The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Even face-value consensus is in favour of Delete. And from the style of the three 'keep' comments, all single-purpose accounts, it is clear that they are all by the same person. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG Google news search only finds 3 articles on a church in a different location. and mainly directory searches and mirrored articles in Google search. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have been unable to find any reliable source coverage --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG, no independent reliable sources. Content like "God has graciously called a diverse group of people to faith in Jesus Christ" is unencyclopedic. WWGB (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, fails WP:ORG. (And lol re WWGB - I used to belong to a church of this general type and would probably not have even blinked at such an odd turn of phrase back then.) Orderinchaos 20:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. While some aspects of the article can be amended to convey a more neutral viewpoint, there are some aspects of Grace Church Kogarah that suggest notability. It is the largest multicultural protestant or charismatic church in the area with approximately 500 members. It is arguably unique in Sydney having a night service in a different language. And quite simply, if Grace Church Kogarah is not considered as notable, you'd have to go around deleting over half of the articles that are to do with churches. Best not to set a precedent in that regard eh? 60.242.181.27 (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC) — 60.242.181.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
you're basically inventing criterion for WP:ORG which this church fails. and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. and simply stating WP:ITSNOTABLE is also not valid. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. To prove notability, Grace Church Kogarah is negotiating to have a feature article in Australia's most widely distributed community newspaper, the Leader. The article will be on the appointment of a new pastor (Albert Garlando) to Grace Church. I ask that the article be kept pending this, and a hyperlink will be put on in the not too distant future. 203.31.52.131 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.52.137 (talk) [reply]
no it needs significant wide coverage, not just the Leader newspaper. To prove notability, Grace Church Kogarah is negotiating to have a feature article in Australia's most widely distributed community newspaper, the Leader. we don't ask newspapers to publish articles so it can have a WP article. that is ridiculous. in fact your comment is a full admission that the article subject lacks significant coverage and fails WP:GNG.LibStar (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and as I have stated above, the Leader is the most widely circulated community newspaper in Australia. That to me signifies significant wide coverage. I sense some non-neutrality in your statement in fact your comment is a full admission that the article subject lacks significant coverage and fails WP:GNG as Grace Church Kogarah already has notability, only that it needs to show what it already has. 203.31.52.131 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.52.137 (talk) [reply]
no it does not have notability. if it did everyone would be voting keep here. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
furthermore you are mistaken on significant coverage does not mean covering it once in a significant media outlet (eg 1 mention in New York Times does not automatically make something notable). LibStar (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. While not immediately verifiable through something such as Google News, Grace Church Kogarah is notable for being one of the largest multicultural Protestant or Charismatic churches in Sydney. Similarly to the above, deleting this article sets a dangerous precedent to delete other churches, the vast majority of which have a lower attendance or membership. Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should be used here, as that is not automatically a dud argument (see the article) and have been shown to be valid arguments for doing so in this case.122.258.156.9 (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.258.156.9 (talk) — 122.258.156.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment to closing admin. Please note that 3 single purpose editors have visited here...I suspect more may appear. LibStar (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks independent, reliable third-party sources, and agree that "negotiating" to gain coverage in suburban papers won't advance notability one iota. Murtoa (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. Recreation later if notability is established is always an option. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, contrary to above claims, numbers and multiculturalism don't confer notability. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not present notability. No reliable sources mentioning the DJ once. blurredpeace☮ 23:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. May be A7able, with no assertion of notability. No sources at all. BLP. Sceptre(talk) 23:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment moved from duplicate nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete anyway. Several nitpicky admins thought this wasn't a G3, when it's OH SO OBVIOUSLY a hoax, given that we can't even verify that this guy freaking EXISTS. What was there to contest anyway? Seriously. Some people would rather let articles rot in AFD forever and a day. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fast as possible Easily fails CSD G3 and/or A7. Fleetflame 23:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable (former?) radio personality. Sources do not mention the subject except for blog entries. No indication that this person is actually broadcasting on any radio station. It has been speedily deleted twice. Wperdue (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Felan Davidson's broadcast on BBC7 appears to have been one-off and not a regular occurrence as this article suggests, which makes me suspect the rest of the article has similar jumped-up claims. Can't find enough in Gnews to meet notability. If someone does demonstrate notability, this article needs completely re-writing, especially those gratuitous apostrophes, which should be outlawed under the Geneva Convention. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This story is not substatiated by its refs - there is a collection of self-published pages which claim importance, but the the third-party refs tell a different story (or, rather, no story at all). Couple that with the fact that the article creator has a history of introducing articles such as this (all since deleted; warnings issued) and that the article itself is a cut-and-paste copy of an autobiography, and it is becomes clear that the subject is nothing like as notable as the article would have us believe. I42 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. The author seems to write repeatedly about the same few people, including herself. I suspect the others are her friends. Her articles are speedily deleted and then she makes them again and again. She has ignored warnings. I think a block is appropriate. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable record company, no reliable sources in the article to establish notability. Web search brings up no reliable sources (I couldn't find any). Articles creator has removed CSD tags/PROD tags multiple times using the account used to make the article and an IP. Frehley 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The speedy tag was not legitimately deleted, it was an anonymous single purpose account who did it with no explanation right after the article's creator got a final warning for deleting the speedy tag. This should never have made it all the way to AFD. Also, there's no assertion of notability, and like Freshley, I found no sources in Google or Google news. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Can we get a Speedy delete for spam out of this? If not regular delete will do. DreamGuy (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable (speedy A7?) 龗 (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unnotable filmmaker/comedian. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Just an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY written by Wick himself under the account User:Juventinopw (or a fan, but seems most likely its Wick). Pro removed by new user User:Nosehillbranch without explanation and whose primary edits have been deprodding articles. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 22:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in there hints at something that would be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. IF that's that most notable they can make him sound he's clearly not. (Another deprod-only account? Color me unsurprised. At the very list tracking their edits makes it easy to ID articles that need to be AFDed.) DreamGuy (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fair enough deprod as winning a film award is a decent assertion of notability. The accolades for More Pizza Love and his award for "Most Promising Director" can certainly be sourced... but there is just nothing available in reliable sources to support his leghthy and fluffy BLP. No offense to Peter, but its time to make more than 2 films and get some press for your stand-up work. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 02:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect' to List of tallest buildings in Edmonton, if nothing else. This is a plausible search/link term, and there's an article with at least some more info about this building. I looked around Newsbank, Google news and books for sources and couldn't find anything - does this building have another, more common name? If not... the sources I found are very thin (directory listings) and just support a redirect. Generally we would keep an article on the 6th tallest building in a city the size of Edmonton, but this doesn't seem to be notable despite its height - nobody seems to have written much about this building at all. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on List of tallest buildings in Edmonton , a building this size is very significant in that city. A search in local print sources would yield material. DGG (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on you to actually show that material exists, though... "a search in local print sources" might yield material on my cat but that speculation doesn't justify an article on him. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of tallest buildings in Edmonton. There is no indication that this building has any signifcant architectural merit or awards or other attributes to distinguish it for individual notability. Being the sixth tallest building in a city where the buildings aren't all that tall to begin with would lead one to surmise that there is likely very little to be written about the building that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete (subject to change) as non notable unless adequate sourcing can be found. While the occasional vehicle can be notable, they are the exception rather then the rule. The series the vehicle is from isn't that well known in comparison to other shows, so while there may be reliable sources to prove notability, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume they are going to be very hard to find. I did a quick google search purely to see if there were any potential leads on the "mainstream" sites. The best I could find was an unreliable section of Anime News Network claiming that its based on a real life aircraft [1]. While the source itself isn't useable (while ANN's news, reviews and columns are reliable, it's encyclopedia is not as its user edited), it may provide a lead to find a verifiable, reliable source. If such a source can be provided, I may consider changing to keep, but this will depend on the source and any attempts to improve the article. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Dandy Sephy on this one, who has laid out the arguments well. Redirect to Stratos 4 (as possible obscure search term) until and unless sources proving its notability are found. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dandy Sephy and laugh at lame addition of the ((rescue)) tag to the article. Since we don't have a notability guideline for fictional objects, we have to fall back onto the general notability guideline. And although Mania.com extensively reviewed the series, they made no mention of this fictional aircraft. --Farix (Talk) 00:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect Fictional vehicle or Fictional character = same fight. It required RS Third party coverage. Unless proved otherwise there is none specific to this vehicle in available reviews. --KrebMarkt 06:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable, this information might be useful in its parent article, if it can be sourced. --Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib) 07:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. Notice was removed without improvement to article, and with claim of "removing errors." I found no sources related to this, articles creator has a clear conflict of interest. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as a great example of why we need speedy deletion for WP:NN fiction.
