< 3 July	5 July >

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:J.delanoy per WP:CSD#G7. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Street Corbas[edit]

Reason One900 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Band of Brothers veterans deaths \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Band of Brothers veterans deaths[edit]

Combining info on this page to another page that relates to the topic. Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per WP:CSD#G7; nominator is primary contributor to the page. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Band of Brothers veterans deaths \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Band of Brothers veterans deaths[edit]

Combining info on this page to another page that relates to the topic. Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per WP:CSD#G7; nominator is primary contributor to the page. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Band of Brothers veterans deaths -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 14:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Easy Company veterans deaths[edit]

Combining info on this page to another page that relates to the topic. Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per WP:CSD#G7; nominator is primary contributor to the page. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aikakone. The content has already been merged. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Puurula[edit]

Non-notable biographical article about a Finnish musician. No references in the article, no awards that I can find, no news articles primarily about her, no books, nor charting songs. Nothing that enables a biographical article that is verifyable from reliable sources. Does not meet the basic biographical notability standards. Peripitus (Talk) 23:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stub. Not even an article. Barely sourced if at all. Probably not notable. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 02:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO.. South Bay (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per precedent to Aikakone. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Redirect - I've merged all the content. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Bearian's solution seems to be the best one. Although now that information needs a source on the Aikakone article... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hadrosaur#Diet. The arguments for merging weren't refuted by the keep votes. Many keep votes simply said that the article was well written, which didn't adress the concerns of the deleters. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study[edit]

This is a well-made and well-sourced article on a paper which itself is non-notable. Parts of the content should probably be merged to Hadrosaur#Diet. However, Wikipedia isn't the place for articles on individual papers on extinct genera, or we would already have thousands of articles on scientific papers. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to mention 9 Google hits 0 Google scholar hits. This paper may be notable someday, but it is not notable at this time. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the search is only on the long-hand exact title there are a few number of hits, but if you used more general terms to search for this specific study, you'd find a whole lot more results. That's another reason I reverted the name back to its original, shorter one; naming conventions indicate a more common name would be preferred here... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I support the change back to the shorter title. "Quantitative analysis of dental microwear in hadrosaurid dinosaurs, and the implications for hypotheses of jaw mechanics and feeding" wasn't an appropriate title for a Wikipedia article. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The study is quite notable and has received a lot of attention. The article itself is high quality. There's no good justification for deleting it. Abyssal (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been noted? And where has it received attention? I am normally an inclusionist, but I can't find any evidence that this paper has received much attention at this time. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move and rename:As it stands, this article is not encyclopedic, and instead belongs on another Wikimedia project. It reads like a well-written news article, so it belongs in Wikinews, not in an encyclopedia, where it is our job to provide concise information on hadrosaurid dinosaurs and their diets, and not give undue attention to one particular study out of dozens written on this topic. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 14:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article's title was originally much shorter, before being moved to this longer title. There's definitely worthwhile content here, but I feel an article coving just the one paper is inefficient, sets a bad precedent (because how many papers have been written about extinct animals? Should we have articles for all of them? Slippery slope... ), and is ultimately unencyclopedic (because not even specialized dinosaur encyclopedias contain this level of detail). Firsfron of Ronchester 23:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a shame that the hard work should be destroyed but an entire article on one study is problematic. There are no other palaeontology articles I know of that are souly about one study. Anyway science isn't about any single study, it's about many studies in combanation. This study isn't the end of the debate and other researchers have yet to have their opinions about it published, so it doesn't make sence to give this one special attention. But I agree with suggestions that some of this could be salvaged and turned into an article about Hadrosaur chewing and Diet research or the Diet section in Hadrosaurid could be expanded to include some of this info. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well cited with legitimate sources, which I believe by themselves indicate the article's notability. Not only were the findings themselves in this study very significant, but the method used to learn them was innovative and will be used in future studies. The article is really more about this important scientific study and what was learned, moreso than simply the journal article itself. But even if it were focused on the article itself, that wouldn't be all that outrageous; there are Wikipedia articles about journal articles out there. Obviously not every journal article in the world will warrant a Wikipedia article, but some will, and attention from nonbiased, legitimate, third party sources (i.e., the media) are a good indication of which ones are deserving. And finally, for me it all comes back to the question: is Wikipedia worse off, or better off, having this article? If somebody decided to look up this information on Wikipedia, what's the harm of having a page about it? I would argue Wikipedia is better for having it, not worse, so even putting aside all my other arguments I'd say screw it and let the article stay... (Please note: I also restored the name back to its original, shortened name.) — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sourcing and work you've done on this article. This is truly beautiful work, and it belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. However, none of the sources listed appear to even mention the journal article's title by name. In other words, they're news stories which report that there's been a new study, and what the study finds, without even naming the study: they're less about the study, and more about the concept. That's why I'd support a merger into an article about hadrosaurid diet. But there are dozens of such studies every year, even studies which are widely reported in the press. That doesn't make the studies themselves notable: these AP articles are just news items announcing a new paper, the name of the paper itself apparently unprintworthy. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, I think you're making my case for me. You're saying these articles aren't only about the paper, but about the entire study in general. That's exactly what this article is about (not just a single article, but the hypotheses, the method, the findings, its relevance with regard to other studies, the whole she-bang). That's why I think this article is warranted; it's about more than just a single journal article; but at the same time, that doesn't mean it doesn't all fall under the umbrella of a this specifc Purnell study. Obviously, all these articles and sources about this study; they weren't just randomly written articles about hadrosaur eating habits in general. (That's why I think the title as it was before wasn't accurate, because it made it seem like the scope was limited to just this one article.) But I don't want to get this AFD too bogged down in a point-counterpoint discussion between two people, and I don't think it's fair to respond to every single person I disagree with. I've said my peace and would rather hear other people say theirs. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article as it is now is very limited. It concerns just one study, while an article which discusses many different hadrosaur feeding studies would be more balanced. This article gives undue weight to one very recent study, without the benefit of time. We don't know what aspects of this paper will be accepted by the scientific community and what portions revised by later authors. Above, you link to Category:Journal articles. But the papers in that category are ones which appear to have stood the test of time. The first one I clicked on apparently "form[s] the foundation of chemical thermodynamics as well as a large part of physical chemistry" while another "was the first publication which described the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA". This paper doesn't fall in that league. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with hadrosaurid or any other relevant article. There's good content here, but the study itself certainly doesn't merit an article. Alternatively, if there is too much information to merge, create an article on hadrosaurid feeding based on this content. mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it Hadrosaur diet or Hadrosaurid feeding per mgiganteus1 (basically a daughter article of Hadrosaurid) and make its focus slightly more general, and less a discussion only of a single article. I doubt if the article itself is notable, but the topic certainly is, and probably the article is too long to merge into Hadrosaurid. Ecphora (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see I used the word "article" confusingly to refer to the Wikipedia article and the journal article; but I think my point got through, the journal article may not be notable, but a Wikipedia article on the general topic would be. Ecphora (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd also like to quick point out I don't think a merge is the appropriate action because this study itself (not just the paper, the whole study) meets notability standards (verifiable, legitimate sources, etc.). If it didn't, a merge into a feeding article would be appropriate because the study couldn't sustain it's own article. But in this case, I feel it does. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability and verifiability are two different things. If we created an article on every dinosaur study that received media attention, we'd have hundreds of such pages. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've responded to you here, so that I don't bog down this page too much... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't split up the discussion in multiple places. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I was trying to avoid responding point-by-point because I thought it was unfair, but that seems to be the direction we've headed, so I've copy and pasted my exact statement to Mgiganteus1 below:

Hey mgiganteus1. I wanted to respond to your comment about the notability of 2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study here, since I said on the AFD that I didn't want to get into a point-counterpoint thing there, as I don't think it's really fair. And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be difficult; I think AFD (and all Wikipedia) should involve a healthy debate between intelligent people, not just fighting. Anyway, I agree that you're right about the difference between verifiability and notability, but I think at least a passing review at the General Notability Guideline indicates that it passes. 1) Significant coverage. It has received significant coverage, not only in the press but in other sources. (Heck, the journal article itself indicates this, as this article is more about the study than just the article.) 2) Reliable I don't think anyone is questioning that. 3) Sources The sources are secondary and reliable, and there are multiple ones. 4) Independent of the subject I've deliberately not cited the actual article as it is not independent, but there is still no shortage of sources. And of course, #5 is Presumed, which is the one we're debating now at AFD. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this wikipedia article is on a subject that is notable both for the methods used in the study and the topic of the study. If one day there are hundreds of such articles, that could only be of benefit.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is absurd. I for one am not going to be responsible for hundreds of useless wiki articles that could be summed up in to one, or even a paragraph. This study isn't On the Origin of Species which changed many people thinking about Life. A few months back a study came out saying that based on energy expenditure of sauropod necks that they would probably hold ther necks horrizontal. It got a lot of media attention. A few weeks later another study on sauropod necks comes out saying that sauropods probably habitually held there necks errect because thats what most modern day animals do. It got even more media exposure, the authors wrote 10 blog posts and have entire page dedicated to the press coverage of the paper. Neither of these studies deserve an entire wiki article and on their own are not notable. Both studes say the exact opposite and to write a wiki artile from the POV of one of them is misleading. Any one study is not special, this is not how sciecne works.
Either delete the article and move some of the content elsewere or do a major rewrite and change and remove the POV so it becomes and article about the genral debate over hadrosaur feeding and chewing as per mgiganteus1 and Ecphora (talk). Also I don't like the fact that all of the sources are media reports. Those are Not reliable sources for science stories. The media nearly always screw them up, miss the point, reinterpret them in their own special way. This is exactly what the media do, they treat every new study as if it's the current thinking for science and it's hugly important, ignoring every study that has come before. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't all media sources. Most of them are, but even so, newspaper articles are acceptable as verifiable Wikipedia sources. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about what is acceptable source by wiki standards it's about the accuracy of those sources. In any science article it doesn't make sence to use anything other and primary or good secondary sources. Ultimately what matters is what the researchers publish and what other researchers publish and not what the media interprets or in some case fabricate.(I'm not implying that the reporting of this particular study is inaccurate, to be honest I havn't read the media reports on this study.) For the record I currently have no problem with keeping the article only if it's is renamed and rewritten to include the entire debate on hadrosaur feeding and diet. If this doesn't happen then it should be deleted. By the way I really apreachiate the time and effort you put into this article and I hope that you'll help out with other paleo articles in the future. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to hadrosaurid feeding in the hope that will encourage restructuring and broadening to eventually become an impartial review of the research in this field rather than giving undue weight to the methods, results and conclusions of this single study. Qwfp (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of this study appears to be established by reliable and secondary sources, am I missing something? We have articles on studies, journals, books, collections, single experiments and any other thing editors care to write, editors once thought to bring them here for discussion. I understand the surprise they may cause, but we can have articles on papers because we are not paper. If someone wants to use secondary sources to write an article about a single study of an extinct genus, or family, I don't see the issue. This content should not be merged or moved to any of the suggestions above, that is when problems of POV would emerge. If the reason for deletion is no longer lack of notability (or "undue weight"), is it now the period of time since the results were published? cygnis insignis 15:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noting Hunter, Abyssal, Toddy1, and the keep/merge reasons, but using the Abyssal solution: keep this, create new. As a recent publication, the content would only present difficulties when merged. cygnis insignis 15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hadrosaur#Diet, or rename to Hadrosaur diet. The distinction is: the diet of the hardrosaur is notable because of the paper. The paper itself isn't. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Steveoc and merge the info as suggested above. I appreciate the effort put into the article, but a precedent has to be set. As a new study the article smacks of undue weight, and there has not been sufficient time for the scientific community to weigh in with their opinions on what is currently the theory of one research group. Sasata (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename per Qwfp. It really wouldn't work out within Hadrosaur at this time, because it would overwhelm the current article. However, it could make a really useful part of a dedicated paleobiological article. Hadrosaur feeding is a complex topic that has undergone numerous revisions since the late 1800s, starting with Edward Drinker Cope's interpretation of an Anatotitan to show that hadrosaurids were water-plant gummers, to the discovery of "mummies" that included fragments of plants in their guts, and following to several landmark studies of hadrosaurs (Lull and Wright 1942, Ostrom 1964, Weishampel 1984) and the summation in Bakker's The Dinosaur Heresies, to the present, where we've got studies from the back end of the dinosaurs (Karen Chin on probable Maiasaura coprolites with evidence for feeding on rotted wood), from the middle of the dinosaurs (Tweet et al on Brachylophosaurus), to the business end (computer modeling saying the upper jaws were immobile, and now this microwear study saying that they were). If no one minds the esoteric nature of the subject, that's more than enough for a featured article.

Having said that, there is something that made be a big issue with the article as it stands currently, and that is the news sources. I noticed in the discussion of the Tweet et al work that a 2009 MSNBC article reported the brachylophosaur as having a variety of stuff in its guts, when the research paper reported the opposite: a homogeneous mass of millimeter-scale leaf fragments. The 2008 MSNBC report also cited did not make this mistake, though. Apparently the more recent article included the pollen information with the leaf information, or accidentally used the information from a different specimen. It's not something that Hunter Kahn got wrong, but the MSNBC source itself, and I worry about other inaccuracies. I haven't gotten a chance to see this new research article, yet, but once I do I'll be happy to check this through. J. Spencer (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(plus to above): I'm not in favor of articles for individual papers at this time, unless they are of great import (which can usually only be realized in hindsight). The problem I see is that the information will get fragmented and each study will become an island unto itself. I'm in favor of a wider framework to bring individual studies into some kind of context. J. Spencer (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also in favor of articles that establish "some kind of context," but there's no reason we can't create an article about hadrosaur diet in general and keep this article about a particular study relevant to the subject. Abyssal (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, large article covered by several sources. I see no reason to delete because there is thought to be nothing similar. --candle•wicke 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's arguing that it should be deleted because there's nothing similar to it; several people are arguing that it should be merged because it gives undue weight to one very recent paper, out of many thousands on extinct animals. There's no evidence that this paper, out of so many, deserves this special attention. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I want to point out my strong belief that this article isn't only about one paper but about the entire scope of the study. The findings, the method, the publication, the comparison to other cases, the ramifications, the confirmation of previous theories, etc etc. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 20:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every paper has a study behind it. There are currently 1247 named dinosaurs, each one with a paper describing it, most with subsequent papers studying them. We're talking easily 10,000 papers/studies. What makes this one stand out? What makes this one special? The fact that it was picked up by the press? That happens every few weeks. The press reports aren't even very accurate, as J. mentioned above. WP:DINO has long had an informal policy that articles based on popular press pieces were not a great idea because the reporters writing them don't know what they're writing about, and that articles should be based instead on peer-reviewed papers. Perhaps it's time to set that policy in stone. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does the fact that the press covers something count for nothing though? Whether they do accurately or inaccurately (in any case, not specifically this), press coverage increases interest/attention from the general public, the subject is highlighted (it may seem unusual to those who deal with the topic every day but that's up to what captures the imagination of the press), more sources are available and the subject becomes more memorable by more people (particularly those who are not experts on the topic) than those which are not picked up by the press... --candle•wicke 20:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all the recent papers on new genera are being picked up by the press now. I fear this will condemn us to the hell of having to make an article for each new taxon and the paper announcing each new taxon. That is insane. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great that the Wikiproject is so active and have no doubt you guys are improving this encyclopedia every day. Even so, I find the argument that we shouldn't condone an article because it might lead to more articles troubling. The idea that it will become slightly more difficult to maintain a larger number of articles strikes me as a terrible argument for not including worthy works on Wikipedia. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is really great. And it should be included somewhere. As part of a larger article on hadrosaur studies, for example, where it can be balanced by other papers. But keeping this as-is will open a can of worms ("this paper is standalone, so why can't we have more like it?"). People are always coming up with brilliant ideas, like rating each WP:DINO article on a quality scale, or adding placeholder images to dozens of articles, etc. The regular project members say "This is a bad idea, it can't be supported, it's not going to be maintained." but it's done anyway. The result is we end up having to clean up after abandoned projects that were supposed to "improve" the content. I've seen it a dozen times, and I'm not the only one who has this reservation. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to disagree with you on this, but I'd like to add one thing: I don't think it will open a can of worms. First of all, I think you're giving me too much credit that I would start some sort of trend. :D But more substantially, anyone who tried to say "this paper is standalone, so why not more like it?" would be violating Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. If there were other study articles that pop up (which I still think would be a good thing), they'd have to prove notability and meet Wikipedia standards on their own... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I really don't want this to drag on, you have to realise that there are hundreds of thousands of science papers that exist. Why is this one paper on Hadrosaur chewing even remotely notable enough to have an entire article written about it. I'd say that J. Spencer is the most qualified person currently on wikipdia to handle this but I dont expect him to go out of his way to deal with this article. The article as it stand is ignoring 100 years of debate on this topic and focusing on just one study that got a little bit of media attention. What about other papers on hadrosaur chewing. Would you seriously expect to have 50 articles each with relatively unimportant sections, like the publication, and many of these wiki articles saying the same things over and over, each one compering each paper to every other paper. All we need is one artile covering this topic. I'd be happy if this got a major rewrite, but as it stands it can't stay. Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources already included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please address some of the points made above, this isn't as simple as just sources or no sources. It's about notability, usfullness and undue weight. Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notability as we define it here is purely based on sources, although judging the sources is subjective. In my opinion, the sources are sufficient to establish notability. That's pretty much the end of this AfD. It's notable, and merging or renaming or whatever is an editorial decision to be made later. Usefullness is subjective, and I don't have a lot of use for dino info myself, but it's fine for a paperless encyclopedia. Enough people care: as shown by the sources. - Whoops, gotta go. I'll try and address UNDUE later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk)

