais non. "Scottish inventors" is not an invented topic, though it is likely a superfluous topic. "Scottish inventions" (like "American inventions", "Albanian inventions", "Central African inventions" and what have you) are not a valid topic. The topic was created through synthesis and logical fallacy. Dahn (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case the article should have been nominated for re-naming, not for deletion. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and Dahn. --Folantin (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of inventions and discoveries associated with Scotland and Scottish People that are worth listing. I agree the list needs much work, especially sources. Finavon (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not the place of Wikipedia to forbid people considering articles relevant because "it's nationalism". The page does have problems in defining exactly what counts as a "Scotish invention", but that's something that can be discussed and fixed on the talk page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seem to be abundant sources for this including several books. The rest is a matter of content editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While there are references, they do not provide notability for this article as they only talk about specific people not the actual topic of the article. So they count for V but not N. Also, this looks like WP:LISTCRUFT. Spiesr (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Colonel Warden and Chris Neville-Smith. The list has issues that need addressing but there is a difference between a dispassionate search for neutrality and a disregard for the interests of historians and students of particular nations and countries. Of course we should be avoiding bombastic nationalism for its own sake but to describe a list of this nature as "sheer nationalism" is wide of the mark. "This is the first part of a few nominations to remove a couple of the pages similar to this". It would be interesting to know which other countries are involved and the neutral criteria used in selecting them. Ben MacDui 08:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some of the keep votes seem to be based on WP:OTHERCRAP. Obviously a list of African-American inventors will suffer from the same problems as a list of Scottish ones. If these lists are kept, at least be ruthless about blanking every entry without a reference. It would seem obvious that at least the straight parallels English inventions and discoveries and Welsh inventions and discoveries should be grouped with this AfD. Note that List of Chinese discoveries is different because it deals with Ancient China, i.e. discoveries made by a pre-modern civilization, not by people holding a certain passport. Needless to say, discoveries made by modern researchers who happen to be Chinese would be out of place in a list of discoveries attributed to Ancient Chinese civilization. --dab (𒁳) 18:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or listify. I wouldn't have a problem with a List of Scottish inventors, but a 'list of Scottish inventions' is rather more problematic - what makes an invention Scottish? (Particularly since, as the article itself notes, it's often vague what counts as a genuine 'invention', and who should be given the credit for inventing something.) I agree with the concerns about a nationalistic POV here, and think the article should either be reworked or deleted entirely. That goes for many of the other articles in Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries, as well. Robofish (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]