Right, thanks. One of these days I'll learn to sign my posts. I'm such a noob. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no results found on google or amazon searches. (should be speedy delete). Martin451 (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, there should at least be a speedy category for unpublished works, which this seems to fit. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in OCLC WorldCat, and the author not there either. The reason we do not have speedy for books is that this needs to be actually checked; I have seen equally bad articles for books that do in fact turn outto be notable--even to have won major prizes and been in the higher category of famous, and get nominated for deletion without anyone checking. .DGG (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search for "Selandra Chronicles" turns up absolutely no links whatsoever aside from wikipedia using Google, and Yahoo. Even self-published books can manage to get better search results. This is completely unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable alumni association. Deprodded with the addition of a source about a different alumni association at the school. Abductive (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little third party coverage [2]. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CORP is the standard we go by for organizations. Their only claim to notability is a lawsuit that they brought against the college, which had a NYT article, but that's it. -- Atamachat 21:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - No indication of notability. Being a coach for other people does not suggest any notability, a notability is not inherited. Speedy probably should have gone through. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can confirm she is a working choreographer as noted by the International Skating Union infromation about Ivana REITMAYEROVA and Peter REITMAYER. And considering she is the choreographer for a couple of skaters competing at the international level, she's probably pretty good at it. But there are no reliable sources writing about her to indicate that this choreogrpahy work is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual does not appear notable. rmosler (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability of a single note character, I mean when have disrupting an Olympic Torch Ceremony made a person notable, plus TV and all other media appearances relates to the protest. This creator will need to bear in mind WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Donnie Park (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Chan is very notable for her activist role in Hong Kong and she is controversial figure in Hong Kong. By searching her Chinese name "陳巧文" the keyword in Google, at least the first ten pages are completely about her (Google search; the top search results for "Christina Chan" and "Chan Hau Man" are also largely related her). It is not only about single event of torch relay. Other aspects includes about her stand on Tibetan issue, her initiative action demanding the deposition of the president of HKU student union for his speech of June 4. Macau government has refused her from entering Macau because of her being activist. In the previous deletion nomination, it is about single event. But this reason cannot be applied to this deletion. There is no reason that the topic is not notable and this deletion nomination is questionably a kind of abuse using "Notability". — HenryLi (Talk) 07:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Donnie Park that this person does not meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria now. Rosa Parks is an example of someone that over time because notable for activist work. But it is not something that can be achieved in the short term by the nature of the way that the notabily in this area is gained. It takes many years of hard work to reach the level of activism to warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. Premature media attention is an artifact of the type of work that she does since gaining media exposure is part of her work. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out which part she does not meet notability? Notability guideline does not relies on length of works. The topic is not about one event. (Protest in Olympic torch relay, Suspension of account, Privacy by Facebook in April and May 2008; Refuse of entrance by Macau Government on June 2008; Protest in Olympic event in August 2008; Television programmes about cyber-bullying in December 2008 and February 2009; HKU incident in April 2009) Multiple events are sourced by newspapers, magazine, television of independent sources. She is a public and controversial figure who is widely known in Hong Kong and partly in China. She is also an icon of young activist in Hong Kong and frequently asked for comments and reviews in media (Recent comments on the June 4 Massacre / Incident (Apple Daily, a Chinese newspaper, 5th June 2009)). — HenryLi (Talk) 05:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will point it out to you, WP:NOTNEWS and yes she is primarily notable for only one event which is the torch relay disruption, these links such as the TV shows relates to it, especially the cyberbullying and yes I watched them (though I am not a Chinese, therefore my language skills are non-existent) before making my final consideration to nominate this for AFD, plus why being refused entry makes a person notable, as that reason obviously relates to that disruption. I'm sure any government the believes that some individual who is going to come to a country to be disruptive is bound to be refused entry, am I right.
To answer your clain that she is also an icon of young activist in Hong Kong - this translates as WP:ILIKEIT and where is the source to claim it if you disagree. What other third party sources makes her notable, other than that tabloid link you gave me (Apple Daily is indeed a tabloid paper) and as for that link, how are we going to read that, all I'm getting is a blank page.
Personally I don't feel anything to do with Facebook make her notable, plus any business to do with HKU is too trivial to count as notable as well, also I watched that program part just (the English one of course) and all it does is relates to the Olympic Torch relay which is considered as WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, I'm sure that Chinese version is as well, but then Kong Kong is a small country (I used to live and worked there for a year). IMO, that August disruption is trivial to that of Neil Horan (disrupting a Formula One race and the Olympic Marathon both on live broadcast) or as an activist, to that of Ms Parks like FloNight said. Also condiser Swampy, who is notable through a number of media appearances.
The bottom line is, all these references relates as just that single event that got shot down at a quick flick of a switch and that is disrupting a Olympic torch relay, personally what you said will not make me change my opinion. Donnie Park (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
PS, the first 10 ghits are blogs, and links to Chinese Wikipedias, so is that valid.
Keep. The sources in the article, plus others found by Google News, show pretty obvious notability for more that one event. I must say that I'm disturbed by the fact that an arbitrator, of all people, is trying to get this deleted against the obvious evidence of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person is involved in multiple incident. Also, she is well known in HK. --RayYung (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the idea that her activism can be added to other pages in Wikipedia, so I considered voting to merge. But instead of deciding to vote merge in this discussion, I think that the article should be deleted and a discussion should be started on the appropriate talk pages about whether a concise statement about her activism should be included in the other articles. Unfortunately, voting to merge has procedural and process implications that make the situation confusing. Often the material is already covered in other articles. Additionally, since many people will not agree that the precise wording of the contributions on this page should be added to the other pages, I've come to think that voting to delete and then restarting the discussion works better. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is notable for more than one event. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 12:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Go on, list them all, other than those I already mentioned (such as the August Olympic disruption, which is trivial), don't forget how many local papers are there in HK, and from what I know any old crap gets put into the news such as Apple Daily (because I flicked through it once). I still don't think the cyberbully makes her notable, even if it was shown on TV, neither being refused entry to Macau does or even HKU. Donnie Park (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's Fox News on the disruption of the torch relay, this is Time Magazine writing about the subject's protest during the Olympics, and here we have the BBC's coverage of her campaign to oust the Students' Union president. That's three events, and hardly local coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you mind to check, all of the abovementioned events have reached "significant coverage in reliable sources". Phil Bridger has given a few examples. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 04:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what both of you are talking about, I did not ask for trivial sources, what I asked for is what is so notable about these trivial claims of notability. Donnie Park (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How are the sources that I linked above trivial? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage to meet the notability guideline and agree with those arguing above that it was for several events so it is not a One Event bio. Davewild (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as what the non said Is this debate was to end as keep, it just shows how low Wikipedia has come. is this a way to claim notability, you gotta be a attention whore & go to some event where anything involving the Chinese are present and disrupt it, get Tibet involved - with some looks and go whining to the press (like she did on the shows) and your fanbase will give you a Wikipedia page of your own— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.241.156 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-24 11:20:03
Comment. Anyone, registered or not, can take part in AfD discussions, which are not votes. The closing admin will judge how much weight to give the above unregistered editor's comments according to how well grounded they are in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to be honest I would rather withdraw this nomination than allow it to proceed on. After reading the WP:BLP guidelines, the moral of this is ... go and disrupt a peaceful procession to seek attention, involve sensitive human rights issue that will make you noticed, dressed semi-naked and when arrested, sunsequently harrassed (by those who disagree with you), go start a crybaby mentality at the media. Repeat this over and over again, get some press to throw their weight behind your back (which is no difficult even for a small country) and you will get yourself a Wikipedia article in no time (that is my advice for those who want a Wikipedia BLP article of themselves), at the end of the day all I was trying to do is rid Wikipedia of junk that it is plagued with. Chris Crocker gor his with that crybaby mentality, so has Neil Horan who got his by disrupting a major sport event twice. Donnie Park (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I did not vote in this AfD, but let me point this out - whether or not a person is notable really is irrelevant to how the person became notable. WP notability guidelines are designed so that, as much as possible, it does not put itself in a position to judge whether or not the actions of an individual qualifies him or her as notable. It tries to leave that job to the media. You may think that despite media coverage, the quality of Christina Chan's actions do not grant her notability, but another WP editor may disagree. WP's guidelines are supposed to help us avoid these disagreements when we use the quality and amount of media coverage a person received, instead of the quality of the person's actions. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that Donnie Park refers to WP:BLP in the comments above, but then goes on to accuse the article subject of acting with the motivation of getting a Wikipedia article written about her (can anyone really believe that she was thinking of Wikipedia when she was making her protests?), and to call people "cry-babies", without any supporting evidence. Those accusations are blatant violations of WP:BLP (which applies to discussion pages as well as articles), rather than anything in this article. I had always thought that Lenin had coined a good phrase for people who try to get articles such as this deleted, but it seems, from reading the Wikipedia article about that phrase, that he never actually said it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination: what with just saying that I do not wish to carry on with any argument there and would like to decalre this nomination withdrawn. Donnie Park (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non Admin Closure -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find sources that aren't wikipedia mirrors. Is the name misspelled (should be Anjaneyulu ?). Neither return anything I can find here. Guess I missed it. Should close the AfD. There have been some questionable redirects and direct page copies that need to be dealt with, but that can be done outside of here. Shadowjams (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a little sleuthing, he usually went by C.S.R. Anjaneyulu. He very clearly meets all of the criteria for WP:ENT as he starred in many (over 175) Telugu films from the early 1930s to the 1960s, one of the classic stars of the Tollywood screen. That can be shown just by seeing what links to his page (I added the links), several of his individual films already have entries that mention him as starring plus the lists of Telugu films include him multiple times. There are plenty of references using C.S.R. Anjeneyulu but most of them should be in Telugu, sorry, I don't do Dravidian languages, someone else will have to check and also link to articles on the other language Wikipedias if they exist. Drawn Some (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's actually an icon in Telugu cinema, I'm surprised that he's getting a page only now, I'll find and add refs to the article today. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be more difficult than I thought, I've only found two more WP:RS refs in addition to what Drawn Some has already found, but they are starring references and not bio refs. Mostly because neither The Hindu nor The Indian Express have online archives prior to the late 90s or ealy 00s. I'll poke around more over the weekend and edit the page then, there's got to be something for this guy. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added more refs and cleaned up a bit. Since none of the passers by have closed this AfD yet, I'm doing so. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable character in later Dune series, has treatment far in excess of what could be considered encyclopedic. Has two mentions in book reviews see here, but these mentions are insufficient in my opinion. Abductive (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect/merge to article with info on Dune characters specifically for the prequels, if such a thing exists. DreamGuy (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note: Article has been moved to List of Battlefield Vietnam Weapons, because it is a list and the title of the game was transcribed incorrectly. Greg Tyler(t • c) 22:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Attempting to equate this title (movie) with the earlier one (film) is encyclopedically unnecessary. A merge is inappropriate as the earlier film exists and this one does not, and may never do so. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 12:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Badly violates WP:NFF. All information given is pure speculation, bordering on deliberate misinformation: Whedon has explicitly denied (penultimate paragraph) any involvement. Hqb (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Hqb (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The year is not 2012, I have no idea why so many users cannot get WP:NFF. Delete, as the infobox even has "rumored" above the cast. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Rumors all over the blogosphere, but facts and reliable sources are virtually non-existent. Nothing useful in this article that could benefit from being merged into other Buffy-related articles either. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another reason to write WP:SLOBBERINGFANBOY. People will wet their pants over the first little scrap of information they find. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:Notability (films) because it hasn't been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography. TheLeftorium 21:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too soon for an article about a film that is stil indevelopment and rumour stage. Might justify a metion on the Buffy page, but nthing more until there is something more certain. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 21:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film) (i.e. the article on the 1992 movie), because, duh. Some of the above contributors really should know better than to !vote delete on a search term as plausible as this.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 23:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the existence of the movie has been denied by the putative director, and a search on Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Movie will surely land on Buffy the Vampire Slayer without a rd. JJL (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you're missing here, JJL, is that a very notable movie of Buffy the Vampire Slayer exists. It was filmed in 1992 and the TV programme is a spinoff of it. And it has its own Wikipedia article.