UNDUE is about imbalancing articles, compared to what secondary and tertiary sources say about the subject. It's not about wikipedia as a whole having too much coverage of a particular subject. So UNDUE does not apply. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(contribs) 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - excellent article; multiple secondary sources establish notability of subject. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources included even name the paper involved in the study; the study could be included as part of a larger article on hadrosaurs, but the secondary sources don't establish the notability of the current subject if they don't even note the title of the paper which reports the findings of the study. The articles included in Category:Journal articles have references which mention the article's title; this doesn't. Notability hasn't been established. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm repeating myself, but this article is about the study, not just the paper. Additionally, there are in fact sources that that include the name of the paper (here), not that I find that argument particularly relevant anyway; it's obvious the subject of the articles is this study, and they don't mention the paper by name because it's a mouthful for readers. As for notability, secondary sources like these have long been established as acceptable for establishing notability. I still haven't heard any real argument as to why this article doesn't meet notability standards. I've heard people say they don't think a journal article merits its own Wikipedia entry, or that they are worried about an unflux of similar articles that will be difficult to maintain, all of which strikes me as a bit too WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But if you look at the general notability guidelines (which includes general coverage, reliable, sources, independent of the subject) it seems to me to fit the bill. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 14:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as we would expect a source providing notability for a person to include basic information like the person's name, it seems to me we should expect the same for a paper. You may not feel that's a "real" argument, but I don't agree. You link to IDONTLIKEIT, but I've already stated I like the article. But it is not balanced, doesn't provide for a WP:NPOV discussion of hadrosaur chewing (because it's only about the one study, and thus can't address other studies), and thus gives undue weight to its subject. A broader, merged article would give some balance where it's needed. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Hunter Kahn. The sources are all specifically about the study and the paper. Each of them mentions the journal and the researchers by name. For example, PlanetEarth Online article says "Purnell, along with graduate student Vince Williams and Dr Paul Barrett from the Natural History Museum, found an overlooked piece of evidence: tiny scratches on the dinosaur's teeth ... The results, published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ..."; MSNBC says "The researchers behind the study, published online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... Purnell and his colleagues ..."; LIveScience says "The results, which are published online this week in the early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... paleontologist Mark Purnell of the University of Leicester in England and his colleagues ...". Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources = notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. It's not about wikis standards on notability. It's about it's Scientific notability (untill other researchers have published opinions on this, it is no more notable than other studies), the style of the article and its undue weight (people are forgeting that!) to one study. Read Edmontosaurus, this is the style of a science article. Hunter's article is more like a news story. Just because a study gets some press coverage doesn't mean it needs an entire wiki article. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. This sub-thread was started by Firsfron of Ronchester disagreeing with my statement "multiple secondary sources establish notability of subject", and I definitely (and obviously) meant Wikipedia's notability guideline when I wrote that. If you want to play with your own definition of notability, take it somewhere else! Gandalf61 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands currently, this article is not up to Wikipedia standards. Why not have hundreds of thousands of articles on other "noteworthy" journal articles. You might as well create an article that describes the three new Australian dinosaurs. This gives undue weight to one specific study. Even if it does incorporate other studies, however, it still focuses on this one study, and no other Wikipedia article is like this. This isn't about notability so much as undue weight. If the article begins to encompass all of hadrosaurid feeding, then it would be equal and fair, and not focus only on one specific study. Why not have articles on the other two dozen journal articles that describe hadrosaurid feeding mechanisms? It simply doesn't make sense to do it that way. This should be renamed and encompass all of hadrosaurid feeding and the history of the study of it, not just one story that just happened to get media attention. That alone doesn't make it worthy as a stand-alone and it makes Wikipedia look like Wikinews, where this article (as it is) belongs. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 15:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is a prime example of What about article x?, which is listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Saying "There are not Wikipedia entries other journal articles, so this one should be deleted" isn't a valid point. And I suppose I should respond the undue weight argument. I obviously don't think it gives the study undue weight. It's pretty clear in the context Wikipedia entry that this is a study, and thus comes with the same understandings and limits of any study. In fact, I went out of my way to point out that certain elements of the findings are still the subject for debate, specifically so I wouldn't give it undue weight... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Hadrosaur diet. A well made article; it probably goes into more detail than a print encyclopedia would, but it isn't like we're running out of space so we need to be deleting information. If further studies are made of hadrosaur diet, information from them can be added. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per other comments, may benefit from renaming and a little reworking, but a sound article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hadrosaur#Diet or rename to Hadrosaur diet, with a slight preference for the latter (are you getting all this down, closing admin?) due to its greater length than Hadrosaur. I wouldn't actually say that this has 'significant coverage' because the newspaper articles are not about the study itself but about its findings. To reuse an example from above: a newspaper article saying "The Origin of Species has had a huge impact on science" supports the notability of the book; one saying "Species change through natural selection, as reported in the Origin of Species" gives notability to natural selection but not to the book. I think the sources given here are more analogous to the latter than the former, and my feeling is that the quotes given above by Gandalf are at the level of "...as reported in the Origin of Species, which was written by Charles Darwin and used data about finches" but not at the level of "Charles Darwin wrote OOS using finch data and it was important".

But even if you disagree and think this does constitute significant coverage, I'd argue that this is a case for making an exception per the GNG which says "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article." Really, if the notability guidelines conclude that any scientific study is worth an article just because lots of science journalists have decided to cover it I think it indicates a weakness of the guidelines. And I do think Gandalf's interpretation of those quotes would conclude that - journalists put similar sentences in tons of articles about scientific studies.

All that said, it's a very nice article with a lot of information appropriate for the encyclopedia so merging or renaming it is preferable to deletion. We needn't even lose anything, since methodology of studies about Hadrosaur diet is perfectly appropriate for a Hadrosaur diet article. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thought about the idea of merging: Suppose we created a Hadrosaur diet article and merged this into it. If so, that diet article would have a whole lot of info on this study, and not much else. I would argue that the study would then be given undue weight, moreso than in its own seperate article, because the amount of information regarding the study would so severely outnumber the amount of information for any previous studies. (I believe this is what cygnis insignis (talk · contribs) might have been saying above, but I don't want to speak for him.) I think a Hadrosaur diet article would be a good idea, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Rather than merge this study into a diet article, I think the better method would be to start working on the diet article (which I'd be happy to do), get as many studies and viewpoints into it as we can, and then go back and determine whether this 2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study has to go. (And even in that case, I'm not so sure it should be deleted. The overall diet article could have a brief amount of information on this study, and then if readers want to learn more about it, they can go to the main article specifically about the study. Again, the two aren't mutually exclusive...) — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that starting off the hadrosaur diet article now with a heavy weighting on this article but an expectation of broadening it in future is OK: I'd rather see an article that doesn't yet match its ideal, Wikipedia-as-a-finished-product scope than one which shouldn't exist in W-a-a-f-p; I think the former is easier to correct by cumulative additions from people thinking "why doesn't this talk about X?" than the latter. That's a personal view though, and I'm not sure if policy or consensus are with me. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Move to one of the articles proposed above. A study is not deserving of its own article except for extreme circumstances. Many thousands of peer-reviewed papers on studies are published every year, and maybe hundreds of these receive press coverage; however, this does not confer notability on the study, but rather the topic of the study. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd argue this article is on the topic of this specific study. But even putting that aside, can you tell me what notability standards this article doesn't match up to? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not arguing for deletion (few are), but there is WP:NTEMP: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability". Qwfp (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article already has some non-news article sources that indicate its more than just a short burst. The publication of the study, too, indicates it's more than that, although I deliberately didn't cite that as a source since I wanted to limit the sources to those independent of the subject... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not trying to be obtuse, but which sources? I can't spot any references myself that are non-news sources, about this particular study, and independent of the subject. Qwfp (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Refs 8 & 9 aren't non news sources. I think more sources will be available in the near future. That's another thing to keep in mind, this article is still fairly new... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 19:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ref 8 is an abstract of a talk by Vince Williams, one of the study's co-authors, so not independent. Ref 9 is a ref for one of the previous studies mentioned in the "Comparison to other cases" section, so doesn't mention this study and therefore has no bearing on its notability. It does bear on the notability of "Hadrosaur(id) feeding / Hadrosaur diet" as a topic, and i'm arguing it would be better to have an article about the topic, not this particular study. Qwfp (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename and rescope to something like Hadrosaur feeding, discussing not only the one journal article, but also using other WP:RS that discuss hadrosaur mastication and diet. Ladyof Shalott 19:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The study is already discussed at Hadrosaur#Diet, and any additional relevant material can be added there. If the section becomes unwieldy, a spin-out article (Hadrosaur diet or similar), making use of all research on the subject, can be created in accordance with WP:SPLIT. Articles such as this, treating individual recent studies as though they were the ne plus ultra of research, are a Bad Idea. Deor (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the bit that's at Hadrosaur, but kept it to a minimal. Putting a small amount of information about the study in Hadrosaur#Diet, then keeping the rest in a separate article, strikes me as far preferable to just plopping it all in the Hadrosaur article and letting it overwhelm that article... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 21:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Dietary habits of hadrosaurs, based on LadyofShalott, HunterKahn and Deor. The title is inappropriate, akin more to the July 2009 Urumqi riots. Rename and thus enlarge the scope of this article to the subject matter it discusses so well already. Shiva (Visnu) 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:' Article is well sourced and well structured. The Flash ^{talk} 22:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the issues raised by Spotty11222, Firsfron of Ronchester, etc. This article while well written is is POV towards Hardosaur feeding methods. It should be renamed and expanded to reflect the fuller spectrum of research which has been made regarding this subject.--Kevmin (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hadrosaur#Diet. Wikipedia absolutely is not a place for an encyclopedia article about every journal article someone published. Whoop-de-doo: Two scientists spent a year studying something and wrote it up. Shall I write an encyclopedia article about each journal article I and associates published? I think not! Do you have any concept of how many journal articles equal to or better than this are published every year? Edison (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Regardless of whether you think it's a worthwhile subject, if it meets notability standards, it's worthy of an entry. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it doesn't. We're not saying we don't like or disprove of the actual study, just the article as a stand-alone. As it is, this article is very suitable for Wikinews, where this really belongs, and not in an encyclopedia. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 11:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But again, not to belabor the point, this doesn't address what general notability guidelines fails to meet. General coverage? Reliable? Sources? Independent of the subject? When you look at those, it seems to me to meet them. To say "this article doesn't belong in Wikipedia" is one opinion, but isn't a sufficient argument for inclusion (per WP:UNENCYC or WP:IDONTLIKEIT). — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge The result is notable as oart ofwhat is known about the animal, not the particular study. The information goes in the main article, & is already in the one on the principal investigator. Individual scientific projects if less than major expeditions of very large scale multi-center studies are not notable for an encyclopedia--the knowledge of the subject that they gain is what's notable. There are many interesting results on many animal from the microscopic examination of dental wear, and the discussion goes with the subject studied. DGG (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Hadrosaur#Diet. No particular scientific publication deserves that long an article on its own. A Wikipedia article should be about the science and not the scientific publication (except when the publication itself is of historical interest). Ollivier (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just again note that I don't think people saying that a scientific study doesn't warrant it's own Wikipedia entry is a sufficient AFD argument. If there are verifible sources, and if general notability standards are met, that is the basis for whether it warrants an article, not a judgment from individual Wikipedia contributors as to whether something is articleworthy. (This is as per WP:UNENCYC, which states, "It is insufficient to simply assert that an article (or the subject of an article) is not appropriate for Wikipedia." And per, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which states "While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. ... Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion."') — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be a lot of repetitive policy-quoting going on here. The point is that policies can not possibly list every subject which is non-notable. The simple fact remains that there are news sources which talk about a study of a subject. Does this confer notability to the study?

Let us take a similar, hypothetical situation. Astronomer John Doe studies the star Anonymous Prime and discovers evidence of a planetary system capable of supporting life. This study, and the paper announcing its results, are covered in major news outlets, and are talked about all over the world. This is a clear indication of notability. However, what would the article be on? 2009 Anonymous Prime planetary study? NO. It would be on Anonymous Prime, or Anonymous Prime planetary system.

Since the creator of this article quotes so many WP's, allow me to add my own: WP:Use common sense. The point of Wikipedia is to provide a summary of all scholarly knowledge in the world, and to arrange it logically for ease of use and in a balanced way. If we had a separate article on all the studies of a subject, the same information, or even worse, contradictory information would be contained about a single subject in many different areas, against the basic spirit of Wikipedia.

Without saying that this would set a bad precedent, I will say it is a bad idea in this and almost every other case I can think of. Let's work together on that Hadrosaur diet article, shall we? -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 07:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been waiting for someone to bring up WP:COMMON, as in my experience it's often the last resort after notability can't be disputed. ;) In seriousness though, you make a good point. However, I've always maintained that a Hadrosaur diet article can and should be made, but that Hadrosaur diet and 2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study don't have to be mutually exclusive. There should be an overarching article about diets in general that include elements from lots of different studies or findings, and in the context of that article, this study should be discussed in a succinct way. But then if a reader wanted more information about that specific study, they could go to the main article about it. As you yourself said, Wikipedia is meant to "provide a summary of all scholarly knowledge in the world". Using this approach, we're meeting that charge by providing as much knowledge to the reader as we can. As long as the article about the study is presented in the proper context (it's already clear in this article that it is a study, not definitive fact, and even indicates what areas are still subject to debate), and especially because the study is notable beyond just its findings (the methodology used is completely unique, the way the study was conducted can be used in future studies), then a stand-alone Wikipedia entry about the study as well as a larger Hadrosaur article is appropriate. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 15:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but of course, WP:COMMON is the favorite policy of us deletionists. :-D -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, for what it's worth, I just added a new source that puts a little more perspective on the relevance of this study. I expect more sources like this will be popping up over the next few weeks/months... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 15:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the coverage really makes it a news item and nota the subject for an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment much as i would like to increase the coverage of science in Wikipedia , I do not think that news sources about a particular study make that particular study, as distinct form the underlying subject, notable. I would reserve the coverage of individual papers of this sort to those which are the subject of later historical discussions. The rationale is the same as NOIT NEWS--we're at the mercy of temporary interests and fads. Not that thissort of work is a fad, but it is one part of what is known about the general topic. Nobody is going to come looking for a topic like this: they would come looking for Hadrosaur, or possibly Hadrosaur diet, or the article(s) of the scientists involved. DGG (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Merging can be dealt with on the respective article talk pages \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Firman[edit]

Double entry: Armen Firman and Abbas Ibn Firnas are one and the same person, with Armen Firman being only the latinized version. The claim is that there were two different persons in 9th century Cordoba, Spain: one jumping with a cloak from a tower, and the other one, apparently having been inspired, some years later gliding with a set of feathery wings from a hill. This is according to my research wrong. In fact, there was only one person, the notable poet Abbas Ibn Firnas, who was said to have made the gliding experiment.

Reasoning:

The two webpages who support the view of two persons don't cite their references, therefore it remains unclear where they got their material from (see here and here).
In contrast, two scholarly resources which dealt with Abbas Ibn Firnas and with his flight attempt do not mention an Armen Firman. These are:
- Terias, Elias, Sobre el vuelo de Abbas Ibn Firnas , Al-Andalus, 29:2 (1964) p.365
- Lynn Townsend White, Jr. (Spring, 1961). "Eilmer of Malmesbury, an Eleventh Century Aviator: A Case Study of Technological Innovation, Its Context and Tradition", Technology and Culture 2 (2), p. 97-111 [100-101].

Both reproduce - identically - the original source, a 17th century Moroccan author. From White:

"Among other very curious experiments which he made," continues al- Maqqari, " one is his trying to fly. He covered himself with feathers for the purpose, attached a couple of wings to his body, and, getting on an eminence, flung himself down into the air, when, according to the testimony of several trustworthy writers who witnessed the performance, he flew a considerable distance, as if he had been a bird, but, in alighting again on the place whence he had started, his back was very much hurt, for not knowing that birds when they alight come down upon their tails, he forgot to provide himself with one."

This is all, they both explicitly state that no other source on Abbas' flight attempt has survived. Unless we can substantiate the existence of Armen Firman in a scholarly work, which in turn provides its source(s), chances are that Armen Firman never existed. Because if he did, he should have been mentioned by those two scholars who explicitly deal with Abbas' flight.

There is also a biography on Abbas, which could help verify Abbas' Latin name, but I don't have it at hand: "Abbas Ibn Firnas", by Juan Vernet, in: Dictionary of Scientific Biography, I:5. The delete - as opposed to a merge - is important because, due to the story of Armen Firman circulating in the net, it is only a question of time, until an article on him is created, so we better need a delete log. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close If they are about the same person, then you should be talking about merging the two articles, not deleting one of them. I don't see why a delete log entry changes any of that, it could just be redirected. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my reasoning exactly one cm above your comment. If you are the one who puts the page permanently on your watchlist, in order to prevent Armen Firman from repeatedly being resurrected from the web, where unverified information about him circulates widely, then fine. I say we need a delete log for that and, first of all, we need to establish beyond doubt here whether Armen Firman existed or not. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having an entry in the deletion log won't stop someone from creating the article. It could be redirected to Abbas Ibn Firnas and if there are problems it could be protected. That would be more helpful to readers than deleting it simply to establish precedent for deleting it again. I've never heard of an article being deleted for reasons like this and I don't think it's would be a good idea to start now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon reviewing this some more, your whole argument is based on not believing one of the sources for the article, because there may be some minor factual errors regarding the dates. So, the core issue is which is whether or not the sources provided are reliable enough to be used as sources for a Wikipedia article in the first place, and/or if there are other sources (as opposed to opinion and WP:OR) that specifically refute the current sources. However, even if it turns out that they were the same person, this article should still be left as a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the MuslimHeritage and Islam Online articles directly contradict each other, the first says it is the latinized version, the second says they were two separate persons. I'm not sure either of these sites qualify as reliable. The third source is a program from the University of Houston's engineering school, and also supports the existence of Firman, and it cites it's sources. I'd say that works out to keep as deleting would involve making our own decisions based on opinion, as opposed to trusting the sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the single source I already cited above (Dictionary of Scientific Biography, I:5), but for the utter lack of any mention of Armen Firman in Lynn White and Elias Terias there is sufficient reason to doubt the accuracy of Lienhard's account which does not even feature any inline citations. And as long as we cannot substantiate whether "Armen Firman" is the latinized version of Abbas Ibn Firnas or not I fail to see how we are entitled to make a redirect. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) The only justification needed for a redirect is utility, that is if it would help readers find the content they are looking for, but I'm afraid you've missed my point. I don't think there is enough evidence to decide that Firman didn't exist, and I think his article should be kept. I have edited the article to try and reflect that there is some question as to if they are the same person or not, but without definitive proof either way, the article should be kept. Deciding for ourselves that one source is right and another is wrong is original research, we should let the sources speak for themselves and let the reader decide. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would like to hear the opinion of others. Deciding that all "sources" are equally valid is just as much POV. Again, one Armen Firman is not in the least mentioned in the two scholarly works which refer exhaustively to Abbas' flight. All we have now Lienhard's unreferenced claim that there was a Armen Firman which we have strong reason to believe is just the latinized name of Abbas Ibn Firnas, nothing else. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked it: No entry on Armen Firman in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, not the faintest hint of a flight attempt with a cloak. In the article on Abbas Ibn Firnas, the gliding attempt is mentioned, but here again no mention of Armen Firman. It is now 3:1 against the existence of Armen Firman, with the three being much more reliable and reputed references . How many more sources do we need to put Mr. Armen Firman to rest? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was really hoping some other users would have commented by now, as you and I seem to be at an impasse, but I feel I must point out a serious flaw in your logic. You say that the sources are against the existence of Firman because they don't mention him. If I write an article about my Toyota, does that mean I am denying the existence of Honda? It's always difficult to "prove a negative" for exactly this reason. Not mentioning something is not the same as refuting it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of the problem of making a case against something ex silentio. That's why I wrote to Mr. Lienhard himself, the main source cited, and that's what he today amended in response to my inquiry:

On July 8, 2009, I received an email from a Wikipedia editor/contributor who raised the question as to whether Ibn Firnas and Armen Firman were two different people. The historical record is very thin and it contains no primary source material mentioning Firman. The contributor points to the possibility that Firnas' name along with the date and details of his flight, may have been confused in secondary writings.

In other words, he, too, knows of no primary sources which prove Armen Firman's existence. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I gotta hand it to you for getting it right "from the horse's mouth" like that, however I'm not sure it solves our problem here. There's a lot of "probably" and "maybe" floating around. I still think it would be better to keep or merge the article and make it clear that there is some doubt as to whether these were two separate individuals. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. As long as we cannot establish beyond doubt that Armen Firman is merely the latinized version of Abbas Ibn Firnas, there is still a chance, however small, that Armen Firman was a different person. On the other side, I feel that the evidence ex silentio is strong enough that an article of its own cannot be longer maintained for Armen Firman. That is simply a very sensitive issue, to keep an entry on what probably did not exist, just the kind of criticism you hear from Wikipedia's detractors. So what do you think of a merge? We create at the bottom of Abbas Ibn Firnas a new section where we refer to Armen's alleged jump, but also summarize the cons against Armen Firman's existence in no unequal terms. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Little discussion here, but no call to keep and is a borderline speedy candidate.

Phpmaster[edit]

Contested prod, unreferenced neologism RadioFan (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems to be WP:MADEUP..South Bay (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced neologism. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete by consensus. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warpath (band)[edit]

created by the band's drummer who also contested the prod so I'm bringing it here for discussion. References provided appear very blogish in nature rather than reliable sources. Claims of album sales and charting are unrefernced and the tone is very promotional. The band's name makes google news and other searches rather difficult. RadioFan (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. The article is clearly a vanity page to promote an unsigned band. Parkerparked (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't see the band passing any of the criteria in WP:BAND. Tavix | Talk 21:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did an extensive web search of this band to see if I could find anything that could save it from deletion, but I found almost nothing from a reliable, third-party source. This article should be deleted as a non-notable band. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 16:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Minimal interest in discussion here, but no dissent and clearly an unsourced and unreferenced person.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Johnson (NPG)[edit]

Contested and unactioned speedy, appears to be solely a promotional BLP piece, no assertion of notability, no sources other than his official website. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page, no references, no notability. Parkerparked (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable jack of all trades. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus here seems to be that the article does not meet notability requirements. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danger From The Deep[edit]

A non-notable computer game that does not assert notability with reliable sources. Plenty of Google hits, but no Google News hits. Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have also done some searching in the google news archives for this game and found a couple of articles written in what looks like German here and here. For the regular search I think this blog (in english) "might" be interesting. As for notability I think the jury is still out on it for now. - Dlrohrer 2003 20:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some sources (I think at least about.com should be prominent enough), and as you say, Google knows a lot about it, and, in the context of free Linux games (which is far from huge), this is relatively major software. LjL (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nowhere near notability standard in terms of depth of coverage. About.com is fine as a source IMO, but the piece is nothing more than a couple of sentences worth of signpost. The first German source consists of two nearly identical paragraphs (God knows what that's about), the second is again a handful of sentences consisting of things like how to switch it German-language and that the game is still in early development. There's bot-all to write an article with. Someone another 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~So you find that the subject is notable but since the article currently is not, it should be deleted anyway...? --LjL (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)~~ Sorry, misread what you wrote. --LjL (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and not enough coverage. About.com source may be a decent source, but it's a fleeting mention. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not received enough coverage (WP:N). An interesting project, hopefully we'll see it here again in the future. Marasmusine (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- It isn't notable and there isn't enough coverage.--Samic130 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allena Hansen[edit]

Delete, other then the bear attack seems to be non notable Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An autobiography that fails WP:BIO. APK coffee talk 18:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The bear attack is news but not encyclopaedic. The health care reform angle is the only possible salvation. We would need proof that she is genuinely notable for that in order to keep the article and I am not seeing that in Google News. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT at this point. Mfield (Oi!) 20:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Conflict of interest issues abound, but we should be friendly to her if we can :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Starts with WP:BLP1E and turns into the start fo a WP:COATRACK about healthcare. Courageous woman? Yes. Actually notable beyond the bear attack? No. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to GeminiJets.

Ishwasafish^{click here!!!}

22:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

StarJets[edit]

This article is stub-class, seems unnotable, and the single reference is an online forum.

Ishwasafish^{click here!!!}

18:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect- Redirect this article to GeminiJets. StarJets were just a model division of products manufactured by GeminiJets. This link provides with some related info. Hitro 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with GeminiJets. Not enough notability to warrant own article. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wrssrir has already redirected StarJets to GeminiJets.

Ishwasafish^{click here!!!}

22:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect to Jade Villalon#Eternity ∞ should perhaps be created. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eternity ∞ Discography[edit]

Discography for an artist who doesn't seem to have an article and only has one release. — Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete discography articles are for artists/bands with LONG histories. This band doesn't even have one. Tavix | Talk 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 20:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the band had an article then this could be merged to it, but it hasn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect with/to Jade Villalon. Eternity ∞ does have its own section on her page, Jade Villalon#Eternity ∞. There is suitable information in that article for the previously mentioned section.
Ishwasafish^{click here!!!}
23:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instinctive Computing[edit]

This is an unnotable concept that is an original research essay copied from some site. This was speedied multiple times but was reposted multiple times by SPAs. Triplestop x3 19:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 18:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an extended essay. It is not encyclopedic and has few references. Parkerparked (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also WP:TROUT the two WP:SPA's that keep removing all the banners. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Alcoholism. This is kind of a SNOW case Tone 12:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy drinking[edit]

I can't find a WP:SPEEDY reason to delete this "dab" page, but somebody must have been drinking heavily to create it in the first place. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alcoholism as I doubt that excessive water consumption is ever referred to as "heavy drinking". --DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alcoholism. Page was created as a redirect until someone decided that it could also refer to drinking large amounts of water. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alcoholism. (And isn't there a medical term for drinking too much water anyway?) -WarthogDemon 18:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polydipsia? — Rankiri (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alcoholism. WarthogDemeon, the medical term for drinking too much water is Water intoxication. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and that's why I'm not a doctor. :P -WarthogDemon 18:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all above. Is it SNOWing in here yet? ;-) Matt Deres (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alcoholism per all others. I also must say that this is a neologism and/or fork of the alcoholism article. The Junk Police (reports|works) 03:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect "Heavy Drinking" is often used as a denial of alcoholism (ref. "Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease", Herman Fingarette), but either way, the source involved is still alcoholism. Eauhomme (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Menudo (band). \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Threat DVD/CD Combo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Triple Threat DVD/CD Combo

Delete Just a repackaging of an earlier "making of" video (which I merged with its album article) with a couple of non-notable CDs. Listed sources only note the DVDs availability without assertion of any particular notability Wolfer68 (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a promotional page, nothing notable here. Parkerparked (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to pass notability. Matt Deres (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the links here convince me to either keep or merge with the VHS tape page? *All Music Guide Listing
Record Label page
Film Baby
Official Discogs Page

--Dymo400 (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a major international teen group Menudo and the DVD release of the 30 minute film of the video and the making of the video of Dancin, Movin, Shakin. A check with Itunes shows it as one of the top sellars out of the over 100 Menudo tracks. Why would anyone recommend the deletion of a DVD film of a group like Menudo (band) or for that matter one by The Jacksons or New Kids on the Block. The whole dispute is odd to say the least.

I vote to keep and may be swayed to merge it with the VHS release of the same product. It appears the DVD was released because in 1992 they only did a VHS tape version and to give it a kick looks like they added the two free music CD's hence the title "Triple Threat". Thats my well thought out thoughts. Everyone have a great Day!!--Dymo400 (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge: to the VHS article. All that I can find is a bunch of trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: how about merge with the VHS tape page of the same product?--Dymo400 (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remember to strike-through your previous vote(s), if you are changing it from keep to merge. However, I would like to point out that the notability of the VHS tape is in question, and I have merged it to the article Dancin, Movin, Shakin, which is in itself subject to being merged to Menudo (band) on the grounds that it fails notability criteria under WP:Notability (music)#Albums, singles and songs. And it's not even an album as stated, but a maxi-single, a stub that is highly unlikely to expand as there has been little done to it since its creation two years ago. It is also that single that is now available on iTunes, which has nothing to do with either the DVD or VHS tape. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Merge all the editions into one article on the release. A disambig for Triple Threat would be needed and deletion of several articles (if there is one of the VHS already), but I think it is worth it. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing this early. I think it's a pretty obvious result here - classic WP:BAND and WP:COI violations, resulting a a flurry of WP:CSD#G7 articles and blocks all round. Hurrah! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Silver Movement[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable band with no significant coverage in the mainstream media. No indication of national or international tours, no chart hits. Polly (Parrot) 17:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This artist has iTunes releases and is on an indie label. Just because they didn't chart or tour doesn't make them insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audiomixxer1123 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a promotional vanity page. No notability and nothing significant - no refs. Parkerparked (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few independent ghits, I've found no evidence that it satisfies anything on WP:BAND. Getting distribution on iTunes is a step in the right direction, but not enough by itself. Matt Deres (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is totally wrong. So you are telling me that because this artist has just been VERY successful locally, it's not good enough. And because he has been featured MULTIPLE times on iTunes, it's not good enough. First of all to all at WikiPedia, get your facts straight. As a representative for The Silver Movement, I know more about them then any of you do. This page belongs here. Audiomixxer1123 (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Above comment sealed it for me. Representatives don't get to edit Wikipedia, that's a conflict of interest. Of course you think it belongs here if you're being paid in currency or in kind by them. Would also recommend blocking the SPA. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to meet notability standards for a band. Nakon 17:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This band has been very successful. Does anyone have a fair say in ANY content input? As mentioned before this artist has been interviewed from an INDEPENDENT SOURCE as well as make their way on to iTunes. Does that not account for any success or notoriety? Audiomixxer1123 (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Five unrelated people have expressed concerns about the article. I would consider that to be a rather fair assessment. Nakon 17:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see WP:BAND. Prodego ^talk 17:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article The Silver Movement Discography should probably have been co-nominated along with this one. Matt Deres (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Hmm, also The Voice Within (The Silver Movement album), Distant Love - Single, Sleepless Beauty - Single, I Kissed A Girl - Single (a re-direct to the album), and Trouble In The Moshpit - Single. If the band doesn't meet WP:NOTE then none of these do either. Matt Deres (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed Lines (2006 film)[edit]

Non-notable film. No substantial GHits and no GNEWS hits. Fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything proving this film was distributed widely (or at all, for that matter) and was reviewed by two or more nationally known critics, and it clearly is not historically notable. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete short films are rarely notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm having difficulty finding anything about this film at all (possibly due to popular title). I can't find anything that satisfies WP:NOTFILM. Matt Deres (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable film by a non-notable director, starring non-notable actors. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and Userfy back to author. I found out it exists and that it is making the festival rounds [1], but this one needs to wait until it has received a few awards or gooten itself some reviews. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Nomination withdrawn by doncram and no delete votes. Non-admin closure. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Woodstock, Vermont[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/South Woodstock, Vermont

There is no assertion or evidence of notability or even documentation of the existence of this supposed community as a separate entity. South Woodstock Village Historic District is a wikipedia-notable topic to cover the NRHP-listed historic district of that name in Woodstock, Vermont, but its existence should not be used to piggyback an article about a non-notable community that may or may not include large areas not included within the legal historic district. doncram (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination for deletion of this article, given the subsequent development of the article. doncram (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This community does exist; it's listed in the GNIS as an unincorporated community and included in Google Maps (and appears to have several buildings from the aerial photo). Precedent indicates that communities whose existence can be proven are considered notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no source provided in the article, and now there's some generic link to GNIS where one might be able to run a search. I've been told separately, however, that there is evidence of this existing, so I guess i don't really doubt that it exists as a point location in some mapping systems. I do doubt that wikipedia is served by having this. I don't believe that wikipedia needs a separate article on every GNIS place. If it is not deleted, how about redirecting to Woodstock, Vermont which could carry the information that this is a place listed in GNIS. doncram (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed in the past, and precedent indicates that unincorporated communities whose existence can be verified are considered notable enough for separate articles; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "town" of Woodstock is a division of a county, not a municipality. According to it's article in Wikipedia , it "includes the villages of Woodstock, South Woodstock and Taftsville.". According to the Town Web page, "In addition to the Village [of Woodstock], the Town has four hamlets - South Woodstock, West Woodstock, Taftsville and Prosper - each with its own institutions and character. " Villages or hamlets, unincorporated or incorporated, have articles here. This is a distinct place, not a neighborhood. (the name itself is ambiguous, and could be either) DGG (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Catalyst31 and DGG. It is a verified and distinct population center which are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see sources now on article. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Gaffney[edit]

In my opinion fails WP:NOTE and for the time being WP:ATHLETE. Has been signed for the LA Lakers but it appears he is yet to play a fully professional game. Trevor Marron (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable subject. Just a vanity page. Parkerparked (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:ATHLETE; can be recreated if/when he does start pro play. Matt Deres (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible Erection[edit]

promotional article with no real claim to notabilty and no coverage in indepentent reliable sources. (prod removed) Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Google Web shows no apparent signs of notability. No results on Google News. The article's leading paragraph is written in an overly promotional tone and most of its content seems unverifiable[2]. — Rankiri (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but WP:SPAM. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I have a conflict of interest as a member, so I won't be participating in the straw poll, but I'll point out some relevant information. As per Rankiri, WP:WEB is the most relevant guideline here. Calling this article WP:SPAM is completely ridiculous, suggesting a misunderstanding of the guideline. WP:V isn't relevant because it only requires more than primary sources when claims are contentious. As a member for six years, the only notability that I've heard of would be: occasional showcasing on the NZ Web Awards, the SERPG project by unassociated member Brass, and close ties with Hard from Sexy Losers and other semi notable webmasters of NSFW sites. –Gunslinger47 17:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having a conflict of interest as a member does not bar you from participating in the "straw poll". State your potential conflict of interest, explain your reasons an article should be kept/deleted. Do that and your input will be seriously considered. And respected a hell of a lot more than those who pretend to have no COI. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope to be taken seriously regardless. WP:PNSD, as you know. –Gunslinger47 20:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand WP:SPAM just fine, particularly the section about "Advertisements masquerading as articles". This reads like little more than a masked promotion for me. You can disagree if you want but I won't call you ridiculous and claim that you don't understand. I can accept that you read it differently than I do. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By labeling a collaborative work an advertisement masquerading as an article, you're assuming bad faith by the contributors. There's no reason to assume that any of them were primarily focused on promoting the site. If your issue is with tone and fairness, WP:NPOV would be more suitable. If your issue is with the lack third-party references, the article either needs expansion or has an issue with Wikipedia:Notability. –Gunslinger47 02:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can characterize it however you want. The IP that started the article has no other edits. The IP that did most of the early editing did almost nothing but edit this article. I don't need a lecture from you for having an opinion. AGF goes so far, then WP:DUCK kicks in. It smells like spam to me and I stated my opinion. I appreciate that you don't see it that way, but I have seen no evidence that would make me change that opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to better understand your opinion. Specifically, which parts of the article seem inappropriately promotional? What products or services were the contributors trying to sell? –Gunslinger47 14:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the "references" are just links to the website, but some are made to look as though they come from outside sources (Brass - ??). Nothing on G-News, Ghits are the website, WP, promotional stuff and unrelated material. Matt Deres (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brass is an SE user who has no official relationship to the current or past owners of SE. He owns the serpg.com site which hosts the game he created. I doubt this would qualify as an "outside source", however. –Gunslinger47 02:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be a rough agreement here that the sources are sufficient to establish notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.Cole (rapper)[edit]