I think it's a bit of a no-brainer that a search for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Movie" should take you directly to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film)", to be honest.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 11:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a search for Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Movie (no quotes) takes you first to the page under discussion, of course, but the next hit is Buffy Summers. This project is alluded to in the first section there (Appearances/Film), and the original film is linked there too. That's reasonable. JJL (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the article's over-reliance on rumors. If anything, without Whedon's backing this project will be stuck in lawsuit hell for years anyways. Nate•(chatter) 02:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least since shooting hasn't yet started. Project appears to be in early stages of development anyway, as duly noted above. Worth mentioning at other pertinent articles, provided that it's verified of course. Cliff smithtalk 01:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn — Jack Merridew 05:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure of this one. It states the BLP is a renowned poet. No sources to confirm as per WP:V. — DædαlusContribs 19:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I withdraw.— DædαlusContribs 22:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. Google News search reveals few English language sources, and I cannot read Spanish to see whether or not any of them are legitimate. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely keep Was there any attempt to find sources? Many, if not most, articles start out without sources. A cursory glance in Google books shows several hundred hits. Google Scholar shows around 150 hits. Perhaps the nominator should try to verify these sorts of things, rather than nominating an article after three minutes. AniMatedraw 21:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I usually don't, but I will for now on. Withdrawn.— DædαlusContribs 22:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per precedent at WP:USRD/NT, county routes usually are not notable. This one is only a very short one, just like another currently at AFD. Yes, I'm aware that it's a GA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of highways in Warren County, New York per NE2. The only relevant part of the history is better suited for I-87; also, the route passes through incredibly rural areas; how anyone milked three paragraphs out of it is astounding. – TMF 19:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Concur with NE2. --Polaron | Talk 19:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has well-sourced history section, besides other information, that would overload another unrelated article if merged. Numbered routes are usually notable. Sebwite (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history section talks about the I-87 interchange, and then rambles on about how the FHWA made an error in their database and how melting salts have environmental impacts. The other information is basically a list of curves and intersections. --NE2 22:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - "outstanding" considering this road is so short and just goes through the woods. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm abstaining as I don't think I can be impartial. But would like to point out that the aside from the I-87 stuff, the rest of this article applies to highways in general, not this specific highway. Environmental issues with road salt is a worldwide problem. (what does it say about the effort put into this GA if nobody even checked for synonyms of melting salt) Also errors in highway databases are the norm, not a notable mention. The Federal Highway Administration is tasked with trying to document an ever changing network of hundreds of thousands of roads. Many roads have a complicated history ranging from segments that existed before the American revolution, to segments dedicated just this morning. It's trivially easy to see how outdated or incorrect information makes it's way into those logs.Dave (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some WikiProjects notability guideline is not a reason to delete an article. This stands up well on its own, well sourced, notable. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the inclusionists have made their appearance here as well... This article does not at all assert why an unsigned, backwoods county road deserves an article. The vast majority of the history relates more to I-87 than this road, and the remainder of the history either does nothing to prove why the route is notable or contains trivial database errors. And if you're going to tell me some article on a local issue about melting salts makes a highway notable, then this site is going to hell in a handcart faster than I thought it was. – TMF 16:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an inclusionist, and I think this is too much to include... --NE2 01:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently well-sourced, and notable in part for being the cause of an apparently significant environmental problem, affecting the water quality of Lake George, a large and important body of water (whose cold waters also happen to preserve America's oldest intact warship). If road salt on ring roads or other nearby highways is a major contributing problem for the water quality of previously pristine Lake Baikal or Lake Tahoe, and there is documentation in reliable sources, that would support the notability of those roads as well. In almost all other areas of the world the use of road salt is unknown or its use causes less significant, perhaps negligible, environmental problems. doncram (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the relatively few cases where country roads are notable. It seems to be in fact a fairly major road. DGG (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realize this is just a long exit ramp that the state doesn't want to maintain any more. The bulk of the history in the article doesn't even focus on the actual roadway. --Polaron | Talk 15:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call that an accurate description, since it existed before I-87. --NE2 19:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe this counts as a major county road, see Clark County Route 215 for a major county road.Dave (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge — per the comments and reasoning given by NE2, Dave and TMF, this article doesn't warrant a separate article. If this did, then every exit ramp deserves an article. Honestly, the road that my grandma lives on shows up on aerial maps/photos. It connects her driveway to the main road, and except for a period when her neighbors on the corner had a mobile home in their backyard facing the side road, my grandma's house is the only address on the road. Does that mean her street and driveway which continues from it, deserve an article as "a major connector for a residential area in location"? Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only claim to fame is a self-released CD, a host of red link awards, and (not mentioned) a spot on Nashville Star. Seems borderline, but doesn't quite pass WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Some notability can be ascertained from quite a few Google News hits, many of which are of reasonable quality. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's gotten some media attention, and is notable enough to have an article. He did get signed to a record deal with Little Engine Records, and we just need to try to create some articles on his albums or something. That's all i can say for now. Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to agree with the nominator. He hasn't charted an album or single, not a major label, not nominated/won an important award (Grammy, etc.). Maybe some other time, but right now, I'm on the fence. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did the best i can on this article, and it shouldn't be deleted just for not being good enough. What if we were to delete this article, and then about a week later he appears on the charts? How hard do you expect an article to be worked on before it can be considered good enough? We're all just human beings, and not robots! Do do, do do de doo! Respond: Please don't delete this article! Message over. Be boo boo bop! Ryanbstevens (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just doesn't seem notable at the moment. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering he is touring as the opening act with Toby Keith and Trace Adkins, he has some notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.35.210 (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has a video that aired on CMT Pure Country. We have articles on artists that haven't charted a single, and deleting this article is just not really the best way to go, especially if the artist has been signed to a label (size doesn't matter), and has at least one music video aired, which is the video for "Dollar Ain't Worth a Dime". Again, this article does not deserve to be deleted. The way that this article is being criticized, we should rename Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia to Cruelopedia: The cruel encyclopedia, no offense, as i actually like being on Wikipedia, but some of the rules just seem a little ridiculous. Anyway, what i'm trying to say here is keep this article. He does have some notability. He may not have been notable earlier this year, but he has been signed to a label, and so that means that we should keep this article. Ryanbstevens (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the nomination, a couple sources have been added. I'm still not very convinced on the notability, but it's just barely a weak keep to me now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as vandalism/nonsense, and salted. BencherliteTalk 18:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a real thing? Nsaa (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's nonsense, and has already been deleted several times. JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus, with no prejudice against renomination due to irregularities in the process. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is wrote like an advert and has no clear citations it could also be submitted the article creator has a COI //Melonite (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet requirements for notability. JNW (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Article lacks 3rd party citations establishing notability. The Tribune India article has only incidental mention of the software, and is instead about an award reception. None of the other cites are neutral 3rd party info. Dialectric (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if deleted, redirect to Kayako Saeki, as the ghost Kayako from The Grudge is almost certainly the thing people in the English speaking world think of (or "Kayako" as a Japanese name, then referring to the ghost) 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the person who talk has cited as the major contributor with a potential COI. I am a Kayako customer, which I don't think gives me a COI. I a bias maybe, but not a COI. I do not think my bias is reflected in the article, either. I've put enough time into the article, I've tried to clean it up as talk suggested. Hatter87 (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep <--- for what it is worth ;-) Hatter87 (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete - Article seems biased and like an advert BigDaveo (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with this many desks out there how can it not be a notable vendor? http://www.google.com/search?q="by+kayako" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.110.56 (talk • contribs)
Given that two anonymous IPs have come out of retirement to comment on this & the accusation of sock puppetry, I'd like to remind everyone that this is not a vote. --Karnesky (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep and cleanup. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listing of channels is un-notable so is the listing of pricing of said channels. Reads like an advert , has no real encyclopedic value. suggest delete Talk to Magibon 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This belongs on Astro's website, not Wikipedia. We are not a tv channel directory. I feel for the editor who put all the work into those tables but still. The red links in the template at the bottom of the page portend related AfDs. Drawn Some (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't TV Guide, and shouldn't try to be. --John Nagle (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Channel lineups for a national-level service are notable as they are part of the country's infrastructure and are illustrative of the programming available. Such lists are very useful when there is breaking news at the international level, when coordinating with people in various countries, i.e. "Can you get XYZ specialized network on channel 837?". If this was a cable service serving one particular town that would be a different story. The pricing can go as we don't generally cover pricing. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Other satellite companies have channel lists on Wikipedia -- why can't this one? -- azumanga (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, people might start citing an essay called OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, even though I'd feel that coverage of this topic should be uniform throughout the world. But the point is the list is useful to people outside of Malaysia for a variety of reasons such as keeping up with foreign news or the study of worldwide media markets. The encylopedic value of having these lists on wiki instead of simply linking to a corporate site is that they can be woven into the fabric of Wikipedia and can be grouped into regional categories such as DBS providers in East Asia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keeep the list; remove the pricing. This is very far from the meaning of TV guide, which would be an frequently updated current list of the programs on all of them. DGG (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean-up; I've already removed the pricing info (which I agree SHOULD remain on their own site), but the channel listing does have an encyclopedic use for the study and research of worldwide television broadcasting. The channel list would be better served if it were placed in full numeric order however. --mhking (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merely a summary of a non-exceptional speech. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. (Prod was removed). ZimZalaBimtalk 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should be kept because its about a speech by the President of the United states. It is therefore encyclopedic. I added it to [[Category:Speeches by Barack Obama]], [[Category:WikiProject Economics]], and [[Category:WikiProject Barack Obama]].I also added ((Expand)) to the top of the page, but ZimZalaBim removed that template. The speech was on improving the regulation of the financial industry. Financial institutions were selling bad mortgages back and forth to each other like a game of hot potato, and it almost caused a world-wide economic depression. If the speech wasn't good, maybe Zim would like to add a section to the article proving why people think so. If people are saying, "why didn't the president mention the impossibly high cost of housing?" That could expand the article. In other words, why should I do all the expanding? The article was started to qualify an item for nomination for In the news on the main page. There are several other articles on Obama speeches. If it's kept it's there for people to work on. --Chuck Marean 17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The president gives speeches almost every day, they aren't automatically notable. In fact, most speeches aren't notable unless they have some kind of long-lasting impact (like the I Have a Dream speech). TJSpyke 20:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any coverage of the speech itself and a summary of a speech is not is not an encyclopaedia article. It might be possible to reference the speech in the context of Obama's stance/policies on financial regulation somewhere in Political positions of Barack Obama. Guest9999 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Chuck, those allude to the speech, but they aren't articles about the speech. This is just one of thousands of speeches Obama has and will give. There is nothing inherently notable about it (heck, even Bush's speech after 9/11 doesn't have its own article, only being referenced here). You admit above "The article was started to qualify an item for nomination for In the news on the main page" -- that's hardly a good reason to create articles about random speeches. --ZimZalaBimtalk 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources aren't about the speech, one doesn't even mention it - they are about Obama's position. Guest9999 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to Political positions of Barack Obama - until more useful information is added, and then split out as needed. IMHO, this doesn't seem to be important enough to be its own article. --Explodicle(T/C) 19:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or not... but where?). This isn't notable enough to stand alone. Even if it could pass the formal general notability test, I don't think it's encyclopedic to have a separate article for every speech by Obama that makes the press. I guess that means it would fail WP:NOT#NEWS. However, if there is useful material it could be merged into a more general article about Obama's financial regulation initiative or an even more general article about his economic recovery plans / efforts / legislation / acts. Obama and members of his administration have been making speeches, issuing statements, and conducting meetings to sell various parts of these plans to legislators and the public, and this speech could be placed in the context of those efforts in an article where they fit. The "Presidency of..." and "Political positions of..." articles are too general for this to be worth mentioning there, for weight reasons. Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every speech given by a president is necessarily notable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have said, every speech is not notable. I don't think many people in future years will come looking for an article about it. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on the actual regulatory reform will be notable. An article on a speech, suggesting the need for regulatory reform, is not --Daviessimo (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be notable, and I'm not sure I believe you're all different people. The article is to help give background for a current events sentence I wrote about the speech. The speech began a debate on Capital Hill about changing the way the United States regulates the financial industry. Somebody might have the time to expand the article, based on the many news articles about the speech. You will notice I did not put my two cents into the article. I simply quickly summarized the speech and follow-up article I noticed the next day. Deleting it wouldn't give it a chance to be expanded. Since there is a category for Obama's speeches, that is another reason to keep it. I probably won't be working on it anymore myself. If it is merged, it might go into an article about the financial regulation changes, which would effect the world's economy.--Chuck Marean 10:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Notability guideline strongly suggests that all articles cover notable topics. The existence of a category is not a reason to keep everything it contains; for example, Category:Plays does not justify the wholesale inclusion of all plays. --Explodicle(T/C) 13:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't level accusations of sockpuppetry ("I'm not sure I believe you're all different people") at other editors, even obliquely. 76.229.236.193 (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It doesn't need to be notable" Yes it does. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then maybe it's as notable as the others because of it's subject. Conserning "sockpuppetry," I read an article that said some people favor it. I don't because it would be too much work. That anyone would want to delete the article on that speech rather than work on it I find sort of non-wiki, especially when there are several other articles on speeches of his, and he hasn't been president very long. Also, as far as starting an article to provide background on a current event, I notice that others do that all the time. For example, articles on California Wildfire drops. Those seem to be written as the events occurred, and I suppose there are similar articles on the fall of the World Trade center. How such current events articles are so wordy is a mystery. One Obama speech article I skimmed I think had a sections on reactions to the speech and so forth. The catigory of Obama speeches gave me the idea to start an article on that speech. I was simply looking for an article to update, because I was going to nominate the news about the speech because it was about changing the financial regulatory system and possible the nature of American free enterprize. There are plenty of articles here that are written slowly online by several random users, and I've read articles that favor that. --Chuck Marean 08:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the text is available from the horse's mouth (the White House webpage). Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There'll be an article on every time he goes to the toilet next. Nick mallory (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is Wikipedia, not the database of everything President Obama says. I'm of course assuming it refers to President Obama of the United States and talking about the US financial industry, though it doesn't say that. Canterbury Tailtalk 20:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - why are we even wasting bandwidth on this— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.139.10 (talk • contribs)
Don't worry about performance. If this article is removed, it should be purely because of the subject matter. --Explodicle(T/C) 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus in either direction. Being in many libraries and being well-known in certain circles are not a reasons to keep. Being poorly sourced in itself is not a reason to delete, when sources do actually exist. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not WP:Notable. No sources cited in article. It also seems like self-promotion. Interestingly enough a Google news archive search for "Edward Cline Sparrowhawk" (that's the name of his book series) shows a couple of local stories about book signings and a letter to the Wall Street Journal by a fan. Borock (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Publishers Weekly has reviewed Cline's books (some favorably, some not) as quoted on Amazon pages. The publisher's website also quotes Kirkus, but this may be only a brief mention. Cline and his Sparrowhawk books are well known in Objectivist circles. ReverendWayne (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By my understanding of WP notability he has to be discussed himself in secondary sources, not just have his books reviewed and bought by libraries.Northwestgnome (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cline appears to meet two criteria of WP:AUTHOR (multiple independent reviews, works in libraries) either of which should suffice. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the criteria you are referring to:
"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
"The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries."
His books seem to be historical novels written for young readers. Such are always in demand by public libraries, but I don't think that makes him notable as an author. There is also no evidence given that his books are "significant or well-known."Borock (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' — Per above. The fact that this article is poorly sourced does not mean it should be deleted. LaszloWalrus (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Its only claim to notability is historical significance, and that is precisely what has not been settled in this AfD. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not assert why the route is notable. Consensus (see WP:USRD/NT) is that intracounty county routes are not notable and precedent (WP:USRD/P) is that intracounty routes that do not assert why they are notable will be deleted. In terms of this article, the history that is given has little to do with the road itself and doesn't explain why the highway is notable - it reads more like a history of Marcellus than it does the history of a highway within it. I am aware this passed Good Article; however, GA does not factor in notability in its evaluation of articles, so its GA status should not be a factor in whether this article is kept or deleted. – TMF 16:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've learned in the past that GA's can be deleted. Indeed, this article tells us very little about the route itself and more about Marcellus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a county route (by consensus deemed to be not notable as a general rule) that contains only a dry description of the alignment and some snippets of the designation history. It has some history of street names that don't really relate to "CR 236" except that CR 236 was assigned to those streets. --Polaron | Talk 17:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marcellus (town), New York without a redirect as this is an unlikely search term. The information is significant within the context of that article. Drawn Some (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a list of county routes for Onondaga County, this route should be merged into that list. Since that article does not exist, we should temporarily place the information in Marcellus (town), New York as this road does not warrant an individual article. Dough4872 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a road article person but if that kind of article is considered appropriate then just move this one to that title. It would be a very incomplete list but oh well. Drawn Some (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable per precedent, and fails WP:IINFO; we don't need a turn-by-turn description of every road, trail, and path in the U.S. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is a well sourced article that meets WP:N, sod the individual wikiproject guidelines. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please show where this establishes notability. – TMF 19:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." - check the references section. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only coverage that actually relates to CR 236 itself are DOT quadrangles (that doesn't make anything notable - every CR in the state is shown on them) and a human interest story. – TMF 19:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, history section establishes notability, and to Juliancolton, no articles are inherently unnotable. --Aqwis (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said they were; I simply pointed out that this article, as an unremarkable county route, likely does not satisfy notability requirements. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's bull. How does pointing out the origins of road names make a road notable? When this route's article shows the kind of notability New York State Route 104 does, then we can talk. – TMF 19:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"We can talk" when this article meets the general notability criteria, WP:N, which it does now - it has received "significant coverage" in reliable sources such as The Post-Standard. You may also find that the history section does not only "point out the origins of road names". --Aqwis (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So anytime any local road is discussed in a newspaper it automatically becomes "notable"? Wow... – TMF 19:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And half of the history does point out the origins of road names. The third paragraph is a long-winded way of saying CR 236 was assigned by 1989. The fourth has some detail of a proposed widening in 2003, but readers are left wondering if it was ever performed. Overall... horrible article. – TMF 19:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Overall... horrible article." - then improve it, not delete it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I if I don't think it should exist? – TMF 20:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Jenuk said, its being a "horrible article" (I must agree that it should not have been promoted to GA status) does not matter. It has received significant coverage in reliable sources (independent of the subject) and that's really the only thing that matters. --Aqwis (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that the county highway designation has not received significant coverage independent of the subject. --Polaron | Talk 20:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant" is subjective. Two articles about the road that CR 236 happens to be assigned on sure as hell ain't significant to me. – TMF 20:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is significant as long as CR 236 is actually assigned to that road, which it currently is and is likely to be in the future. --Aqwis (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CR 236 is the internal designation by the county but everyone should be aware that this is not a signed route. Many locals might not even know that these particular set of streets is "CR 236". --Polaron | Talk 21:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have no interest in the deletion discussion, I do take offense to the claim that the article should not have passed a GA review. As the reviewer, I looked through the article several times to ensure that it met the GA criteria. Notability is a separate issue, unrelated to the GA process. If you can identify a reason that the article should not have been promoted to a GA, please let me know. Otherwise, your comment is groundless and insulting. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is for the streets themselves not for the entity known as "CR 236" and is better discussed in the community article. --Polaron | Talk 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced article. Meets WP:N in my opinion. Killiondude (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those arguing keep, please link to the sources that allow County Route 236 to pass the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numbered routes are usually notable. A google search has turned up some seemingly reliable sources. Sebwite (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a suitable list article, Merge to Marcellus (town), New York or Delete. Although the sources show verifiability, this does not automatically make it notable enough - from WP:N ""Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article." (emphasis mine). The specific notability guidelines at Wikipedia:USRD/NT#Secondary state highways and_county highways state that (paraphrased) "Few county roads are notable enough for their own article. It is imperative when writing about such a highway that notability is clearly demonstrated". Nothing in this article, or this deletion discussion, demonstrates that this road is notable outside the town it's located in - indeed there is some debate about whether it is notable even at that level. Thryduulf (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability guidelines at Wikipedia:USRD/NT#Secondary state highways and_county highways also state that those that are notable include "roads with other special historical significance". To me, it seems that a road that exhibits such a variety of town history (the historic presence of gypsies, wooded character of the area before clearing and the tenacity of the settlers in clearing it (Stump Road), the geological features of the area (Limeledge Road), etc. is notable enough for inclusion. I certainly enjoyed/valued reading explanations of the names of these roads. I drive this area often, and will certainly go get some pictures to add to the article should it be kept. Lvklock (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a wonderful argument for merging it into the article about the local area. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like there will now be another good local editor, alert to potential improvements of the article, probably a Syracuse newspaper reader. Lvklock has added pics to road articles before, and has done pics and writing for many NRHP and other historic sites articles. I think this is good reason for Keeping, that there is positive local editor support which will likely address all the complaints here in this AfD. doncram (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many reliable sources cited here. While all might not be in-depth, WP:N states "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." If there was just once source, say the NYDOT, then I wouldn't think this passes WP:N. But the multiple reliable sources combined demonstrate inclusion worthiness. --Oakshade (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I repeat my request: For those arguing keep, please link to the sources that allow County Route 236 to pass the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, internet hyperlinks to sources are not required by WP:N to demonstrate notability. Print sources are just as valid. Secondly, as per my argument, the sheer number of sources (many that are linked in the article) demonstrate notability per WP:N.--Oakshade (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please elucidate which sources that are linked in the article prove notability, and which print sources prove this road's notability? Cunard (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find the sources, even maps which are reliable sources, linked in the article valid and I consider it pointless to cut and paste them here.--Oakshade (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google/Yahoo-generated-maps do not establish notability. Google Maps and Yahoo! Maps show maps of many, many locations, but Wikipedia is not a directory. After looking through the sources in the references section, I cannot find any reliable sources in the article that mention County Route 236 in depth. Again, please link to the sources which do establish notability. Cunard (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion that maps are not reliable sources is noted. I believe they are. Nobody is claiming they are "in-depth" coverage of the topic, but they do confirm the content and the sheer number of them, along with the other sources cited in the article, do establish notability per WP:N. Any more reqeusts for links to be typed into this AfD will be ignored as my response has been already stated, twice.--Oakshade (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maps are not inherently reliable or unreliable sources. It's better perhaps to think of them as primary or secondary, and remember that most of these are road maps intended for driver navigation, not researching the history of a road. Most maps are primary sources, including the ones in this article. One has to take great care in citing primary sources... especially non-prose ones, and it doesn't seem that care has been taken here, in several places the article draws original conclusions based on the maps. If nothing else this sort of primary-source interpreting research is not something I'd consider part of a good encyclopedia article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My driveway is shown on Google Maps. Perhaps my driveway is notable? –Juliancolton | Talk 17:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coming soon from the writers of the CR 236 article, "Julian Colton's driveway has black asphalt and clearly a few potholes, indicating he should get it resurfaced. Further down the road, there is a gravel driveway leading to a red-doored garage. As Red is the color of the local sports team, it's likely he's a fan. A 1998 satellite photo reveals the garage didn't exist then, so perhaps the owner became a fan during the intervening period." And if there were an inline citation after every sentence, it would pass GA sweeps... --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, your inability to provide even one source that establishes notability per WP:N concerns me. As seen in the AfD cited by TenPoundHammer, the closing admin placed little weight on votes that did not provide quality references. My simple request was for you to find sources that established notability so that I could vote keep. Your refusal to do so does not help the case of this article.
I have read through this article and have been unable to see the notability of this road. A Google News Archive search returns no results about this road, while a Google search returns no reliable sources. As a result, my vote is delete this article which is full of original research and which lacks suitable sources to conduct a merge. Cunard (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lvklock. Appears notable to me, it will get pictures soon, and I expect more documentation will emerge with more local wikipedia editor awareness now, who might get access to who knows what printed documentation at the Marcellus town library and so on. I believe that the main original editor of the article is not local, because I noticed in the past that he asked Lvklock to help with pictures of other roads in the area. It can only get better now. doncram (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also have a pic of Limeledge Road (CR 236A) and Glover Street (CR 236C) from a trip to Syracuse in May. Now, being this is my article, this is really hard to say what my decision is. The irony of this AFD compared to County Route 35 (Warren County, New York), which is also at AFD, is strange.Mitch/HC32 15:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently important highway--some country highways are, some are not. DGG (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is this particular one is not one the the important ones. It is not even signed. --Polaron | Talk 15:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete the vast majority of this article is sourced to stuff people saw on maps on webpages (primary sources in this case)... which is an absurd way to write an encyclopedia article. As far as I can tell there are three non-map sources that actually mention this road... one gives the origin of three names the road is called, but that's it and they're all very obvious origins, given the lack of sources one wonders if the author just made a logical guess. The other two sources are newspaper articles about one planning incident... this is not really what I consider in depth coverage. You could probably write an article like this about any street in America if you let yourself cite maps for 95% of the prose, then cite local newspaper articles that inevitable mention local streets here and there. Off the top of my head I know I could write an article on the tiny residential street i grew up on with sources comparable to this article... there was a controversy over bulldozing a house to make a parking lot in the 1980s (3 newspaper articles at least), and it's been on plenty of maps over the years, and there's even a neighborhood group webpage that speculates about the origin of its name. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Unlike other articles on county-maintained roads, like Brockway Mountain Drive this article doesn't give any reason why it is notable. There's nothing in the article that couldn't be summarized and covered elsewhere. There is even some debate over whether a resident living on the roadway in question would know that the road carries a numerical designation. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article contains descriptions of characters that appear in only one movie or are minor characters part of a subplot. Article contains multiple issue tags that have remained for over 1 year without resolution. Character profiles for the four main reoccurring characters (Michael Myers, Samuel J. Loomis, Laurie Strode, Jamie Lloyd) already exist. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is consistant treatment of most film and television series. Futher, no valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. We have plenty of precedents for these sort of articles--feel free to go through with a chainsaw (sorry, wrong franchise) to take out the parts that don't belong and then improve what's left, but I see no reason to delete the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The standard compromise way to do it to avoid having individual articles on all of them. Sourcing to the primary work should be done, & will be sufficient.If we do not compromise about things like this, we'll be fighting over these articles indefinitely. DGG (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable student club. References do not establish notability, and Google returns nothing relevant either. Google News returns zero links. Part of Liberal Youth Scotland, which is notable, but the Aberdeen branch merits no more than a mention on the Liberal Youth Scotland page, which is already there. Prod declined using invalid "other stuff exists" argument, pointing to Glasgow University Liberal Democrats, therefore I am also nominating that page as well:
Delete Both as original prodder of AULC, zero Google New/Books/Scholar hits, 6 Google hits. GULDs get 41/0/0/0 Google hits. Abductive (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can find nothing notable about them or even past members. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability outside members of this student club. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is referring to the Glasgow page which has been bunched in with this. It should be kept for the fact that it is the oldest political society on campus, with many famous alumni such as Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell. Many other Glasgow societies have their own Wiki page so this shouldn't be singled out. In addition, Oxford and Cambridge University Liberal Democrats have their own page, and Aberdeen and Glasgow are both ancient universities too. I strongly suggest keeping the articles, or at least split the Glasgow one into a different deletion vote for fairness, as some arguments which are Aberdeen specific have been put it. Jamandell (d69) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Searching for "Glasgow University Liberal Democratic Society", the claimed immediate former name of the GULD, gets only the Wikipedia page itself. The club's own history page seems to indicate a spiritual connection to earlier clubs, not a lineal one. Abductive (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both Both clubs are notable societies in their universities. Glasgow is historic with notable former members, as is Aberdeen, including Rev. Scott Rennie as a former member. They are the two biggest societies in Liberal Youth Scotland and part of ancient universities. See Oxford University Liberal Democrats and Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats. Provides useful information for those researching the university and party and do not receive sufficient mention on Liberal Youth Scotland page. alexanderryland (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)— alexanderryland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect, like all the other small Wikipedia versions without evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep, leaning to redirect. Unlike the two cited cases, there are sources, although scarce, about this wikipedia, and some nontrivial info. List of wikipedias is ...er... just a list, with format not suited to store encyclopedic information. As for notability and growth, it is reasonably proportional to the number of speakers: clearly within 35,000 speakers there will be ten thousand less volunteers than among 40,000,000 English speakers. - Altenmann >t 16:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Still, there are only 5 active contributors. I guess, a hobby of 5 is of dubious notability, unless, they, say, get a national award for this job or something (like Andres Luure). Therefore I changed my vote to a weaker one. - Altenmann >t 16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 02:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references include a notable blog (Gawker.com), an in-depth audio interview by a very notable celebrity (Danny Bonaduce) that was broadcast live on a notable radio station (WYSP), and a feature article in a regionally significant and nationally recognized magazine (Philadelphia Magazine). How does that not meet WP:BIO? - CobaltBlueTony™talk 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kade was interviewed by Bonaduce in a non-trivial way, for at least a 1/2 hour. - CobaltBlueTony™talk 16:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So? How many people have been on Jerry Springer for a half-hour, without thus becoming notable? We're talking Bonaduce here, not Face the Nation. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Bonaduce interview alone obviously does not meet WP:BIO, but add in the Philadelphia Magazine feature, and multiple non-trivial posts in Gawker.com, and it technically does meet the criteria. We don't have to like the individual or what they're doing. But this guy's crossed a technical threshold I don't think we can just wish away. It meets the criteria, and I can't find where it doesn't. - CobaltBlueTony™talk 16:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's been deleted before, he's not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JorgeMacD (talk • contribs) 16:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only in-depth non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources is purely local. He hasn't crossed the technical threshold into Wikipedia notability. Drawn Some (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Purely local"? Philadelphia Magazine is read in areas outside of Philly. Gawker.com is based in NYC. Digging further, Lemondrop.com isn't local. And this reaction from Jezebel.com isn't local. ... - CobaltBlueTony™talk 18:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You consider Jezebel and Gawker reliable sources? Lulwut? Drawn Some (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly notable sources, as per their articles' existences, and evidence of some measure of his notability — though obviously not of his purported acting skillz or actual fame. Any idiot screaming loud enough atop Billy Penn, or in Central Park, to get written media attention that goes beyond a trivial news blurb and get discussed on notable blogs technically meets WP:BIO. - CobaltBlueTony™talk 19:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But do you or do you not consider Jezebel and Gawker reliable sources as discussed in WP:RS? Drawn Some (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And while you're at it, you consider the article "Arthur Kade, the Net's Biggest D-Bag" in the column "Happy Pill" on the website "Lemon Drop/sweet.tasty.tart" a reliable source as well? Drawn Some (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Never mind, I don't want to know the answer to my questions. Consider them rhetorical. I do not consider them reliable references for an encyclopedia article and your opinion won't alter mine. Drawn Some (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not borderline at all. The significant in-depth coverage is not in independent reliable sources. Reliable sources are important or the idea of an encyclopedia as a reference becomes a joke. Wikipedia is no better than the sources we use and it should be better than Jezebel, Gawker, and Lemondrop. Drawn Some (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite all the sources, this article has virtually nothing to say about the subject. Apparently he is an aspiring celebrity, but he doesn't seem to have achieved notability yet. --Metropolitan90(talk) 05:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the test of substantial coverage in impartial, reliable sources. Notable sources are not necessarily reliable sources; and his mentions in Gawker in particular seem to owe a lot to their attitude toward Philadelphia vs. NYC. He clearly wants to be notable; that doesn't make it so. The one solid mention in one solid magazine is simply not sufficient to pass the test. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not for self promotion, even if other media fall into the trap. DGG (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's another version, here: Arthur Kade (actor) ... with slightly different sources? [3] ... guess it's still "local". - CobaltBlueTony™talk 13:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Gawker coverage and Philli mag coverage push up to meeting WP:BIO, although barely. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It doesn't matter if the sources are local, as long as they are nationally recognized. By that reasoning, the Los Angeles Times would be a newspaper in the L.A. "local" area. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable Wiki website, the encyclopedia has made over 1,000 articles. It could be one of the smaller Wiki sites in traditional African languages. ApprenticeFantalkcontribs 15:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, like all the other small Wikipedia versions without evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: This article about a wikimedia project has repeatedly been the target of deletionists for whom it is challenging to assume good faith that they ar not purposefully trying to start bad inter-project feelings. See this conversation in reaction to last month's attempt: User talk:Fram#Your redirection of articles on Wikimedia projects: "...The wikimedia foundation established wikipedias in the official languages and major languages of every nation around the globe and has always sought to foster good relations and promote their growth. While some of these may not have grown as fast as English wikipedia, we also seek to counter systemic bias in anticipation of technilogical advances in the third world..." The response was an appeal to WP:BOLD, and implied that as far as the deletionists are concerned, the third world is NOT technologically advanced, and until it is, we have no room for these articles. I know of numerous qualified editors from the third world who have lately gone on to other projects, precisely because they view English wikipedia as having lately acquired a reputation as a backwards cesspool of racist propaganda. This attempt, if continued, will also surely be discussed at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/afrophonewikis/ as expressly contrary to all our goals. B'er Rabbit (Briar Patch) 11:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
… none of which argument has anything to do with the English Wikipedia's requirement that subjects be documented in depth by multiple independent reliable sources in order to warrant stand-alone articles. If you don't make an argument that actually addresses that, citing sources, then your arguments will likely be ignored, whatever boldfaced words precede them. Cite sources. Nothing less will do. Ad hominems like the above certainly won't. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that "ad hominems" are indeed irrelevant (thanks, Uncle G), they are also blatant lies. I'm not a deletionist and don't speak for them, so there is no "as far as the deletionists are concerned" implied. My full response was "My opinion is not more glorious than that of other people, e.g. those deciding "on everyone eles's behalf" that topic X or Y should have a separate article. We have guidelines and policies, e.g. WP:N and WP:WEB, indicating when topics should have separate articles and when not. We also have Wikipedia:Be bold as one of our guiding principles. We don't create or keep articles in anticipation, we have articles after something has become notable." Could you please provide a diff where I state or even imply that "the third world is NOT technologically advanced, and until it is, we have no room for these articles." This was not my argument at all, and I would prefer if you wouldn't make such incorrect statements on my behalf. What other editors do, what other websites discuss, and so on, has no relation to this article and this AfD. To see "racist propaganda" in this AfD or in the redirection of this article is simply ridiculous. Fram (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it gets a passing mention, and an opensource plugin. How does this meet WP:WEB? "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."? Fram (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable Wiki website, the encyclopedia site has only 1,000 articles on its established back in 2005. ApprenticeFantalkcontribs 15:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, like all the other small Wikipedia versions without evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is not really within the remit of this discussion to determine whether all of these should be merged together, all but the pilot should be merged, or to what target; a tentative targt to List of Harsh Realm episodes will be set but it is not to be understood that this closure mandates that as a final target. Interested editors should discuss at that location. Shereth 22:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable episodes of a 9-episode series. Laden with plot summary and trivia, lacking in sources. Almost nothing in these articles is worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all. Notability not established, no sources to verify what exists. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pilot (Harsh Realm) – Tons of secondary reliable sources exist to establish notability. I just added a few. TheLeftorium 22:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to extended sourced summaries as an expansion of List of Harsh Realm episodes. If this had a full 22 episodes, I might be willing to give this more latitude, but nine episodes means that one article can easily handle everything about this series. Nate•(chatter) 00:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of them into List of Harsh Realm EpisodesMacMedtalkstalk 16:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Previously prodded by User:Abductive with reasoning "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
H. Beau Baez – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." and I agree. DreamGuy (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both general notability guidelines and WP:PROF particularly. Drawn Some (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. I have done several Google News/Scholar searches and have been unable to find any sources to prove that Baez passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. One hit on Google Scholar, with zero citations. Zero hits on WorldCat. Three hits on Google News, all minor mentions in news articles related to other subjects. Perhaps notability will come in the future, but now is not even close.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete. Despite appearances to the contrary, subject has no evident peer-reviewed legal research work (per WoS) – his papers appear in publications that are not mainstream law journals. For example, the Seattle University Law Review appears to be some kind of student journal: "The journal’s writing and editing assignments give student members opportunities to improve their writing skills and research techniques" (from their web page) and the NLA Review is the quarterly news & general interest bulletin of the National Lawyer's Association. Also, filing of an Amicus curiae brief is in no way notable – this is a routine procedure done quite frequently. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested prod. Article is nothing more than a neologism/ dictionary definition. No reliable sources provided and none found. TNXMan 14:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A much-needed neologism but a neologism nonetheless. Drawn Some (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. With only seven results, even Google has barely heard of this neologism. Cunard (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is not more "mal" than a link sent via email. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is merely a summary of a report, and there is no notability asserted for the report itself. Wikipedia is not meant to be a place to summarize primary sources. ZimZalaBimtalk 14:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, completely unencyclopaedic. Should someone find reasons for notability, reduce to stub unless someone wants to rewirte this Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research; the contents of the article, apparently a summary of a vague and bollocksy white paper about the future of public libraries in the UK, do not relate obviously to the title. Contains a great deal of prose that's vague to the point of meaninglessness: Framework for the Future provides ideas for national reach programmes on pages thirty-five to thirty-six. These are: hosting communities, culture online, national content, alliances with broadcasters, information services, and online learning. These ideas are linked thematically to other aspects of the Framework for the Future document. For example alliances with broadcasters is linked to the desire for public library services to develop partnerships with outside agencies; whilst the online learning example is a cross over between the first area of target activity: the promotion of reading and learning. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirected to Bird College, thanks to Cunard for pointing that out! –xenotalk 16:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)))[reply]
It seems very unencyclopaediatic and more like a (very short) advertisement. As nothing new has appeared on it since creation, I propose that the article be deleted Thejadefalcon (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a lot of TLC (I've turned on the batARS signal) but I think it might be salvageable. [4] –xenotalk 14:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable college. Plenty of sources in a Google News Archive, including this article from the Bexley Times. There also a multitude of sources in a Google Books search; specifically, see this book titled 50 Years A'growing: The Doreen Bird College written by Mary Clarke. This college's notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to redirect to Bird College, which covers the same topic in much greater depth. Cunard (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
heh, good call. speedy closing. –xenotalk 16:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). The album article can be re-nominated separately if necessary. snigbrook (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two chart singles in the UK. Sources are hard to find, but it doesn't mean they ain't there. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is verified. Both are very dubious claims for a band with near to zero publicity. --neon whitetalk 16:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found reference to charting in an article about the album. Not quite the same as a direct reference, but there are probably more out there. If only that hadn't picked such a stupid one word name. Stuartpgardner (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are multiple articles on BBC Norfolk about them, I added two when I removed the prod. As TPH says, they had two charting singles, and they were signed to a major indie label. Fences&Windows 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very insignificant local coverage really isnt enough