A nonnotable rapper with two mixtapes - Altenmann >t 15:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references provided are not trusted sources & therefore cant really prove his notability. Harlem675 15:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Complex reference seems reasonable enough (though the others appear to be blogs and should be removed as references). This review in Vibe should be sufficient to demonstrate notability.--RadioFan (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One article in Vibe is a start....but he needs more to be notable. I can't buy off on calling the Complex a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's the first artist signed to Roc Nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.122.64 (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable rapper, mentioned in Vibe, Complex and HipHopDX. Though the article itself could use some work. --Taylor Karras (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established with 3rd party reliable sources Nja²⁴⁷ 12:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Although the young man's death was a tragedy, the consensus of the debate has confirmed that this article ran afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jared High[edit]

No provided third party sources support the notability of this individual. Local interest story only. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 14:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The story is a news event not an encyclopaedic subject. The court case was settled, which means no legal precedents and no ongoing significance that would make that an encyclopaedic subject. Also lacks any independent references and any coverage of the other side's viewpoint. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Local interest story of minimal encyclopedic significance. Reso lute 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I know of several similar cases where distraught parents either blame the schools and either brought lawsuits or tried to enact statutes that make the schools responsible, so not very unique. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Resolute. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Matt Deres (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Shapiro[edit]

Non-notable psychiatrist. There are a few ghits for him, but they're mostly passing quotes and don't really speak to his notability. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Unreferenced, unclear notability. - Altenmann >t 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page, no refs. Parkerparked (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GS gives h = 24. Top cites 90, 84, 84, 77, 72..... Looks like a keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- You seem to have missed some. "ADHD as a disorder of adaptation" has 150 GS cites; "A psychodynamic model of panic disorder" has 98. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not prepared to judge his citation record but it looks like he passes WP:PROF #8 as editor of the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association (I found a good source for this and will add it to the article). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even stronger. Prodder may care to explain why he did not do this research himself. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe the nominator doesn't routinely use Google Scholar. Let's be honest, there needs to be a certain amount of responsibility on the authors part. Just throwing an article on here and expecting others to source and demonstrate notability it shouldn't be accepted behavior. If you know enough about the subject to write the article and have enough interest in it, you should take reasonable steps to ensure the questions of notability and verifiability are at least answered to a fair degree. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that the original version of the article was far from perfect. Recent edits have much improved it. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I already added sources (at AfD nomination time it had none, so it's hard to blame the nominator for not being sure of his notability), and after your comment added another paragraph with an evaluation of his research from one of the sources and a list of his books. He seems to have been quite a prolific author. I should look for published reviews of the books so that we can have something secondary about them rather than just primary sources but I don't have time right now. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, you're right. This guy really is quite prolific. Assuming no one has any objections, I'm about ready to withdraw this nomination. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While there was a strong argument presented by the delete voters, the keeps directly contradicted the claim that notability in Germany does not equal notability in the English world, and was enough to sway consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kehlmann[edit]

I believe this article should be deleted or moved to German Wikipedia because the subject is not notable enough to have an article in English Wikipedia. I can't find any English-language sources to use as references, which makes it impossible to expand the article, and none of his TV movies are notable enough to have articles of their own, so this article links to hardly any others. It appears his only claim to fame that can easily be verified is his parentage of Daniel Kehlmann. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough for me. Also, as said there is no ban here on using foreign sources so it is definitely possible to expand this article. Garion96 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Notable enough for me" isn't a valid reason! And the issue has nothing to do with a ban on foreign sources, it's the inability to understand them in order to use them for research so the article can be expanded, because right now it's just a series of lists. There is nothing notable enough about this person to justify an entry in English Wikipedia. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources. Garion96 (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I am not disputing what it says at Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources, I am saying that if you can't understand the sources in the first place then you can't use them to expand the article beyond the stub it is now. Could you please tell me why you think this person is notable? You have yet to explain that important point. 14:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.164 (talk)
    - Well..since you are saying that it is impossible to expand the article because there are only German sources I assumed you meant that non-foreign sources are not allowed. Perhaps you meant that there is no editor on the English Wikipedia who understands German and therefore no one can expand....? And yes, I think this person is notable enough for an article. With a filmography like that, the German wikipedia article since 2005 (German wikipedia notability standards are usually quite high) and the winning of three (minor) medals. Garion96 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think a director of German television movies is notable enough to warrant an article in English Wikipedia. He has an article in German Wikipedia [3] and even that one is sketchy. If he had an extensive list of noteworthy theatrical films to his credit he might warrant an article, but I don't think his background in German TV justifies allowing him an entry in English Wikipedia. MovieMadness (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Directing 50+ films indicated notability. Notability is not temporary - IE if he's notable in Germany, he's notable, full stop. This person already has an article on the German wiki and the French one. By your logic, you should be campaigining hard to get the French entry removed too. We have thousands and thousands of bio articles of non-English people that have been created from trans-wiking data from other languages. It's inane to argue that the English langugage WP can only have English language articles. Lugnuts (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid deletion rationale provided. Nominator admits that there are sources, and admits that the subject is notable enough for the German Wikipedia. If he's notable in one language, he's notable in all. As a world wide project, we should be seeking to include all notable topics, not just those that are notable in "english". Resolute 14:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't agree that if someone is notable in one language, he's notable in all. Do you mean to tell me Mayor Freidrich Klingenschautzen from Blackensteinwallen in Upper Gugenberg would deserve an article in Wikipedia in every language just because he has one in German Wikipedia? That seems ridiculous. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Is anyone who is voting to keep this article willing to do anything to expand it? As it stands now it has no references and is practically orphaned. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - A need for cleanup or expansion is no more a valid rationale for deletion than WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it isn't English. Reso lute 00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; notable and verifiable. - Altenmann >t 15:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please explain how this is "verifiable" to anyone who doesn't speak German? I can't find any English sources with information about this person. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you be so kind as to point out the policy that says English sources are mandatory? Obviously German sources would be verifiable by a person who speaks and reads German. We do not require that a source be accessible by everyone, only that they be accessible to someone. Once again, you have yet to offer a deletion rationale that has a basis in policy. Resolute 00:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but I don't speak German and I am interrested in all kind of culture. I don't know why you aren't, you should obviously NOT read wikipedia !! Louxema (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and Resolute. IP, you don't have to repeat your rationale for deletion every time a user !vote to keep. Salih (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First of all, Salih, nobody has answered any of my questions. Second of all, in order to pad this article a little, the following was added to it: "During 1951-1953, Kehlmann was the drector of the "Kleines Theater im Konzerthaus" ("Small Theatre in a Concert Hall"). He was awarded the J.-Kainz Medal in 1966." Could someone please explain how this proves Kehlmann is notable if there's no indication of what either Kleines Theater im Konzerthaus or the J.-Kainz medal are or why they themselves are notable achievements? Thank you. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kainz Medal seems to be a notable award. At least three actors (Judith Holzmeister, Erika Pluhar, and Ulrich Mühe) have won this award and it has been mentioned in their respective wiki article. Salih (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while he has directed multiple films, there is no verifiable evidence that those films have "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" or "won significant critical attention." Apparently per the one source[4] he won some award, but the award doesn't appear to be a large or notable one either. There is no verifiable evidence that he "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" or that he has "originat[ed] a significant new concept, theory or technique." Therefore, he fails WP:CREATIVE. That said, doing a Google News search for "Michael Kehlmann" returns 100 hits (both English and German), however because most appear to be his name being mentioned in stories about Daniel Kehlman, even at NDR's website where he is a director. That is not significant coverage for Michael, only his son, so he doesn't meet WP:N either. While the lack of English sources is not a valid deletion reason, that does address the issue of the lack of verifiable, reliable sources giving him significant coverage. By the same token, his having an article on the German Wikipedia is also completely irrelevant. The different language Wikis have different guidelines, and their decisions/content/etc do not carry over here just because they can. Likewise, many topics on English folks do not carry over to every last language Wiki just because it exists here. We frequently delete articles that have articles in their own language wikis because those other language wikis generally do not have the same notability criteria nor as large a editor base to help clean out inappropriate articles. The German article has never been nominated for deletion, so you can't claim its "notable" enough there either because no one has challenged it.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons cited by Collectonian, whose rationale is far better than any offered by those who voted to keep. The only source cited [5] doesn't convince me there's anything notable about this individual. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Machine translations are good enough for German sources: Austrian Honorary Cross Class I, there are also a couple of reviews of his work behind paywalls at the NYTimes, and a good bit of coverage independent of Daniel Kehlmann in German/Austrian press. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe there are enough websites referencing him.Ricardoread (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found a site that might help this article http://www.interspot.at/prodarticle.php?id=60&lang=en Ricardoread (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The different WPs have different standards of article inclusion, but this does not mean that a figure notable in German but not the English-speaking countries, or vice-versa, belongs only in that language's Encyclopedia. notability is world wide, and if =a person has done work in Germany that would qualify him for an article if the work were in an english speaking country, he's just as notable. Sources in any language are of course fine, as long as we can find them. DGG (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as others have pointed out this deletion is not based on policy. Geo Swan (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the Google News hits referred to above don't mention his son[6], so they are an indication that his notability is independent. Even more telling are these 500 books, including many in English, such as these two citing the subject as a major figure in post-WWII Viennese theatre, and they're just the ones I could find in a couple of minutes. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cause I did it, but also because I also created in french wiki regarding his notability (his son too of course). I dont understand really the probleme here. But I can understand that it was pratically orphan, it's my 1srt creation in english wiki, that's i asked help... anyway thanks to encourage me to contribute here! Louxema (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rationale upon which this AfD nomination was based on is flawed. The concept of notability is separate from language. decltype (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Con Man (novel)[edit]

May fail Wikipedia:Notability (books). magnius (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book's author could be considered historically significant per Bibliography of Evan Hunter, but it appears this particular work fails to meet any of the other notability requirements. I realize Wikipedia:Notability (books) says "a book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources one or more of the following criteria," but is one really enough if it's the least significant requirement of all? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough 3rd party reliable sources to sufficiently establish notability Nja²⁴⁷ 12:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cop Hater[edit]

May fail Wikipedia:Notability (books). magnius (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to satisfy criteria 3 of the notability for books guidelines, as it was turned into a film that is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, with a director and actors that are notable enough for their own articles, etc. Rnb (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaring Siren (talk • contribs)

Keep per Rnb; it satisfies criteria 3. Matt Deres (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the above. Sabiona (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bromheads Jacket[edit]

Seems to lack evidence of notability, googling doesn't offer much in support of their importance. magnius (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable indie band with two albums released. Also, a Google search on their name gets over 100,000 results, given that there's not going to be anything else coming up for their name I can't really see how that doesn't support their importance (100,000 mentioning a band is quite a lot). Esteffect (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty obviously notable from Google and Google news [7] searches, and the coverage indicated by the reviews on their first album's article (e.g. The Guardian, Drowned in Sound) give a strong clue to the band being notable.--Michig (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see a lot of google hits, but how many of them are not MP3, YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Lyrics, Tabs, blogs and forums?. If they are notable, where are the references from reliable sources which allow readers toverify their claimed notability (UK and European tours, a UK number 8 single)? Some chart positions for their own singles and albums would be useful too. Astronaut (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about, for starters, a biography from The Encyclopedia of Popular Music syndicated at the NME site, review from The Guardian, review from Drowned in Sound, review from Music Week, this from The Independent, and this from various Lancashire newspapers? And this from Allmusic.--Michig (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked what they say, but some of them (NME, Guardian, Independent and perhaps thisislancashire) certainly seem to be from reliable sources. Why are they not supporting the claimed notability in the article? Astronaut (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because nobody has taken the time to search for these sources before and add them to the article. Feel free to add them if you're inclined to improve the article.--Michig (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig's sources and WP:BEFORE which says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." --JD554 (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources described above. Meets WP:MUSIC#1. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Countryside Alliance (football club)[edit]

Delete. Non-notable football club in a minor competition. Fails WP:GROUP and, as individuals, WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. --bonadea contributions talk 16:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability whatsoever. BTW, I've seen the relevance of Swedish football teams playing in division 3 questioned (although I didn't quite agree), and this is division 8! Tomas e (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this may be a case of systemic bias and over emphasis on english subjects/sources. All UK football clubs in division 8 have individual articles. Exxolon (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Division 8 is actually the tenth level of the Swedish football league system. We generally accept articles on teams down to level 10 in England, but given the relative sizes of the countries I don't think that we can equate the levels in the two countries. For example England has five national levels, four being fully professional, and Sweden has only two national levels with one being fully professional. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a general tendency to systemic bias, but that definitely doesn't save this article. From a Swedish point of view, this is several divisions below were even small, local newspapers stop bothering, except possibly a results table in fine print. It would definitely get deleted from Swedish Wikipedia. Tomas e (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IUP Dating Game[edit]

This is an article about a short-lived, non-notable TV show on a student TV station. It is unreferenced and "IUP Dating Game" gets only 7 Google hits, only 2 of which are close to RS! In addition to lacking notability, it lacks verifiability. All I can verify from the 2 Google hits is that the show did exist and was presented by Frye. You can't sustain an article on that. DanielRigal (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both WP:N and WP:V ^[8]. — Rankiri (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability miserably. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculously unnotable student TV "series". Barely even verifiable that it ever existed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable TV show on non-notable student TV station. Astronaut (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deceptive Safari 4 marketing[edit]

NPOV title, although sourced the whole tone of the article is misjudged. The Safari page is short enough to have this section merged back into it and the NPOV addressed there. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge with the Safari 4 article. Gosox5555 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Evil Eccentric (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are some pertinent facts in this article, they are presented in such a biased manner that there is almost nothing of worth left. If someone has an hour's time to merge some of this into the Safari 4 article properly then great, otherwise just delete it all. aLii (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is simply an indiscriminate list. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in South Korea[edit]

This article is just a collection of external link and one miscellaneous not-sourced fact. More than 1 and half years have past but we have not seen it getting better than this. According to WP:NOTDIR and WP:LINK, this article should be deleted. Thorough recreation of this list is required for being part of Encyclopedia. Hitro 11:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Starts with the proposition that there are more than 500,000 schools in South Korea, has links to four of them... only 499,996 to go. That's probably the reason that this never went any further. Even a list only 1% complete would be too long to be useful. Mandsford (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, comes close to the no-content criterion for speedy deletion. Definitely not a useful list. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and also as a Category masquerading as a list. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know this isn't really relevant to deletion, but I must point it beggars belief that a country with a population of 50 million has half a million schools. Even if 20% of the population are of school age (which must be an over-estimate) that means that the average school enrolment is 20. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have lists of schools for other Asian countries, such as Indonesia and Kuwait, though others, such as the one for Kazakhstan, are only universities. Heck, here's a whole template full of them. I agree 500,000 is BS, but listing schools by country seems to be an ongoing thing. If every secondary school is inherently notable, why isn't a list of them notable? Matt Deres (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC) _{(forgot to sign in)}[reply]

Keeping WP:OTHERSTUFF in Mind, We can not consider to keep this article just because we have lists of school for other Asian countries. Please remember this article has not seen remarkable improvement for 19 months now. The 2 of external links out of 3 lead to closed sites. I think articles/lists like these degrade the quality of Wikipedia. Hitro 07:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then WP:SOFIXIT :-). I didn't mention the other school lists because "if we have one, we should have more"; I agree that's not a proper argument. My point was simply that a)such a list can be presented properly and b)there are obviously people working on such lists. The article is very poor - that is a cause to clean it up, not delete it. I'm fixing the stupid 500,000 thing now - with a reference! Matt Deres (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait to see how your fix comes out, but at the moment, anyone looking at this will find only four schools in a nation of nearly 50,000,000 people. You might find the listing of schools to be as daunting a task as the article's creator did. Nevertheless, if this expands to at least 100 names, I'd change my vote. Mandsford (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any particular intention of listing all the schools; someone interested in Korean schools can do that. WP:NOTIMELIMIT is just an essay and not a guideline, but it seems germane here. Other, similar, lists can and have been brought into some kind of reasonable shape; so can this one. I've provided some referenced numbers so that at least the article isn't blatantly incorrect anymore, so I'm not sure why we need to remove it. Matt Deres (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And therein lies the problem. Nobody is particularly interested in fixing the list itself. I appreciate that you've corrected an erroneous statistic, but the article is about a list, rather than about statistics. I'd rather have no article at all than to have something that reflects badly on Wikipedia. People click on this to look for a list, and it's a list of four names. We're only removing this eyesore, but not the topic. Mandsford (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've said m'piece. I understand your position, but I'd rather have a stub to build on than nothing at all. Given the !votes, I don't doubt this will be garbaged and I won't lose sleep over it, but for the record I don't see what criteria the page currently meets for deletion. Matt Deres (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Just FYI, creator of this article has left the following comment on my talk page. User_talk:Hitrohit2001#Deletion_of_list_of_school_in_Korea.Hitro 13:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita and Jade Ramsey[edit]

Appears to be a self-promotional page, not linked to from elsewhere on Wikipedia, created by user 'Nikitaandjade'. Poorly referenced, of questionable legitimacy and notability. Bonusballs (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. factual, verifiable, no hype; sufficient notability as actors.. - Altenmann >t 15:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I have to admit to not being convinced. Even the recently-added IMDB references list nearly all of these movie "roles" as 'uncredited'. I don't believe that IMDB can be viewed as an authoritative source on this issue (see Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb) in the absence of any other corroborating information. (The movies themselves do not verify the information, by virtue of the roles being so major and notable that they are uncredited.) Outside of Wiki, websites that lift Wiki, or other "user-generated" websites, the only source quoted is an interview with a blogger. That doesn't seem like the kind of internet coverage that anyone of 'notability' would have. I don't see any evidence that the subjects of this article are anything more than ambitious serial extras. Happy to be convinced otherwise, but not convinced yet. Bonusballs (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB is not a reliable source, and GNews doesn't seem to have heard of them. [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Jade+Ramsey%22+Nikita&cf=all} Edward321 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly non-notable or a hoax. Drawn Some (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VH1's Greatest Metal songs of all time[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/VH1's Greatest Metal songs of all time

Lists aren't generally a copyright vio, especially as bare bones as this is. But because it's not a vio, it adds almost nothing to the encyclopedia, yes VH1 released it, but that doesn't make it notable, and I don't see any indications that outside of marketing of the segment it's inherently notable. At best, it might warrant a merge into a similar article. But every media org that makes a list doesn't need a wiki page for that list. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first problem is that it lacks any reliable 3rd party inline citations. Even with those, it would still be questioned for its notability. Lastly, I think I saw a similar list to that once. Similar, but the number one was different. Either way, delete.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 09:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced list, POV - ("greatest X of al time" is necessarily subjective). The criteria for inclusion dependent only on what the programme-makers thought would fill an hour or so of telly and attract advertising. pablo_hablo. 11:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the most part, programs that come out during a sweeps month (such as the particular VH-1 "countdown show" that this comes from) are not notable enough to be talked about the next day. I imagine that this one went two hours, filled with portions of the heavy metal songs, with plenty of pre-recorded celebrity comments, commercial blocks, and stay-tuned hooks. Mandsford (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I don't think that weather or not it's notable is the problem, I think the problem is that it's probably the opinion of non-notable people. I've watched a clusterfuck of VH1 specials like this and they mostly just have comedians and other musicians, and although the people these specials are notable, they're opinions aren't. And I'm not insulting them. I'm just saying if this was a list created by well known critics like Robert Christiagu or Stephan Erwin, then it way be notable, but for now, it's unnotable. DELETE! KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 23:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, this would hold up if there was compelling evidence that VH1 is a noted authority in this music genre - which it isn't - more so than any number of authorities on heavy metal music. Instead it's more of their top list. We could have an article comparing the top metal songs from noted authorities or a good list of top charting metal songs but this is not those nor even pretending to be those. -- Banjeboi 08:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is pretty clear that it falls under WP:BLP1E. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Lucero[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The subject of this article was murdered sometime in late 2008. There was a lot of news coverage on the murder then. As of late (most recently 2009-05-28), there have only been anecdotal news stories about the murder (Newsday) and the reactions in the local communities. In all, this man was really never notable. If anything, the useful referenced content in this article could be used in some other article, but this article is an orphan, so I have no clue what that article could be. If no other article on the English Wikipedia even remotely references this one, why is this murder victim notable for inclusion on the English Wikipedia at all? Wikipedia is not a news site and this man is definitely notable only for his murder.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see this link but that is the only main space link to this article as pointed out by Bearian below.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is WP:BLP1E no matter how many newspapers talked about it. Everything even resembling notability traces back to the one event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the policy WP:NOTNEWS which says "News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events," and its predecessor essay Wikipedia:News articles, which says "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." This tragic death does not appear to have caused changes in laws or other societal changes sufficient to justify an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Steve Levy has hurt himself politically by referring to tthis person's mruder as a "one day" story. His death has had ongoing impact, as least much as Jerry Nadler's weight did in 1998. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does not state that and there are no references to support that fact of yours.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the impact on a politician has nothing to do with the victim's notoriety. Politicians say stupid things every day. All it says is that the politician is not sensitive of the issue at-hand. And that's what this article is - it is just simply an example of these racial murders. Groink (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/recycle Per WP:BIO1E, this person contributed nothing notably during his life. If anything, the information in this article should be merged into an article that covers the issue of these racial slayings, instead of create a separate article for each and every murder case involving BIO1E's. Groink (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TrioFit[edit]

unnotable product/service. The parent article Rebecca & Drew Manufacturing might also be unnotable, though they were apparently given an award by New York Magazine. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Floydian, This is not at all notable & It has only one reference! Harlem675 15:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Parkerparked (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco–Serbia relations[edit]

distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, most coverage is multilateral or sport. [9]. I found this article but again the usual want to cooperate more type news. Serbian Foreign Ministry says close to nothing about relationship including listing no bilateral agreement whatsoever. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be enough significant relations for these two countries to have their own relations article together.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 09:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no contents beyond date of establishment. - Altenmann >t 15:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And yet another random pairing of countries that don't display any real notability beyond the normal, pedestrian functions of government. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And can't the normal, pedestrian functions of government be notable, and worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia? This isn't The National Enquirer or The Guinness Book of Records, requiring everything to be sensational or exceptional: it's an encyclopedia. Historians and political scientists write about the normal, pedestrian functions of government, so why shouldn't such things be included in a comprehensive, non-paper encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't say that th pedestrian functions of govt. could never be notable, but in this case, I don't see it. And I ddon't buy into the "we don't use paper" line of reasoning.... it is wrong-headed thinking. Whether we're using paper or bytes shouldn't be an issue or consideration. Non-notable is non-notable and this "relationship" is non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the minimum criteria for inclusion in WP is WP:N. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that pretty much says it all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the notable, not a journal of the mundane. Drawn Some (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surprisingly, the topic of this article, Morocco-Serbia relations, fails to meet the requirements of WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Fails WP:GNG. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Iota Sigma[edit]

Self published autobiography-like article (Uses "we" and "our") on an unnotable fraternity. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable group. I42 (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-04t09:35z
delete per above.- Altenmann >t 15:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CLUB Niteshift36 (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Disney Jams, Vol. 4[edit]

Fails wp:music notability, is little more than a track listing. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-04t07:15z 07:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this album could in itself ever be notable. An article concerning the series perhaps, but not for each individual album if for nothing more than a track listing. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is a bunch of trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 13:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fermi paradox: If there are reliable sources, where are they? If someone comes up with those sources, I will be happy to work with them on my talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Indonesia[edit]

Indiscriminate list as per WP:NOT#DIR Davidelit (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per talk page of article (or re-naming as List of hospitals in Aceh if reasonable WP:RS can be found to support such a list)- it is a non notable list of hospitals in Aceh and does not provide any context of the health system in Indonesia or discriminate or describe the the different private hosptials and government hospitals - the only hospitals with articles in the Indonesian project (ie categorised as hospitals in Indonesia) are 2 private hospitals in Yogyakarta - hardly a representative collection of articles to link from at all. Better served by a creation of separate lists or articles by Island (the List of hospitals in Bali could serve as a good example if it had either WP:RS or WP:V - of which it has neither Satu Suro 15:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 15:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 16:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The concept of hospitals in a given area of sufficient size is notable (and Wikipedia has many such lists). Individual hospitals don't have to be notable to appear on a list of hospitals. The list is not indiscriminate because it a well-defined scope. I do understand that the list is very incomplete as it currently stands, but that is a problem that can be fixed through editing. I wouldn't object to the list being renamed to reflect the current content, "List of hospitals in Aceh", but editing the list to include hospitals form other areas of the country is the preferable solution in my opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Point taken, but Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a good guide here Davidelit (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but I am not arguing for inclusion based on the other stuff. I am arguing for inclusion based on the notability of such list and merely pointing out the list lists as an aside. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment many lists in the Indonesian projects have been 'dropped in' by editors never seen again - and as a consequence they are always problematic - I would say that 'List of hospitals in Indonesia' becomes either a disambig or redirect - and that List of Hospitals in Aceh, or Bali or wherever are kept in the loop only if reliable sources are utilised - otherwise I believe they should be up for AFD - I do not think that such lists have any right to exist - there is nothing to check against - if there has been no attempt at verification by WP:RS - they are open to random and false information otherwise Satu Suro 05:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Provides no encyclopedic information. When I need a hospital in Indonesia, I won't be consulting wikipedia. If we do get articles on Indonesian hospitals, then we use categories instead.--Merbabu (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Merbabu, because we can always use categories if needed.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 10:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of hospitals in Aceh. Verifiable info; reasonable notability. - Altenmann >t 15:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SchilliX[edit]

These minor OpenSolaris distributions are hardly notable. ilaiho (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are comparable, minor projects:

BeleniX is not a minor distribution and is really far ahead of the others listed here in breadth, scope and current status of development/quality. It is being actively developed and is also used by lots of people. In it's present state BeleniX can be healthily compared with SUN's OpenSolaris and is provides a full-blown, first-class stable OpenSolaris environment. It has a complete KDE3 (4 upcoming) desktop environment, package manager with networked repo, installer and other hallmarks of a complete distro [10]. In fact SUN's project Indiana that created the OpenSolaris distro was initially based off BeleniX - I know since I was myself part of the core development team. The current stub article on BeleniX is hopelessly outdated so I will be updating the BeleniX topic page shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moinakg (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. All of these can be found on Distrowatch, indicating that they have relevance (AuroraUX is on the waiting list as it is new). These OpenSolaris distributions add weight to the OpenSolaris project by showing the different varieties of OpenSolaris. The Belenix project definitely needs to stay, for all the mentioned above, it is a complete package. The AuroraUX project although new is creating a lot of interest, not only because it is a OpenSolaris distro, because it is one of the few operating systems to have an Ada userland. A release distro for the AuroraUX project is not to far away, and then more info will be added to wikipedia. The Milax and Schillix pages do need extra information, but are complete and useful packages.craigvv (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep One of the most advanced distributions of OpenSolaris, by Jorg Schilling, one the most prolific OpenSolaris contributors. Meets all WP:N and WP:V criteria.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom listed four articles for deletion - Are you just referring to SchilliX? Regardless, in what way is WP:V met by any of the above? MrZaius^talk 10:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Being one the first and one of the most stable distribution of the only opensource SVR4 descendant in existence is notable enough to warrant a page in Wikipedia. Moreover the importance of OpenSolaris distributions goes beyond the number of peoples using it including among other things contributing back to the main OpenSolaris code base. Concerning the other distributions MilaX and BeneliX are competing for being the most popular distribution of OpenSolaris behind OpenSolaris himself. AuroraUX is also for it's innovative attempts at a ADA powered user land and also being the only OS wide deployment of the FalconPL programming/scripting language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlanchardJ (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep The fact that they are opensolaris-based and not linux-based don't make them less relevant. As a mater of fact, none of those listed are "minor", being some of the most important together with Nexenta. Oh, or do they need to say "Ubuntu" somewhere to be "relevant"?... And in what sense are them all comparable, aside from being OSol-based?... I agree with the previous comments.Phobos11 (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were not encyclopedically relevant even if they did use Linux kernel. In fact, that would maybe make them even less relevant since there are so enormous amount of minor Linux-based OSes. Wikipedia is not DistroWatch. -ilaiho (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep for the reasons explained by Headbomb and Phobos11 above. OpenSolaris is currently a minor player in the FOSS operating systems market, but it is important for an encyclopedia to contain information on notable alternatives to the major players and these are historically significant variations on OpenSolaris. The BSD operating systems are a parallel case and there are articles on historically important versions such as 386BSD and BSDi. Kiore (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the BSD examples you cite have myriad reputable secondary sources available (although the 386BSD article doesn't really list them yet). Making a similar case for these younger projects is substantially more difficult. MrZaius^talk 11:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~Delete AuroraUX or merge all Notability shouldn't be a given based solely on being listed in a list of distributions any more than it should be derived from the myriad similar sites listing frequently AfD/prod'd articles concerning IRC networks et al. Not a single one of these articles has a secondary source listed, but even if they were to become available, all of them are short enough that it would make sense to merge them into a broader discussion of OpenSolaris, perhaps at a prose-heavy new piece published to List of Open Solaris distributions or Open Solaris distributions. The COI and fanboyism-driven comments above really don't present any arguments for individual retention that make any sense to me. If there were a merge, we should also cut the spammy language from OpenSolaris for System z (a bit longer, but not a single secondary source) and merge it into the merge target as well. If not, does it make sense to expand the nom to include it? MrZaius^talk 10:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your comparison to IRC networks isn't valid at all. Not only do IRC network articles tend to be prodded/AfD'd infrequently, we had a drive-by mass prod of at least 20 IRC network articles by Virek on 2008-06-04. These were done en masse without an edit summary, all using the same prod reason: "Article does not establish third party notability. Article lists no notable information for network. Possible COI. Article believed inappropriate for wikipedia" The articles involved were mainly articles for smaller and non-English speaking IRC networks and given all that it is not surprising at all no one really contested the prods when they were placed. Quite a few of these were prodded/deleted after having been prodded once before, which of course is a violation of WP:PROD. The only reason the bulk of these have not been contested is that there are plans to merge and redirect a large number of these articles, so there is no point in having them undeleted until everything else is ready. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure I understand your argument - The comparison seems to be quite valid given that you're proposing the exact same solution for what is essentially the same problem. As stated above, a merge that allows for coverage of these short articles topics at a lower threshold of verifiability would seem preferable to retaining the pieces in their present form. Not at all sure how the last bit of your comment pertains to the situation at hand. MrZaius^talk 04:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Moinakg's arguments carry weight. Found a number of sources that at least mention Schillix (ZDNet, OSNews, el Reg, etc) and Milax (ditto but for ZDNet) as well, but the pieces are still short enough that it would be better writing to deal with them in a common article for now. Could, however, keep them from a policy stand point. AuroraUX, on the other hand, has only a single available secondary source, that being an extremely brief three paragraph piece on the OSNews blog. Not nearly good enough, on its own. Again, while that provides enough to allow for a merge of AuroraUX, it does not provide enough to warrant separate retention. Would recommend that nom withdraw this nomination and individually renominate AuroraUX - A merge, if it happens, obviously won't happen overnight. MrZaius^talk 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are well known OpenSolaris distributions and are hardly not notable. There is absolutely nothing minor about any of these projects; the enormous number of man-hours involved in creating and maintaining these types of projects mean that such projects are not started on a mere whim. In particular, I would compare nominating SchilliX and BeleniX for AfD to nominating Linux distributions such as Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, or Slackware. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't derived from the number of hours spent on a project, it's derived from multiple verifiable sources. Given the complete and utter lack of secondary source material posted to any of the above articles the comparison to the mainstream Linux distributions listed above seems every bit as flawed as the comparison to BSDi et al above. The "minor" slur from the nom seems largely irrelevant, given the lack of a strong case for notability or grounds for an exemption. MrZaius^talk 04:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since when did Wikipedia only retain a commercial product portfolio?

--Nuftaqued (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SchilliX was the first OpenSolaris distro and BeleniX the second. BeleniX was the first to get a functional GUI desktop. SchilliX, BeleniX and Nexenta came out in 2005. BeleniX has been in active development ever since.Below are some external references on BeleniX and other OpenSolaris distros:
- Linux Format Magazine based it's initial review of the OpenSolaris Platform on BeleniX:[11]
- Another review of OpenSolaris distributions from Linux Format:[12]
- The OpenSolaris Distributions are mentioned in the OpenSolaris Bible with credit given to BeleniX for it's contributions:[13], [14]
- Phoronix review of BeleniX 0.6:[15]
- Phoronix review of BeleniX 0.7:[16]
- BeleniX was one of the top 20 winners of the FOSS India Award 2008:[17], [18]
- The initial BeleniX team was in the primary Times Of India newspaper:[19]
- An early BeleniX developer Anil Gulecha who put BeleniX on a thumb drive was featured in the front page of Times Of India:[20]
- SUN's CEO Jonathan Schwartz linked to Anil's and others TV interview video:[21]
- Serverwatch article on BeleniX:[22]
- BeleniX mentioned in ElReg:[23]
- Linux.COM articles on BeleniX:[24], [25] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moinakg (talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Opensolaris list them all [26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.37.134 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, based on general user consensus. On an aside, a possible merger may want to be explored based on the below comments. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 02:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity death hoax[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article is a stub. Article is most likely not notable and only gives credence and power to those who continue to perpetuate hoaxes Most importantly, the site from which the "hoax" originated from allows the end user to enter in any name into a form, as of which it will be inserted into a pre-made template, regardless of gender or social status. I could very well put in the name of Spot and still get the same old article, 'Spot died today filming in New Zealand blablabla'. Considering this, and considering that this article mainly surrounds this, it might as well be deleted. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 06:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; first AFD was just this week and ended in a speedy keep, which means keep the article, not delete it again a few weeks later!SPNic (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In all fairness, the reason it closed as a speedy keep had nothing to do with the merits of the article. That nomination had been made by a banned user, whereas there is no such problem with this nomination. Still, the two articles cited thus far from msn.com are enough to demonstrate that this is notable enough to merit its own article. One of the byproducts of the Internet era is that it is easier to spread a rumor now than it was 20 years ago. Mandsford (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't cut in line. Mandsford (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the first nomination ended in the speedy keep, said nomination was performed by a banned user and indeed did include a few who did propose its deletion - or merger with Pseudocide. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 17:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Manning's note on the talk page explains why I have put this forth for AfD. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 17:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. A quick goole book search shows that this is a notable and scholarly discussed phenomenon. I expanded the arcticle accordingly a little bit; just to move it in the right direction. Still there is a plenty of raw material outside for a decent article even without listmania kicking in. - Altenmann >t 17:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to pseudocide. There is nothing improper about this AfD being brought because of the procedural close. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect or merge would be inappropriate. I've explained why on Talk:Pseudocide, but I'm going to repost my comment here for the convenience of everyone involved in this discussion:

My preliminary search of sources reveals a wider scope for [celebrity death hoaxes]. Celebrity death hoaxes may include the various types of myths that arise out of collective grief surrounding celebrity death. Phenomena that would fit this general scope would include the death rumors that arose after Michael Jackson's death, the belief that a celebrity is dead and has been replaced (the Paul is dead idea), the idea that a celebrity death was the result of a conspiracy (JFK), that the circumstances of the death were falsely reported (the idea that Courtney Love killed Kurt), or that a celebrity is still alive (Elvis sightings). These phenomena are not within the scope of [pseudocide] because they are sociological creatures, a specific type of mass delusion, rather than a type of fraud. (Some editing in brackets for clarity.)--Gimme danger (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of room for expansion here. Being a stub is not a valid deletion criterion, nor is refusal to cover an extant sociological phenomenon out of fear that it encourages the people who participate in it. Concerns about Wikipedia's dealings with the sorts of death hoaxes that have arisen over the last week are a matter of policy and should be taken to the village pump, not AfD. --Gimme danger (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced and balanced for such a new stub. I agree with Gimme danger that pseudocide is sufficiently distinct as a topic that they should not be merged. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A phenomenon which has been around for a long time and which has suitable references to allow a good article. Edison (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete per author request. Plastikspork (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brightspirit's Mercy[edit]