Their MySpace blog refers to there being other press - much of it bad! - and they posted a clipping from RockSound:[5]. There is coverage out there, but it's hard to find online. Ah, here we go: an interview with MTV:[6]Fences&Windows 18:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still very minor local coverage. --neon whitetalk 12:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MTV isn't local. Birmingham is not local to Norwich. Anyway, this "local coverage doesn't count" rule is made up. Fences&Windows 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep source for charting [13]. Yes I know some dislike acharts but from my understanding it is 'cause they also keep bad charts. I have never seen any questioning of their UK charts (and some others). Please correct me if I'm wrong, I've used their Australian chart archives Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not known for reliability. I'd dismiss it altogether. The Official UK Charts Company is the only provider of UK chart info and they are well known for not passing it around so it's very likely that acharts sources from unreliable source and possibly wikipedia itself.. --neon whitetalk 16:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another source for the charting:[14], and this review confirms #34 for Winter, and The Sun "Single of the Week".[15]. It was 3 July 2006:[16]. The song Sea of Trouble was on the album NME Essential Bands 2006:[17]. Fences&Windows 19:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being on a compilation CD is not a criteria for notability, http://www.polyhex.com and inthenews.co.uk are not reliable sources. --neon whitetalk 12:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clipping of review of Sea of Trouble in NME:[18]. Fences&Windows 20:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Photobucket is not a reliable source. --neon whitetalk 12:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How petty. Fences&Windows said it was an NME review. For those who know what NME reviews are like, it's clear a clipping of an NME review. The fact it's being hosted on photobucket, does not mean it was not in NME, it says the very opposite - it is an image which proves they were reviewed by the NME. Stuartpgardner (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the band's MySpace blog clearly has them celebrating getting to #34 with Winter on 3 July 2006,[19] and self-published sources can be considered reliable when they're about themselves. They refer to getting a bad review in NME for the album,[20] which I'm not finding on the NME site. It was by Dan Martin in late Sept 2006. Fences&Windows 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I really need to sort through my copies of NME to find the issue in question? The other sources are conclusive enough for me, but if it really requires me to go through back issues of NME to find a three star review in a national music magazine to prove it's not just local coverage (how is Birmingham or Devon 'local' to Norwich? How does being on the soundtrack to a game sold to a US market, not prove that they were more than a 'local' band?), then I shall do it. Stuartpgardner (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the album, no individal notability shown. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I personally don't rate the band, but I recall publicity about them around the time of their album; and I live in Devon, so it wasn't just local coverage. Stuartpgardner (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just watched their videos on MTV.co.uk; ugh, how tedious. I am not arguing for keep because I like their music! Fences&Windows 19:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't suggest anyone would argue for keeping them based on whether they like them (did anyone like them?) or not. Notability is the key and they scrape through on their chart placing and coverage, at least. Stuartpgardner (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor local coverage maybe but charting is unverified. I'd like to see more coverage than promo articles in local papers. --neon whitetalk 12:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky you've been shown coverage from the NME and MTV then. 86.44.25.57 (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 charting singles[21] and album review in The Guardian[22]. --JD554 (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I concur with Duffbeerforme (talk·contribs) that there was no real claim to significance here, and have deleted it under WP:CSD#A7. ~ mazcat|c 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable self-described "journal" that is part of an online discussion board and "publishes" like a blog. Considering that we don't even link to discussion forums we sure shouldn't have articles existing to try to justify such links via the "official website" clause. Article was prodded by another user and deprodded without any justification by an IP editor currently under investigation as the latest sockpuppet of banned serial deprodder User:Azviz. DreamGuy (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete added db-web to article. no real claim to notability, no independent reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Bloated terms that basically amount to "he knows a lot of pianos but hasn't been covered in reliable sources, so we're going to use peacock words to make him seem like he's the freaking prime minister of Pianoland". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from a newspaper: he is "author of Piano Servicing, Tuning and Rebuilding for the Professional, the Student, the Hobbyist, a book piano technicians consider their Bible." (The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Jan 26, 1998. pg. B.3) Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 21:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete in line with WP:POLITICIAN without prejudice to re-creation if she gets elected. No sign of significant coverage in reliable independent sources from Google News. Qwfp (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and "Redirect" to Nottingham South. No objection to a link to her webpage going on the constituency page (along with the other candidates). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With a general election under a year away, I think that an adopted prospective parliamentary candidate for one of the major parties ought to meet the notability criteria. The article will need to be deleted if she fails to get elected, but in the meantime, we have to put up with it (and others) whether we like it or not. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be incompatible with the principle that notability is never temporary. Since the vast majority of pages about PPCs state little more than stuff reiterated from the candidates' own web pages, I see no need for anything more than these external links on the constituency page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a consensus re PPCs pre-election? There are roughly 600 seats and three (sometimes 4) main parties operating in each. Assuming that one is the incumbent (and thus notable a priori); thats quite a few stubs or worse promo puff pieces like the one up for AfD here. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has almost invariably been to delete, redirect to constituency (or by-election) page. There are some exceptions, but these are generally PPCs who're notable for some other reason - they've been a particularly significant local politician or unelected official, for example. But notability outside of simply running for office is essential. Shimgray | talk | 15:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - PPCs are not generally notable, and there is no evidence that she is more notable than average. Warofdreamstalk 14:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Otherwise non-notable PPCs have, almost without exception, been found to be wanting on previous AFDs. If she is elected then WP:POLITICIAN can be looked at again doktorbwordsdeeds 04:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per The New York Times article. In addition to that stellar source found by ThaddeusB, there is also a news article from JoongAng Ilbo, one of the "big three newspapers" in Korea. Cunard (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 01:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - very little non-primary-source coverage. Orderinchaos 13:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The merge suggested by Cunard sounds acceptable to me as an alternative response. Orderinchaos 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Churches affiliated with Australian Christian Churches per WP:PRESERVE. This church appears to be important in its community (as of 2001, it had 1750 members), but sadly, searches for sources on Google News Archive using terms such as "Penrith Christian Life Centre", "Penrith Christian", "ImagineNations Church", and "Imagine Nations Church" return only passing mentions. Since this church appears to be important in its community, a merge to Churches affiliated with Australian Christian Churches would be preferable over deletion. Cunard (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This church appears to be important in its community is in itself not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I concede that the church is non-notable. That's why I'm advocating a merge per WP:PRESERVE in lieu of deletion. A merge does not require the church to be notable. A merge only requires sources to verify the content. The content in the article is easily verified using the church's website. Cunard (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No relevant sources, horribly partial, poorly written. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Feels like a non-notable event to me.Tyrenon (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems notable enough to me, but sourcing and POV are horrible. no real redeeming value in this form ThomasPolder (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 13 gnews hits and it's obvious that many have nothing to do with the protest. Non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:54, 18 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 00:15, 11 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 13:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "ipoh apostasy" (with the quotes) generates Zero hits from google news. The referencing used does not support much of the content of the article. Most of it is unsourced OR and should be removed. One of the sourced info is irrelevent to the subject of the article. The second mentions "the protest" in a trivial fashion. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis article is difficult to accept into Wikipedia, due to poor writing, lack of a notable event, lack of a neutral point of view, and the possible use of this article to increase religious conflict in Ipoh, Perak, or elsewhere in Malaysia. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Two articles about non-notable concerts performed by minimally-notable music artists. No third-party sources and both articles were created by one of many sockpuppets of a banned user. No significant contributions to either article by anyone other than the (now-banned) creator. - eo (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as lists of non-notable tours. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for Ashley Tisdale. Not even a real tour (she sang in malls). This article is a creation of an effectively banned user, Headstrong Neiva, and has no substantial contributions from other editors. The Raven-Symoné article is problematic: my personal biases say delete, and I will continue to argue delete based on these tour articles constituting directories of dates and places without any real value. That isn't a widely held view, though.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: obvious advertising, and a business that made no showing of importance by substantial coverage in reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable source adresses this website in the detail required for an article. The citations are all to people quoting this website - not about the site itself. Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Blatant Advertising per WP:G11 and I would have tagged it as such. Trevor Marron (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. In addition to what is said above most of the "references" (5 out of 8, excluding one dead link) are to the company's own website: scarcely independent coverage. There was also one "external link" which was a clear spam link, so I have removed it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Clear spam, nothing more to say really...get rid of it! magnius (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 01:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously deleted under CSD A7. Essentially, the guy is a journalist, so there may be a lot of articles he has written to cite (as with all journalists), but there is no substantial media sources written about him, rather than by him. As such, I don't think he meets the threshold required for an article. There is also substantial evidence that the article has been written by the subject himself. See his Italian Wikipedia banning and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Villa Tatti. Dominic·t 12:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ghits (or other occurrences of a name), do not create notability, coverage does. MBisanztalk 12:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lot of nonsense: 1) the user "dominic" who open the deletion process, totally modified and "reversed" the whole article, erasing all the previously indicated citations about him, so it is totally false that " there is no substantial media sources written about him, rather than by him" as asserted by "dominic" herself.
Here the (incomplete) list of citations about him, previously indicated into the article and erased by "dominic":
Kathleen J. Brahney, "East Timor: 'DAUNTING,' 'Dangerous' period ahead" in "United States Information Agency", Daily digest, GlobalSecurity.org
Stephen Thibeault, "Philippines: Lucrative Hostage Trade Puts Spotlight On Abu Sayyaf Separatists", in "United States Information Agency", Military, GlobalSecurity.org
Domenico De Gaetano, Il cinema di Peter Greenaway, 1995, ISBN 8871801121
Giovanni Fiorentino, "L'occhio che uccide. La fotografia e la guerra: immaginario, torture, orrori", 2004, ISBN 8883533658, pag.17-18, 114; also on web here.