Non-notable play. Only 43 Google hits, and none of them to a reliable source. I thought about redirecting this to Erin Hunter, but it isn't even mentioned in that article, only in the template associated with that page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entire group of articles is problematic, in that there is not a single reliable source in the entire thing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but this is Melkittycat and this is my first article. Someone said it's a non-notable play, but I don't think so. Even if it doesn't deserve its own article, I'm going to put the summary and the link to the full play on the Warriors main article, and I'm going to do the same on the other play by Erin Hunter. Which reminds me, someone else said they were going to redirect it to Erin Hunter, but the only problem with that was, my article never mentioned Erin Hunter at all. But the first sentence on the article was, "One of two plays by Erin Hunter...", with Erin Hunter in an internal link. Go ahead, delete my first article. But in the main article, they barely put enough info for Brightspirit's Mercy, in my opinion, or for the other play, and I will put the plot summary on the main article. Melkittycat (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Whig Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:

There is no reason for this state party to have a separate article from the national or international party. There exists no precedent in Wikipedia to allow for such an article. The state branch of the party itself is non notable and no reliable sources can be found asserting notability in a national context. This party has no members of note and no seats in the state legislature or major state offices. I will not withdraw this nomination either and promise to see this out to the very end. Baileyquarter (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to Modern Whig Party seems most appropriate. --195.169.224.219 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong & Speedy Keep: We have already gone through this and it was determined almost unanimously last time that this party is unique and holds a number of reliable coverage elements to make this notable. All of us also looked to see about this state party/lack of Wiki precedent and none of us could find any justification to merge or delete. Precedent is not a factor in deletion as was deemed the case last time, and notability was not and never has been in question. Initial problems that sparked the last AfD was COI, but this article was redone and fixed into compliance. This article should not be deleted solely because it is an affiliate of a larger organization. This party is unique from the national party because of its novel ballot access scenerio, something that has been distinctly recognized by seven (7) different third-party sources. The fact that seven sources, to include Army Times and Ballot Access News specifically single out this registered state party as notable, is what compelled me to recommend keep. The fact that this issue has already been resolved and all claims/justifications by Baileyquarter have already been put to rest compells me to recommend speedy keep. In that regard, I have limited this article, as have subsequent editors, to the basic notable elements based on these outside media sources.Aardvark31 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Agree with last post. This entry is notable and the issues at hand have already been discussed ad naseaum. The entry is notable on its own as an individual registered entity and because the issue has already been hashed through as stated above. Danprice19 (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: We JUST went through this in a contentious AFD. My opinion is, and was, that while there are some questions as to the reliability of a few of the sources, the article is sufficiently sourced to meet WP:GNG, and thus merits inclusion. I would prefer at least one source from a major media outlet for some additional reliability for the sake of improving the article, but what is there is sufficient for notability purposes. As to why the state party should have an article... First of all, the state party PRE-DATES the national party. Second, there is no policy indicating that state parties should not have articles, and indeed, as examples we have articles for the state parties of every major and most minor national parties in the states they operate in, here on Wikipedia. Of course, the mere fact that those articles exist does not give this article a pass, and is not in itself an argument to keep it, but rather a point made to prove that there is no policy dictating that state parties should not be included. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and a good stub on a new political party. I can see no reason why the result of the last discussion, only a month ago, needs to be changed. Reso lute 15:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Modern Whig Party and merge selected material. There is no reason whatsoever that this should be accorded the same treatment as Florida Democratic Party or Florida Republican Party. Rather, it should get the same treatment that is accorded by Wikipedia to minor parties that run candidates for parliament in European nations (i.e., don't win an election, don't get an article). There's no reason other than systemic bias to make a United States exception. Any discussion of the Florida organization (including its plans to run a candidate for Congress in 2010) is made within the context of the national party, which is going to support that candidate. If there were a Florida Whig sitting in that state's legislature, I would probably say keep. However, it's a case of Florida Whig is little more than a Modern Whig who resides in Florida. Mandsford (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I've mentioned previously, the party actually pre-dates the Modern Whig Party, which serves as a reason for keeping the article if it meets WP:GNG. If it did not predate the party, I would tend to support a merge for content reasons, but not for notability reasons. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why is this a new AfD nomination, last AfD closed on June 1, so at best this should be addressed through deletion review. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SNOWBALL Article waltzed though two previous AfDs, what is the point of this one? Trevor Marron (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waltzed through? It actually got deleted on the first AfD, so it didn't waltz through anything except through the wringer. On the second AfD, the nominator withdrew the nomination, so I wouldn't call that waltzing through either. I'm not saying that the Modern Whigs shouldn't have their article -- third parties can contribute to political change-- but the Florida branch of the Modern Whigs? Nah, don't make me laugh. Your guy will be lucky if he get 5% of the vote. Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5%? 1% would be an achievement. Florida had 14 people on the ballot for President in 2008. The 12 "third parties" combined got a total of 63,046 votes out of 8,390,744, which is about .007% of the vote. The best a single third party did was 0.3%. BTW, ballot access in Florida is a joke. You need 50 members of the party and pay the fee.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the national party article. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has gone way off base and outside of wiki policy as the subject matter is being debated. Fact is that regardless of opinion about the actual subject, they have been mentioned in seven reliable sources as a notable and independent entity. Merge also isn't proper because this group is notable on its own and is merely affiliated with the Modern Whig Party and not registered as such. Debating the actual subject matter demonstrates bias and relinquishes credibility of the proposed resolution which ultimately leads me per policy to disregard. But beyond all that, this issue was debated last month and due to the open-mindedness and unbiased/proper nature of the original AfD user, it was withdrawn because all agreed this group is notable and stands on its own. Bottom line is this issue is old hat and was already debated and resolved LAST MONTHAardvark31 (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator indefblocked as a sockpuppet of Wiki_brah. – iride scent 10:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question In light of the Nominator sockpuppet, "speedy keep" and "strong keep" recommendations, and fact that this AFD is redundant from the last one's resolution, is there a way to have an administrator take a look and remove the tag on this entry so we all can move on?Danprice19 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not. Technically we could procedurally close the AfD, but it can (and possibly will) be re-nominated immediately if the AfD is closed for that reason. We're already a couple of days into the discussion, why not let it run it's course? If it turns out a keep or no-consensus, this won't re-occur for a while. As for all the "keep" and "strong keeps", it's worth noting that noting that a couple of those "strong keeps" are editors who have done most of the work on the article. They are just as entitled to their opinion as anyone else, but it shouldn't come as a surprise that they want to save the article either. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability appears to have been proven through the inclusion of multiple reliable third-party sources as references. That said, if the party has never successfully elected a candidate, perhaps this text could be merged to the main party's article? - Dravecky (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Modern Whig Party Gang14 (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-Admin closure, KEEP. The page has been moved and slightly re-purposed (the scope was widened to the whole Internet, rather then just NedaNet), making this AfD rather moot. See Talk:Role of Internet during 2009 Iranian election protests for more detail.
— Ω (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NedaNet[edit]

Recentism. Non-notable website put up by self-promotion master Eric Raymond to capitalize (fame) over the Neda meme. Damiens.rf 04:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - totally agree with nominator's comment about Raymond; however, plenty of reliable sources have ~~been gullible enough to have~~ mentioned the site. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't agree that everything returned by a google-news search can be automatically classified as a reliable source. Are NY Times blogs, for instance, reliable sources? Should Wikipedia be gullible enough to parrot (once more) the newest one day project by Raymond? --Damiens.rf 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it just happens to be a Wikipedia page involving a current event. And this is even documented (unlike other articles on which I disagreed with Wikipedia policy about, concerning original research). ~GMH talk to me 15:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -The article is sufficiently sourced. kencf0618 (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that's completely inaccurate. The article uses only self-published primary sources (4 links to esr.ibiblio.org, that belongs to Mr. Raymond), a NYTImes blog post that just quotes Mr. Raymond (again, a primary source) and an article on WallStreet Journal that gives no original information about the site that isn't attributed to Mr. Raymond Himself. Trivial mentions don't establishes notability. --Damiens.rf 04:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Damiens.rf 19:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all but one the sources cited in the article are BLOGS, the other is an opinion column. None of them meet criteria for reliable sources. As far as I can see, the only purpose of the article is to lead people to the Blog website and the Nedanet webpage - i.e. a link farm. The article is politically motivated.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate that the links to Nedanet and the blogs be removed immediately as they are not reliable sources?--Toddy1 (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a few sources, and it's a likely search term. Merging to 2009 Iranian election protests‎ or elsewhere might be a good idea. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To think more about the good faith of the users who vote, I suggest to take a look at the history of contributions of those who have voted to delete this article. It seems that they have nothing to do other than wiping out any signs of the opposition to the Iranian regime. It is very interesting. Isn't it?--Breathing Dead (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2009 Iranian election protests. Sources are almost entirely blogs, the existence of this can be dealt with in a single line in a technology section of that along with use of twitter, et al. An entire article suggests falling victim to WP:RECENT, and is allowing WP to be used to promote this network, rather than acknowledge its existence --Saalstin (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- but improve sourcing. It should be noted that reportorial blogs on the newspaper's own website are in fact considered reliable sources. These are not some random bloggers. Links to Raymond's website are to document his claims; the veracity of said claims is for the reader to decide. This discussion seems to be dominated by dislike for ESR, which I read as a form of WP:DONTLIKEIT. I'm not going to assume there is any political agenda here, but I'm seeing a lot of unfamiliar names in this AfD compared to most AfDs I've participated in. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise! Surprise! You will find ALL these unfamiliar names in ALL AfDs related to any opposition to the regime of Iran. Why don't you check it out by yourself? It seems Ahmadinejad has some supporters all over the world, even in Wiki!--Breathing Dead (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to 2009 Iranian election protests. Very viable topic, but marginal sourcing could cause unnecessary AfDs when it's a perfectly notable topic. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing shall, I think, improve over time. As it is, the covert nature of the subject is such that unavoidably self-referential citations are what we have to work with. In my opinion, the article makes it over the notability transom, albeit only just. kencf0618 (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this is sufficiently notable. Also, dislike of Eric Raymond is irrelevant here; it's not a reason to delete. Alethiophile, signing off...^{Comunicate at me} 22:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is easy here. Dislike of author or the content of article doesnt justify AfD.Fuzbaby (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. hoax Tone 12:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf International Airport[edit]

Hoax and not a very good one. Zero results on Google or Google news, a ridiculous combination of runways, and according to Google maps terrain view there isn't enough flat land within 12km of Howick to land a hang glider let alone a Boeing 747. dramatic (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.
Delete - I really want it to be true, but it obviously isn't. Lacks any form of verification. No mention of it in List of airports in South Africa either. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Absolutely nothing in the net supports this. A lot of work went into this. Too bad they couldn't put their efforts into constructive editing. On a side note, Waldorf Salad International Airport would've been funnier. --Oakshade (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I would say that this is one of the more entertaining hoaxes that we've had in awhile. I liked the description of the nine runways ("Four of them are asphalt runways, one is a concrete runway, one is a grass runway, two are soil runway, one is a grooved asphalt runway and another one is a gravel runway") and the list of all the world's airlines that fly in and out of Howick. It would take billions of dollars to construct this, and I'm not talking Zimbabwe dollars. When did it get constructed? Oh yeah, July 2. Mandsford (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What alerted me to it was their choice of Wellington for the New Zealand destination. The runway is too short for long-haul aircraft there (You can fly to Australia and the Pacific). Once a long-haul 747 had to make an emergency landing in Wellington. To get it airborne again, they had to remove all the seats and take off with a minimum fuel load into a gale, with pilot and copilot only! dramatic (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3 As a blatant and obvious hoax/vandalism. Trevor Marron (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete There is no such airport. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 10:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Strohbehn[edit]

Speedy delete Fails WP:N. Just a run of the mill college basketball player who never went on to do anything noteworthy in college, nor did he ever make any professional leagues. Creator of article only ever made four total edits – all to this page – which leads me to believe that it was Strohbehn himself that made it. Jrcla2 03:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A7. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lewinsky scandal. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have sexual relations with that woman[edit]

Doesn't seem like it's enough information for a separate article. ~~Existing information should be merged with the Lewinsky scandal article~~ ScienceApe (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete as G12 copy-vio from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june98/historians_1-26.html ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 03:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of every sentence uttered by every head of state or every politician. Isn't this covered adequately in the Bill Clinton article or one of its spin-off articles Lewinsky scandal? This is like having an article about Mark Sanford's spin-doctoring about "physically crossing the line" with women other than his wife without "having sex" with them, or an article about Larry Craig's "wide stance" in a men's room stall. Edison (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title belongs as a quote in either Bill Clinton or Lewinsky scandal, not as an independent article. A redirect is absolutely not necessary. I understand that Ask not what your country can do for you is a redirect to Kennedy's inaugural address, but this isn't exactly in the same league. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is deleted, please maintain a redirect. It would be a perfectly valid pointer, just as "Ask not..." is a valid pointer to JFK's inaugural address. As for whether or not this article should be an article, I am not sure. —harej (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect deletion is heavy handed, this is somewhat notable riffic (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SpacemanSpiff. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (no redirect) Bazj (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that "but I didn't inhale" is the most commonly used Clinton catchphrase, with a sarcastic "I feel your pain" a close second, but we can't have a separate article for each memorable sentence ever uttered by an American President (please, don't respond by saying "Yes we can!) Not likely as a redirect, no sense in merging either. I'm fairly certain that this gets mentioned in the Lewinsky article, unless there was some nitwit who removed it because Wikipedia should not include a "false statement". Mandsford (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for it's own article. In any case, I said it to my wife years before Bill said it to his.... Trevor Marron (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (if solid evidence is not stated) Unless sources exist that can prove "quote has gone on to be widely cited as a meme in popular culture, as well as in politics", the article must be merged. --Roaring Siren (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you were a young adolescent male in the northeast USA in the 90's, like me, you would know this phrase obtained almost cult-like status. Definately significant. Baileyquarter (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being in a country far from the United States, I still dare to say this is a very known expression to me and that I have heard it in many parodies on American movies. I don't know how it can be proven with sources, but I do believe it's more to do with common sense. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a repository of every sentence uttered by every head of state or every politician."

Also, I don't agree with this, it's not a random line from a random politician. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe the content removed on April 7, 2009 should be used at least for proof in this instance, if not even to improve the article. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lewinsky scandal. Is there wikiquote? If so, something should be in there. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Lewinsky scandal. Drawn Some (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Lewinsky scandal Gang14 (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - commonly used by police and other interviewers as an example of dissembling; Clinton's use of a directional pronoun is a variant that indicates lying. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly the defining phrase of Bill Clinton's presidency. Notability should be no problem whatsoever. It's right up there next to "Read my lips: no new taxes, and "Ich bin ein Berliner." (both solid articles)--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Lewinsky scandal. Take it over to Wikiquote. They specialise in that kind of thing. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should record the notably stupid things that politicians do in a suitable article about the event, or about the politician. However, it is not encyclopedic to make an article with a title Clinton supporters will see as an attack, and which Clinton detractors will use as a coatrack to list everything bad Clinton said, carefully quote mined. There is no WP:SECONDARY source asserting that there is something notable about the actual statement (apart from the incident itself, and all the attempts by the Clinton side to avoid admitting misconduct, and the attempts by the other side to force admissions of sexual impropriety). Further, the article is unavoidably WP:OR (e.g. who said the statement is a "meme"?). The politician is covered in excruciating detail, as is the scandal, and there is nothing of additional value in this statement (not without secondary sources asserting there is such value). Do not merge because that will encourage every POV-pusher to start making attack articles so every notable person's stupid statements end up as redirects. Johnuniq (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, good point. I agree, and also think no merge should be made. ScienceApe (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a merge/redirect will neccessarily cause a POV problem. We'd clearly have to trim out a lot of this for due weight, but redirects are not subject to NPOV. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Lewinsky scandal. It can grow there and be relaunched if it really deserves to be it's own. This seems awfully soapboxy and pointy as is. -- Banjeboi 13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no Redirect - I see zero evidence or sourcing that this phrase has evolved into a meme, as the article claims. It'd warrant an entry in wikiquote for sure, and probably in the Lewinsky scandal article in the context of his initial rebuttal. No redirect because it is a highly improbable term for a user to search for. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you determine this probability? WP:R#KEEP specifies that if someone finds a redirect useful (as several of us do) that is reason enough. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I determined it through common sense. This isn't a notable, standalone meme on par with, say, Read my lips, no new taxes. Despite #5 of KEEP there, I do not feel it is useful in the slightest to direct users to the Lewinsky scandal. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The ability to sense what people are going to type from miles away is~~ hardly common. ~~You should use your powers for good, like finding out Kim Jong-il's computer password!~~ Jokes aside, there's evidence to suggest that plenty of other people find this useful. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to hide behind sarcasm when one realizes that their position is weak is all too common, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I'm completely oblivious to how weak my argument is. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This phrase has become quite popular, even after the scandal. Should be kept... —Preceding unsigned comment added by R32GTR (talk • contribs) 11:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Lewinsky scandal per the above posters. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets notability guidelines. Very substantial coverage in reliable sources. Enormous cultural and political significance that continues. Should be included in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to wikiquote. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination proposes merger not deletion and so this process is faulty from the outset. The topic has massive notability and I have just added a citation from one of the hundreds of sources which specifically discuss this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Advert Tone 10:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Место силы В МОСКВЕ[edit]

Contested prod. Utterly unencyclopedic personal account of the author's first experience in a Shiva temple in Moscow. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Siva temple in Moscow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lord Siva temple in Moscow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shiva temple in Moscow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Место силы в москве (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

all of which are basically copies of the first one. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's actually lifted wholesale from a blog here which I suspect is by the editor in question.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#BLOG. -t'shael^chat 04:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Copyvio, non-notable, etc. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as promotional and containing little/no encyclopedic content. Alternatively, delete all but one and completely rewrite that in encyclopedic voice... if any RS can be found. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although there were slightly more keep votes, the weight of the arguments roughly cancelled each other out. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon–Uruguay relations[edit]

Non-notable bilateral relationship and no sources found. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteReads like a dictionary. Lebanon-Uruguay relations, defines Uruguay-Lebanon relations. Really? Nothing indicates having relations with each other is notable, or that there is something unique about a few thousand Lebanese living in Uruguay. Delete. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from reading like a 5th grade social studies presentation that was written on the bus on the way to school, there is nothing notable about the relationship. Just another random pairing of X+Y. Nothing but the normal pedestrian govt. function here. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to issues of verifiability and notability and avoid attacking the writer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost all third party coverage is multilateral not bilateral [27]. LibStar (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Uruguay. Although the site for Uruguay's embassy in Beirut [28] has more detail than one usually finds, I can't find any news articles that indicate that this relationship is considered significant or notable in either nation. I've merged the information about the mutual embassies, and the link, in the Uruguay article, and someone else has done the same with the Lebanon article. Mandsford (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added some content - too much to be held in a "Foreign relations of" article. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having content doesn't make an article suitable for Wikipedia. The subject of the article must be notable. Most of the content isn't even on the topic. I see several editors saying to keep because it has content. That is an invalid argument and their opinions should be ignored. Drawn Some (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. We should not ignore people we disagree with. We should try to listen to their arguments as carefully as possible. Aymatth's argument is one based on style, that cramming a huge amount of info onto another broader article would make it tough to read and a bad idea organizationally. Your idea, Drawn Some is that notability hasn't been established. Obviously, Aymatth disagrees with you (as do I). Your argument that certain content isn't on topic is not clear enough to comment about beyond saying that I've actually read the article, and everything there appears to be on topic.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be quite lot of content and 3rd party sources in the article. I'd say keep. --Roaring Siren (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What of that added content do you consider to be notable? The agreement about "cultural cooperation"?

I spent a few months in Montevideo. The Lebanese influence is quite visible, as it is in Rio and Buenos Aires. Almost 2% of the population claim Lebanese descent. I am sure there are many more sources in Spanish and Arabic. You may want to track some down. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your own personal experience in Montevideo is not a reliable source and counts as original research. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal experience certainly does not establish notability and has no place in the article. But it suggested to me that the subject was worth checking out, and that editors with better language skills would probably be able to find more material - they would not be wasting their time. When one country has a sizable minority of people from another country, there are likely to be significant political and/or economic ties. Not always, but often. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure that makes for interesting contrasts and geneology research, what makes that notable in regards to the relationships between the two governments? The US has several million people of Cuban descent, yet the two governments don't really have relations. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Cuba – United States relations. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Wow, you completely missed the point of that example, didn't you? Of course US-Cuba relations are notable, but not because Cubans live here. It's notable because of the actual activities of the governments, not because some people moved. Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, assassination plots on Castro etc., all notable events in the relationship. Some people of Lebanese descent life in Uruguay? That is what is passing for notable now? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious, perhaps you can tell me what part you find notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's another WP:ITSNOTABLE "vote". LibStar (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Verifiable and notable" are the Pillars of Wikipedia. Remember WP:DONTQUOTEESSAYS to try and discredit people. Things that the media have taken notice of and published are notable. Haven't we gone through this enough times that you just accept what I write here, and I accept what you write here and we both skip the comments afterward? It will save a lot of time, and neither of us will convince the other. We are just repeating the same arguments in each AFD, and time would be better spent improving the articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So all that time is spent lecturing why we shouldn't be asking what part you find notable instead of just answering the question. Being "noticed by the media" is a pretty low standard. We all know the concept of a "slow news day" exists. Every day, newspapers have to fill space. A paragraph or two on a supposedly notable bilateral agreement is no more notable than a paragraph or two on the chili cook off at the state fair. In both cases the media "took note". For example, every day, USA Today puts a little one-two paragraph round up from a lot of states on a page. They do the same for countries in each region. "Taking notice" doesn't seem that notable in any of those cases. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Slow news day" is just another subjective category for information you don't like. Stick to verifiable and notable which are objective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe eventually you'll tell me what the notable part is. A 2 sentence mention in a newspaper looks more like trivial or passing coverage than notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that it's been expanded, this is well-sourced and appears notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added after nomination. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Up to standards with other articles -Marcusmax(speak) 02:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to the extent Lebanese Uruguayans are notable, write an article called Lebanese Uruguayan, à la Lebanese Brazilian. That topic is only tangentially related to "Lebanon–Uruguay relations". The rest of the article as expanded is trivia about a few families escaping during the 2006 war (to the extent that's relevant, there must be space for it here or here) or a promise to "enhance relations in the political, economic and cultural fields" (how many times have we heard that mantra before?). In any case, no independent, in-depth coverage of "Lebanon–Uruguay relations" actually exists; neither should we pay any attention to this constructed topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't recognize the concept of trivia, it is subjective. Wikipedia relies on objective reliability and notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, even the Manual of Style has a section called WP:TRIVIA. And anyway, you are appealing to special pleading, theorizing that events which would be considered of no relevancy in any other case establish something relevant here and here especially. Furthermore, you are telling us that a random collection of those trivial facts will result in something notable. And, finally, the media coverage, which is minimal by any account, does source a phenomenon, but random events without contextual relevance - much more is needed for sourcing just about any other article, but you tell us that it will do here. Because...you like it? That happens to be a highly subjective judgment too! - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you read it. It discusses style not content. Bulleted lists of facts should be avoided and the facts should prosified into a narrative. It doesn't distinguish between trivia and facts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions" - well, there's no context here, since no one outside Wikipedia has actually studied "Lebanon–Uruguay relations". Moreover, you seem to be under the impression that verifiability equals notability; it doesn't - not all that is verifiable is notable as well. Trivia about vows to "enhance relations in the political, economic and cultural fields" is hardly notable, being without contextual relevance. One can't construct a viable topic around random bits of such flotsam found in Google searches. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many reliable sources have been added since the nomination, including a book specifically about the Lebanese in Uruguay and independent news articles about bilateral relations. Reasons for nomination have been addressed. Notability has been established.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So having people of Lebanese descent translates to a relationship between nations? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Nice sleight of hand there, but the book deals with Lebanese Uruguayans, not "Lebanon–Uruguay relations". - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul, WP:AGF. The immigration and emigration of two countries' populations are obviously relevant to the relations of those two countries. Having Lebanese people immigrating to Uruguay is relevant to a number of traditional issues that you might call "relations" (economic, cultural, religious, sociological, etc.) The relations between "nation states" is in essence the relations between the peoples of those countries (in other words, purely governmental relations are not the only relations relevant to these articles). These relations have been documented. I see no problem including that information on this page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do assume good faith, but at the same time, we really shouldn't pretend that material on one topic (Lebanese Uruguayans) deals with another ("Lebanon–Uruguay relations"). The first I readily concede is notable; but your claim that its notability transfers to the second is unfounded. Let's review two simple facts: Uruguay and Lebanon and 7600 miles apart, and they both have 4 million people, meaning they're not very prominent on the world stage. That's a first clue that relations are not going to be very substantial, and despite your claim that the diaspora group is "obviously relevant", the sources simply don't bear that out. The presence of Hungarians in neighbouring Slovakia is obviously relevant to Hungary–Slovakia relations, but the presence of Lebanese in 7600-mile distant Uruguay does not, in fact, have much of a perceptible impact on bilateral ties, which are minimal at best. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's an organizational issue. If you look at Template:Cuba-United States relations, you will see that Cuban American is included as a sub-category. If you want to make an article about Lebanese Uruguayans be my guest. But until we have enough information to support two articles, I think that information would so better here. Your opinions that Uruguay and Lebanon are unnotable because they are "not very prominent on the world stage" and their relations will be unnotable because they are 7600 miles apart appear to be original research.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Cuba-United States relations, Cuban American and, indeed, Lebanese Uruguayan, the difference is that "Lebanon–Uruguay relations" are not, in fact, actually covered anywhere. And note: Lebanon and Uruguay themselves are obviously notable, but no, they're not very prominent on the world stage (neither belongs to the OECD, the G8, the P5, the G-20 major economies, or any of the other fora where the world's superpower and great powers congregate), and yes, the fact that they're 7600 miles apart, small, and with almost entirely different preoccupations, does imply that contacts will be minimal. Which, not surprisingly, is borne out by the non-existence of sources on this topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you might disagree with me but, the existence of "relations" between countries is typically confirmed by bilateral agreements. The article now contains a reference to a bilateral cooperation agreement that is sourced to an independent media outlet.[29] Thus, it is incorrect to say that the relations between these countries are not covered "anywhere".--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The relations between two countries will usually be notable, even if they only exchange ambassadors and sign basic bilateral treaties, because these things are big deals, and countries do not do this without some reason--which is usually there being trade or other relationships, such as having a substantial number of immigrants from one country to another. I thought I might find a compromise position to propose, but I decided that I did not want to propose something I did not really agree with. If others propose a reasonable compromise I will probably not object, but I think there might actually be agreement that the establishment of basic relationships is significant. Possibly something more might be needed, and it is present here. I think any reasonable compromise would include this article. It's only 20,000 articles at most and we can deal with that--less than 1% of the total. DGG (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, perhaps you should use that argument about the numbers of article somewhere else, it is irrelevant to this discussion on whether or not the subject of this article is notable and the contents verifiable and whether or not we should keep it. Please stop throwing up smokescreen, it interferes with the work we do here at AfD, work that is important to the encyclopedia. We're trying to decide what articles should be included. Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly non-notable. Let's be clear that the topic of the article, relations between Uruguay and Lebanon, is only addressed by one of the references, the Arabic News article, which is TWO SENTENCES LONG, the very definition of trivial. I agree that an article on Lebanese Uruguayans or similar may be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and as an additinoal reference has been added to further underline noteability. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is clearly far more notable than some other bilateral relationships that appear on AfDs over the last few months. Tris2000 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of those which is a keeper, thanks to some good sourcing. I particularly like the news headline "Bilateral discussions between Lebanon and Uruguay"; I have argued before that these articles don't need to be based on sources that spoon-feed to us that they are about relations between the two countries, but it's nice to see all the same. Here's an interview with the Uruguayan Ambassador to Lebanon with MondayMorning magazine:[30] Fences&Windows 23:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have split out some content into a separate article on Lebanese Uruguayan, as suggested by contributors to this debate. Both this one and the new one are now more coherent. Don't think any of the content moved to Lebanese Uruguayan was cited as a reason to keep this article, which now has plenty of reliable independent sources discussing the relationship. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I realize that a lot of work went into this article after it was nominated for deletion, and then some content was split out, and perhaps other content was removed as being off topic. But as it stands now I'm just not seeing evidence of significant coverage of the topic (i.e. bilateral relations between these countries). I'm just looking at the sources cited in the article, as surely if sources existed that "address[ed] the subject directly in detail" they'd have been incorporated into the article by now. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely many of the independent sources directly address the different aspects of the subject, such as "Bilateral discussions between Lebanon and Uruguay". Far more than in, for example, Honduras – United States relations. How many make enough? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I depends on their quality, but for me I'd like to see at least 2, and they need to directly address the topic at hand. I'm seeing zero in this particular case. (And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't generally considered a valid !keep argument). Yilloslime ^T_C 19:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - just feeling a bit edgy after wading through a whole lot of these bi-lateral articles. I did a quick check in Spanish and found some more content, which I added. Wish I knew Spanish better - or knew Arabic at all. The difficulty is that English-language coverage on these two small and distant countries is very limited, and the chances of finding online newspaper coverage more than a few years old is zero. I would say the article gives a reasonable outline of the relationship, and the sources demonstrate that it is notable. Given the (relative) size of the Lebanese Uruguayan community, it would be surprising indeed to find that nobody other than the governments involved had commented on the relationship. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. views in each direction without and strong argument prevailing or consensus Nja²⁴⁷ 08:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Honig[edit]

This young filmaker might be notable one day but lacks significant coverge today. citation on his student film is commendable but isn't enough to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE RadioFan (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As A7 decliner. Two independent, non-trivial reliable sources meet WP:GNG. Of all the 18 year olds who've created articles about their accomplishments on Wikipedia, this is the only one that really makes a good case for notability. His film garnered statewide recognition and an award. Oh, and he gets points in my book for not linking to a MySpace or Facebook page, either. ;-) Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both because it appears to have WP:CoI and for the reasons listed. Gosox5555 (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COI is not a reason for deletion, but a reason to seriously consider the need for an NPOV rewrite. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - subject meets the GNG and thus qualifies for inclusion. One of the sources was "dead" so I converted it to a cite news template. The story can still be viewed in Google's cache for now: [31] in case anyone feels the need to verify its authenticity. The film appears to be gaining momentum and is only a month old, so I think a technical qualification under GNG is sufficient for now. "Weak keep" because I wouldn't object to revisiting the subject at a later date, but as it stands now I think technically qualification is sufficient. (P.S. a COI is not a valid reason to delete.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. A couple of mentions in local news media in connection with a single event is not really enough to confer permanent encyclopedic notability. Hqb (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crunk Juice (cocktail)[edit]

No assertion of notability, nothing I could find in reliable sources. Page was previously deleted as a prod, second prod declined. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:N and WP:NOT. South Bay (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no assertion of notability, no reliable sources. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbos Night Live[edit]

contested prod. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources, RadioFan (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure it meets the A7-web speedy criterion, but it's a borderline case, being affiliated with a school. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-notable; comes off as advertising. Zero hits on Google. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 00:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn; essentially an ad. JJL (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable internet show. No reliable sources to prove notability. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. South Bay (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per the reasons of sixtynine. --Jayrav (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to African Studies Association. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African Heritage Studies Association[edit]

Procedural nom. It's been speedied and PRODded by established users, however I think there's some indication of notability, at least enough that it needs discussion. Neutral leaning weak keep, but this was not going to be an uncontested deletion. StarM 00:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is trivial at best which fails WP:ORG. Aditya ^α _ß 06:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Unless someone can come up with substantial coverage and improve what's there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important in the development of African Studies, the African Studies Association and John Henrik Clarke's rise to prominence. It is covered in a specialized encyclopedia from an academic publisher. Also extensively covered in this academic book and many more. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:22, 27 June 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) 00:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a gsearch quickly indicates it's an active and of some importance in academia [32], [33], [34]. JJL (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes WP:RS and WP:ORG standards. However, the article should confirm whether the organization is still active -- its web site is not online and JJL's links stop at 2006. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it with the African Studies Association article. It is too small to be out on its own. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (at least for the moment)-- there is nothign to indicate whether the organisation still exists, how long it lasted, or what it has done. If substantial information can be provided the article can easily be re-expanded from the Redirect that will be left following merger. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge I did find and add some more information--they sponsored a conference in 2006. But I don't think there is enough here for an article. DGG (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge Although it has some marginally ok sources, the article itself doesnt really establish notability. Aside from existing and founding a conference why should a reader care? Bonewah (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete CPA Site Solutions, and keep Emochila. The overall consensus in this AfD seems to conclude that Emochila has received sufficient coverage to warrant an article under WP:CORP, while CPA Site Solutions have not received sufficient substantial, reliable-source coverage for the same to apply. While it did indeed make sense for both to be considered together to a point, most participants acknowledged that the notability of the two are not the same, and are not linked. ~ mazca ^talk 13:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emochila and CPA Site Solutions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Emochila was previously kept based on a closure as no consensus (see earlier debate) after an AFD plagued with sock votes and irregulatiries. While at first glance, this appears to be a well-referenced article, nearly all of the references are to materials that originate with the company itself. Some have promising names ("Company WhoIS") but link to the company's own web site. One links to a business partner, hardly a neutral source. Another links to the Better Business Bureau, who rely heavily on self-reporting. One is a press release. Three appear to be independent, published sources: of these, one has nothing to do with the topic, the other (the "E-Commerce Journal") appears to be a press release republished without editorial oversight or fact checking, and the third (from a magazine called CPA Technology Advisor) is a brief, independent review.

This article came to my attention after I speedied CPA Site Solutions. That article's author pointed out that Emochila is a competitor and has been using the fact that they have an article at Wikipedia while CPA Site Solutions does not as a marketing advantage. Upon reviewing both articles, this appears to me to be manifestly unfair: The most solid reference for Emochila is the link to CPA Technology Advisor, which provides comparable coverage for CPA Site Solutions. It appears to me that someone adept at manipulating Wikipedia process has been hard at work to be sure that the Emochila article was kept last time around. I believe that neither article should be kept, but out of fairness, I believe that if we keep one, we should keep both.

I have undeleted CPA Site Solutions to include it in this AFD.

There is also relevant commentary at my talk page which I would encourage other Wikipedians to review prior to commenting. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Frankly, I don't believe that both stay or both go. One can be notable while the other is not. And I would certainly express my opinion if that were the case. Fairness is not relevant. If a firm's clients are stupid enough to think that a WP article is significant in choosing a supplier, then they should lose their CPA licenses. And you can print that in the Technology Review. That said, neither firm can demonstrate that they are notable. The references offer nothing in this regard. Republished press releases are meaningless and fail WP:RS. A small blurb in an obscure trade publication would be something if it were accompanied by other independent sources. Its not. I looked through Google News for all dates and found one mention of E Mochila. The CPA Technology Review. That doesn't cut it. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 01:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction The E-Zine in question is the CPA Technology Advisor, To my knowledge there is no such publication as the "CPA Technology Review".

Response-not a vote Poster of debated article- Characterization of the CPA Technology Advisor publication as "obscure" is unfair. While it is certainly Obscure from a layman's perspective (just about any trade journal is) it is highly respected in the Accounting field. Also, characterization of the coverage of these companies as a "small blurb" is completely erroneous. Both of these firms have received in-depth full reviews from this publication on more than one occasion (from multiple authors). I agree, people searching for vendors on WP is foolish but that does not change the fact that it is being done, and that it is creating measurable and quantifiable financial losses for small businesses. Like it or not, WP now has formidable brand power and most consumers are going to interpret a WP listing as an endorsement to some degree or another. If consumers weren't prone to this type of obtuse behavior there would be no need for a consumer protection agency. Real or imagined WP has marketing power. I don't think it behooves this community to be flippant about this. Those with power have a responsibility to use it thoughtfully and responsibly. I would also submit that fairness is in issue in all endeavors at all times. Businesses of equal notability should have equal representation. Your point about notability is well taken. That's the crux of this issue, I think. Unfortunately it's a subjective one. What's highly notable to a specialized field, like accounting (or plumbing, or hotel management, or theoretical physics) is far more often than not obscure to the general public. (OT- While I realize this is a useless suggestion for this debate I think the community should consider adopting standards that businesses should be required to meet in order to get a Wikipedia listing. I'd start the discussion myself, but I think it should be started by someone with a substantially more impressive WP reputation than mine.)

UrKnightErrant (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an avid user of Wikipedia, but I am a CPA. I currently use neither of these companies for my website development. I did however note in a publication I receive, WebCPA (the largest circulated industry magazine) that Emochila had a fairly large amount of coverage in the March Cover Story which you can see here http://www.webcpa.com/act_issues/2009_2/ where it shows the cover story, and here is the actual article: http://www.webcpa.com/act_issues/2009_2/30847-1.html I only wanted to bring that up to note that in accounting circles both companies are regarded quite strongly for their web development in the profession. WebCPA is surely a strong source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.144.161 (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that article. CPA Site Solutions got a nice plug in it, too. I wanted to work it into my article as a referral, but it didn't offer any factual information worth footnoting and including it seemed to smack of advertising. It was one of their clients going on and on about how much revenue she generated using the site to cross sell her services. They got another great plug too, in the same publication, in an article about Mike Block (one of the foremost quickbooks experts in the country) but decided not to use that either. Like I said, I worked very hard to keep a neutral perspective. UrKnightErrant (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have done two things regarding the Emochila article. I have read the original articles of deletion (which the community decided to keep the Emochila article after review) as well as reviewed the links under question by UninvitedCompany. First, it is unusual to be questioning an article that has been alive on Wikipedia for almost one year. Two users, GRuban and Adrianwn voted keep. I quote user GRuban of the Wikipedia community in the original articles of deletion who noted:

Reference number 5 is displayed on the company website, but is pretty clearly a scan of an independent newspaper article. Or are you suggesting that it's a fake? I doubt it. Number 4 is a non-trivial review by an independent magazine - "can you show that having a review at this site indicates notability?" - well, that's what notability means, that multiple independent reliable sources have "taken note" of the company, written non-trivial articles about it. That's really all that can be expected. If this were a singer, we'd accept articles in an independent music journal, since this is an accounting software company, we need to accept articles in an independent accounting software journal....as well as....I'm not an accountant, but from digging around, it looks like a respected source in the industry. We have an article on it, CPA Technology Advisor which isn't great, but says it was around since 1991, so it's at least not a fly-by-night journal. More important, I found this: [2] in which Reuters seems to be very proud of receiving an award from them. Reuters is one of the top N news agencies in the world, for a very small N, so I doubt they would be proud of receiving an award from just anybody.

Second, I viewed the press coverage on the Emochila page and would have to agree with GRuban. #5 appears to be from the San Francisco Chronicle, the city's second largest publication. Furthermore, the article I mentioned originally earlier today (the WebCPA article) was not even mentioned in the Emochila page (I have since added it), and again, we're dealing with a respected news source in the industry, a heavy-hitting CPA magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.144.161 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on Emochila, neutral on CPA Site Solutions. As mentioned above, in http://www.thomsonreuters.com/content/press_room/tlr_taxacct/264983, Reuters thinks CPA Technology Advisor is respectable enough that it brags about getting an award from them. Reuters is one of the top 3 international news agencies. That's one of the ways we define a Wikipedia:Reliable source, other reliable sources treat them as reliable. Therefore CPA Technology Advisor is a Reliable Source for our purposes. That, plus the Examiner article meets Wikipedia:Notability, "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The WebCPA article may or may not be in addition to that, it certainly doesn't hurt. CPA Site Solutions only has one review, which isn't quite "reliable secondary sources", it's one "reliable secondary source", so I'm neutral on it. --GRuban (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: 76.105.144.161 is incorrect in regards to CPA Site Solutions receiving only one review from the CPA Technology Advisor. They have in fact been reviewed every year since 2005. The CPA Technology Advisor selects all the Accounting Web Design firms they consider notable and reviews them thoroughly. Until 2007 this review would include a "star rating", but as of last year they have stopped this (I suspect to prevent alienating potential advertisers). I'm certain CPASiteSolutions was included in all these reviews, and I'm pretty sure Emochila was too.

UrKnightErrant (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting suggested - since one of the articles at issue has been modified substantially during the course of the AFD, and due to the shortage of comments from independent editors, I suggest that this listing be restarted rather than closed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems extreme. I see no need to discard the comments made so far. Mind you, you know the rules of this community better than I. The only changes I made to the CPA Site Solutions listing were the ones that you recommended. I realize that you don't feel either company should be listed, but If you are changing the rules on those grounds I object to restarting this AfD. I would prefer to see it through to it's conclusion according to the community's normal procedures and standards.UrKnightErrant (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the listing isn't restarted I would guess that many closing admins would delete one or both articles. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ERP! I'll just shut up then. Restart away! Whatever way it goes, Thanks for all the help The Uninvited Co. Especially in light of the fact that you are our strongest negative vote. I'm confident that I have learned what it takes to come back in the end. Brian has always avoided the media on the logic that his accomplishment speaks for itself. I think if this listing gets shot down it will give me the ammunition I need to convince him that being media shy is hurting his company, and that will get him out into the circus like a shot.UrKnightErrant (talk) 21:26, 2 July 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 00:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CPA Site Solutions: delete. Fails WP:COMPANY. None of the article's fourteen references come from reliable secondary sources. Google News shows no results except for a single press release issued by the company. Google Web shows no immediately apparent WP:RS.— Rankiri (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT:Only one of the references seems to come from a reliable secondary source. I still don't believe that the company meets the notability criteria that states that an organization is considered sufficiently notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources — Rankiri (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emochila: ~~undecided~~ weak keep^{(EDIT:The SFC source seems acceptable)}. From eight references and seven press coverage links mentioned in the article only these three can possibly be counted in a notability review:

http://news.emochila.com/emochila/news/index.jsp (hosted on emochila.com)
http://www.webcpa.com/act_issues/2009_2/30847-1.html?zkPrintable=true (in my view, rather trivial)
http://www.cpatechnologyadvisor.com/article/article.jsp?id=1016&pageNum=1 (also, the only relevant result on Google News)

As of the the rest of the sources, the ecommerce-journal article appears to be neutral on the surface, but it quotes directly from the company's press releases[35] and should not be seen as an independent reliable source. Accounting Web's Question Advice also appears to be legit but it's written by Mark Bourbin, seemingly the same Mark Bourbin who wrote this and whose contact email just happens to be Sites@emochila.com. Overall, I'd say that if #1 can be used as a reliable source, the company is passably notable to meet WP:COMPANY. — Rankiri (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, while the first reference of the undecided vote above is in fact hosted on an emochila server, it is only because the San Francisco Examiner does not host archived articles this early. Therefore it was scanned and hosted locally. It is a feature article from San Francisco's #2 circulated paper.76.105.144.161 (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, Rankiri. How can you give CPA Site Solutions a fail and say none of it's sources are reliable, then present two of the exact same references, WebCPAand CPA Technology Advisor as reliable for Emochila? And what about NCS? This is a non-trivial completely unrelated edited site, and Grey McKenzie himself attached his byline to it. I figured this would stand out as the strongest reference in either article. BNet/Highbeam Business Research are also independent and tightly edited. I don't see how either of these links can be simply dismissed as irrelevant.

NCS is a blog, and CPA Site Solutions does not mention WebCPA in its references. You are right about CPA Technology Advisor though. I must have mistaken it for the company's website. My sincerest apologies. — Rankiri (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does. Under "External Links" you'll find a link called WebCPA E-zine. A search for CPASiteSolutions on the WebCPA site also reveals this link, which is actually in the same article that Emo used, but I chose not to use it because I was afraid a client raving about all the money they helped her make would damage the neutral perspective of the article. Besides, the recommendation from Mike Block seemed more relevant. And while NCS is a Blog, or at least a news magazine presented in a blog format, it is by no stretch of the imagination "self published" and is therefore a legitimate reference. In light of this, unless you had some other reason for voting to delete which I will gladly address, and if warranted change, I would respectfully request that you consider retracting your bid to delete my article. UrKnightErrant (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links are not references. I had no reason to go on every listed website and start searching not even for "CPA Site Solutions" (0 results on WebCPA) but for "CPASiteSolutions" myself. Anyway, from what I see, the WebCPA mention[36] is extremely trivial, and, as far as I know, blogs (self-published or not) are generally not accepted as key factors in establishing notability. My already revised recommendation stands. — Rankiri (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to anger you, but since the damage is done I'll not mince words. You are still mistaken. The "External Links" are valid references. This was a mistake I made in my early draft. On Wiki, for whatever reason, "footnotes" are automatically presented with the title "references", but when considering notability, which is the basis for your bid to delete, you need to step outside the "footnote" references. Just because there is no footnoted data presented in an outside article it can still offer notability. The external links should have been be included in your initial examination of the site. As for the name... CPA Site Solutions is the name of the business, and the domain name is cpasitesloutions.com. Like most online businesses the domain name has tended to overshadow the name on the business papers and utility bills. I see no need to argue 6 of one vs. half a dozen of the other. I am surprised that this has confused you. I use caps in my letters and writings for readability, but search functions are often case sensitive, and as a rule one does not capitalize domain names. If you do a search for "cpasitesolutions" (all lower case) on webcpa.com you will return 2 results, as promised. But we are bogging down in minutiae. First of all NCS is not just a Blog. If you take one look at the home page you'll see that. It's a news magazine sponsored by ligatt security. It's heavily edited and it has multiple contributors. The News is presented in Blog format, though, so for purposes of this discussion let's treat it like one. It's the nature of the blog (ie news vs opinion, professional versus hobby) that dictates it's referral value, and of course more importantly, as it says in your posted link, the element of that link being "self-published" renders it worthless. But a blog, in and of itself, is not an invalid reference. A blog by Bill Gates or sponsored by Microsoft would offer huge notability, while one by Bucky Poindexter (the little league home run king of Sulfur Louisiana) would not (especially in regards to a WP submission for an article called "Bucky Poindexter"). National Cyber Security Magazine would fall somewhere between these two extremes. In any event I am not asking anyone to consider this a "key factor". I am asking that all these factors be considered in combination. Finally, I find it fascinating that you find a recommendation by Mike Block, an independent third party, to be "trivial" while you find a recommendation by Justin Curzi, the owner of the business he's recommending, to be "relevant". UrKnightErrant (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only the NPA reference is a blog, the website visibly offers Become an Author and Submit a blog links right on the top of its homepage. The second WebCPA mention is also in no way significant. I'm not sure what recommendation by Justin Curzi you're talking about — please understand that I don't spend all my free time looking for additional sourcing for your website. — Rankiri (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should read these references before deciding their validity. The very first line in the WebCPA article you are presenting as valid (and which also mentions several other web design firms in the same article, including CPA Site Solutions (twice if you include a typo) is "When Justin Curzi tries to convince accountants to use Emochila's Web site services, he encounters the same resistance he did five years ago." While Justin is presented in the article as a neutral expert he is actually one one of Emo's owners. That caused quite a stir in the CPA Site Solutions office, but in the end they decided this "highly relevant" link wasn't worth making a stink over and their energy would be better spent building a better product. On the other hand in their mention in the same magazine and by the same author in a different article this "trivial" and "irrelevant" mention (the listing under recommended resources only has one web designer) was an unsolicited endorsement from an independent third party, a recognized expert in outsourcing, and yet you describe it as irrelevant? I am beginning to suspect, sir, that you don't wear your socks on your feet. Are you in any way connected to Emochila? As to the NCS (I assume that's what you meant by NPA?) now you're just being unreasonable. There's nothing wrong with a news source accepting outside submissions, all news sources do. Are you suggesting that someone at CPA Site Solutions hijacked the National Cyber Security Founder's account and published the article under his by-line? That's just silly. There's nothing odd or unusual about accepting articles from outside sources, nor is there anything unusual about these types of sites indexing related blogs and even following them for stories. What makes the difference in legitimacy is editorial oversight, and NCS clearly has a strong editorial presence. UrKnightErrant (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Both Marketing Your Firm Online and Secrets of Outsourcing were published by Accounting Technology[37] but where Marketing Your Firm Online actually offers some sort of coverage for Emochila, none of of the two articles address CPASiteSolutions in any detail. Secrets of Outsourcing only mentions CPASS in a minor footnote and Marketing Your Firm Online only mentions it in the following passage:

Fey sought help from CPAsitesolutions in hopes of attracting new clients in case she and her partner ever wanted to leave the firm. Once the site was up, she emailed existing clients to look at it and got calls from some who wanted additional services, such as bookkeeping, that they didn't know she offered.

It is my view that the above sources (including NSC's blog that shows no signs of editorial oversight whatsoever) don't provide any significant coverage necessary for establishing the company's notability. — Rankiri (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you persist in harping on about an article that I didn't site in my article? And if you must, then please stop misrepresenting it. The irrelevant blurb in total, which was NOT sited in the cpasitesolutions article, reads: Fey sought help from CPAsitesolutions in hopes of attracting new clients in case she and her partner ever wanted to leave the firm. Once the site was up, she emailed existing clients to look at it and got calls from some who wanted additional services, such as bookkeeping, that they didn't know she offered. People looking for QuickBooks help on the ProAdvisor site get redirected to her site and sometimes seek tax help as well. One client alone generated $2,500 in fees.

As for NCS and Ligatt security, you clearly know nothing about internet security. You want links, how about the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch? That's right, they are the company that's BUYING Cyber Defense Systems. This is a VERY reputable company, and their NCS site is not only a recognized but respected source of high tech security news. I can't believe that you are SO clearly biased that you wouldn't even bother to Google the company before dismissing it like that. To a layman, sure, no big deal, but to anyone who really knows and understands high tech security this is a huge feather in CPA Site Solution's cap. UrKnightErrant (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrKnightErrant (talk • contribs) 21:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Please actually read the articles before forming an opinion. That is not the article cited on the CPA Site Solutions page. Although yes, we did get a couple of mentions. The article I sited for CPA Site Solutions is called Secrets of Outsourcing, same author, dated 9/1/07. It's an interview with Mike Block, a very famous accountant (I know that seems like a contradiction in terms but he's pretty close to the Brad Pitt of accountants). On the very first page of the article he recommends CPA Site Solutions as his preferred website provider along with three other companies that provide different CPA related services. This is not a passing footnote. This is an unsolicited endorsement from a recognized neutral third party. UrKnightErrant (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, with this neverending stream of replies, I got the names of the articles completely messed up. I corrected the links and restructured my previous comment to clarify my position. — Rankiri (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emochila: Keep. I have alerted the folks at that firm that the scan at http://news.emochila.com/emochila/news/index.jsp was being questioned by the community as to its legitimacy. While the San Francisco Chronicle does not archive online their articles this far back, they did find the FRONT PAGE of the paper that day, which has been included in the aforementioned link. As you can see, on the front page, bottom right, there is the reference to the Emochila article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.144.161 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Computer Output to Laser Disc. The history has been deleted because, as well as being an unnecessary content fork with no new information, it was a blatant copyright violation of its only source. ~ mazca ^talk 19:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COLD (Computer Output to Laser Disk)[edit]

No context given, no assertion of notability Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/~~merge~~. Please take another look at WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE, particularly at the part that states: "when nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist". 373 results at Google News, 177 results on Google Books, 144 results on Google Scholar and a number of immediately seen sources like this, this or this firmly indicate that the subject meets both WP:N and WP:V. The real problem with the page is that it seems to be an unintentional content fork from Computer Output to Laser Disc, and, according to WP:CFORK, pages with duplicate content must be merged. — Rankiri (talk) 23:42, 27 June 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, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It looks to be copied from the reference provided in the article, thus it appears to be a copyright violation - Dlrohrer 2003 05:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still suggest to redirect to Computer Output to Laser Disc as a possible search term. — Rankiri (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Computer Output to Laser Disc since it's a content fork. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Fui Aquella[edit]

From a contested redirection to the album article. No indication that this song meets WP:NSONGS, RadioFan (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The songs clearly fail to assert their notabililty. Redirects seem to be unhelpful according to history. There have been quite of few of these songs by Selena created recently that should face the same fate. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:04, 3 July 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, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 13:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Kiss Music[edit]

Yesterday I wikified this artile and removed advertising and POV text. But now I come to think that this article might not be notable, as there is no reason given about the achievements and importance of this label. It is more about its "star" Lugo, of whom I also cannot find any independent sources on his notability. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any chance of secondary sources for the label?Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:15, 27 June 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, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COMPANY. Google News, Google Web show no signs of significant coverage by reliable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Rankiri. Iowateen (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 13:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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