Nina Betori, "Rosso sommerso", 2005, ISBN 8870638375, pag. 130; also on web here.
Marco Strano, "Mauale di criminologia clinica", Firenze, 2003, ISBN 8884650852, pag. 371 also on web here.
Massimo Franco, "Il Re della Repubblica", Firenze, 1997, pag. 93 also on web here
Beatrice Guarneri, Mina Gregori, "Paragone: rivista mensile di arte figurativa e letteratura", 1994, pag. 142 also on web
United States Foreign Broadcast Information Service "Daily Report", 1996, pag. 82, also on web
Adriano Purgato, "Fobie: le nuove ossessioni del secolo XXI", Castelvecchi, 2006, pag. 59, also on web here
Laura Giallombardo, "CAMBOGIA: quando si potrà ancora dormire senza paura?", in "Solidarietà Internazionale", 5/5/2009, on line
"La SARS come non ve l’ha mai raccontata nessuno", in "Punto di vista", maggio 2003, on line
2) the article about this journalist has been ALREADY submitted to a deletion procees and the result was keep].
3) there are no evidencies that the article has been written by the subject himsel, as asserted by the same "dominic", because there are no relations between this journalist and the cited links on italian wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.69.124.143 (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Actually his identity is confirmed via OTRS (# 2009010610014411 and others), so what are your proofs in stating he didn't create the article? Do you have any personal relationship with him? --Brownout(msg) 15:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm not an administrator in the wiki project, I have no idea what exactly contain this "ticket" and what can or can't be included in the same ticket.
Amyway, in my humble opinion, doesn't matter who wrote an article, in a process of evaluation of the article itself...
And you ignored the two other (and more relevant) questions:
1) Why "Dominic" previously erased all the proved and linked citations and then opened the delettion process, asserting that " there is no substantial media sources written about him ", assertion that is completely false?
2) For wich reason, if the article about this journalist has been ALREADY submitted to a deletion procees and the result was keep] he started a new deletion process ONCE AGAIN, considering that the article quality improved - in number of sources and links - after the keeping decision?.
--91.81.229.76 (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's patently dishonest. Those citations that you claim are "about" you are no such thing. Those are a collection of articles written by yourself or citing those articles, not biographical. Dominic·t 08:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. The citations are not a collection of articles written by yourself. i.e., this is an interview TO him and ABOUT him: *"Nel ventre del Dragone - Intervista a Marco Lupis" ("Marco Lupis interviewed") - December 21, 2007, talking about him and his activity. Are you able to read the Italian language? I hope so because, if not, why are you proposing for deletion article on italian matters?
And please reply to my question: For wich reason, if the article about this journalist has been ALREADY submitted to a deletion procees and the result was keep] you started a new deletion process ONCE AGAIN, considering that the article quality improved - in number of sources and links - after the keeping decision?. Soemthing changed in the meantime? Do you got some personal problem against him?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
this isn't the yellow pages. delete.plan 8 (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails WP:ORG miserably. Google search fails to show reliable third party coverage. google news search shows 1 article for a church in a different location. LibStar (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet notability criteria. John Carter (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like the nominator, I have been unable to find any reliable sources to indicate notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per everyone above. Springnuts (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is someone going to search for "Bread of Life Christian Church in Northern Sydney" in Wikipedia? LibStar (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with extra marks for the quotations - Jarry1250[ humourous – discuss ] 17:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nominator, I have been able to find even a mention in google news, google scholar, and perusing google hits yields very little, all wiki coverage, the site itself, or unrelated medical terms by the same name. Cazort (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quote from current article "Unlike the Wikipedia, KidsPedia does not guarantee it's information to be completely accurate." --> Fail. LOL Cazort (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cazort. I, too, have been unable to find sources to establish this wiki's notability. Cunard (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find a single page to give this notability. (Two notes - 1: "Unlike the Wikipedia, KidsPedia does not guarantee it's information to be completely accurate" (when was WP completely accurate?), and 2: Only three registered users since starting in December 2005? Yeah, real popular. </sarcasm>). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created the article, and after it was finished I hoped someone would soon add on to it. You have my official permission to delete it ISTHnR | Knock Knock| Who's There? 21:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nominator as heading to speedy keep. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Registered political party, had sitting MP, obviously has reliable sources. It's hardly surprising that it doesn't turn up in Google News when the party hasn't been active since the early 1990s, since to my knowledge no Australian newspapers from that era are online. Rebecca (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google news also includes articles available from subscription news archive databases. not just papers with online articles. LibStar (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Canberra Times only goes back to 1996 in any online database, so most of the coverage of the schism and founding of the NCG wouldn't be there. The Sydney Morning Herald's coverage goes back further, but their available articles are really spotty; I've run into this before, but a quick check on some high-profile figures there's massive gaps in their coverage prior to about the same time period. As one example - there's roughly the same number of SMH articles available on Nathan Rees in the last month as there was for Nick Greiner in the whole of his five-year premiership. As they're the only papers with any history of covering ACT politics whatsoever, Google news isn't really a very useful source for anything that happened in this era. Rebecca (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
regardless, we still need evidence of significant coverage to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, the existence of reliable sources are not in doubt; the problem is accessing them, seeing as one needs offline access to newspapers from the early 1990s, which require access to a library which actually has these. This was a registered party founded by a member of parliament. Every similar split I can think of in more recent times has led to an abundance of reliable sources on the new party; hell, on the Google-able sources alone, we have articles on basically every party that even contested a seat in parliament anywhere in Australia after 1996. Attempting to delete an article, where reliable sources obviously exist, merely because they're not online, is recentism gone mad. Rebecca (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
simply being a registered political party with a sitting MP does not automatically qualify an article? If anything, the MP should have an article but maybe not the party? I would understand more if it was 1930. and is the only coverage Canberra Times? I'm not sure if that is wide enough. LibStar (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it had a sitting MP certainly implies notability, because every such case that I can think of has resulted in substantial media coverage. We have a history of reliably-sourced articles on substantially less notable parties, and deleting this would blow a hole in our coverage of an important era in ACT politics; the rather turbulent first parliament, where minor parties (including this one) were fundamental to both the passage of legislation and which party held office (there were two changes of government during the single term - a nearly unheard of event in Australian politics).
It's a bit disingenous to start making implications about the reliability of the Canberra Times - it's a major daily paper, and the only daily paper in the Australian Capital Territory, which was where this political party was based. It figures that it's going to be the major source here. The Sydney Morning Herald (and also The Australian) did bits-and-pieces coverage of ACT politics in this period - it's quite possible they covered it, but I couldn't be sure either way without actually looking through them.
You (since you appear to be in Canberra) could wander down to the National Library tomorrow, grab a few stacks of papers, and solidly source and expand this article in a couple of hours. One of the ironies of this discussion is that, if this were a party from 1930s like you suggested, we wouldn't even be having this at all; every edition of the Canberra Times up until the end of the current public domain period in 1953 is online and searchable. The whole point is that this is currently not the case for the period in which this party was active. Rebecca (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in Canberra. but I'm not suggesting Canberra Times is unreliable, but wide coverage implies more coverage than 1 paper. you seem very keen to keep this, so why don't you visit the library? LibStar (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a history of reliably-sourced articles on substantially less notable parties sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS...notability is established through coverage, what you may consider "less notable" is purely your opinion. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that you're making up guidelines. I'll quote from WP:NOTABILITY: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The topic, on the basis that I have explained above, clearly passes this; as would the article if someone with access to a library that actually has the papers from this area would take a few hours to include that information here. Rebecca (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll await evidence of this, anyone can say there exists wide coverage but you haven't provided the evidence...so I'll assume good faith and think that you or someone else will. There's 6 days left of this AfD... and no I'm not going to Canberra to establish the notability of 1 Wikipedia article.LibStar (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll understand then why I'm not racing off to hunt down copies of the Canberra Times somewhere in Western Australia because one Wikipedia editor's behaving like a twit. I've clearly set out why reliable sources both exist and aren't going to be too difficult to find for someone with proper access. Beyond that, I rely on people's judgement that notable things that happened prior to 1996 don't suddenly become non-notable because the media coverage about them isn't available online. Rebecca (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
are you calling me a twit? I did what can be expected to establish notablity before nominating for deletion. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You searched Google News for a party that existed in 1991-1992, when Google News doesn't cover any of the newspapers anywhere in the area prior to 1996? My, you should win an award! Rebecca (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is plainly silly - the Canberra Times is a newspaper of record (it's hardly a local rag), the party clearly passes notability, parliamentary party (albeit briefly), went to election. Google is not the be all and end all of research (despite what some non-scholars think) - in fact most of the stuff I use off Factiva is not on Google News. This is even more the case the further you go back. Orderinchaos 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
could you please provide citations then? LibStar (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not possible at this stage - as has already been explained to you, very few Australian newspapers prior to 1996 are online (in fact even the Australian isn't online prior to 2001.) Strangely, stubs are not illegal on Wikipedia, and this happens to be one of them. My state library has Canberra Times on microfilm but as I have urgent assignments due on 30 June I do not have the time to trawl through 2 years of newspaper coverage. However this confirms they ran in 1992 with Robyn Nolan as ticket leader, and this confirms they had a sitting mp. Notability met. Now move on. Orderinchaos 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebecca. Simply because there are no hyperlinks to pre-internet coverage about this topic doesn't magically mean they never existed. And the idea that The Canberra Times is not reliable is curious to say the least. --Oakshade (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as found this[24] in addition to what Orderinchaos has shown. It is reasonable that further sources could be found. I must say that the attitude being displayed against the nominator is a bit out of order, considering there weren't even any sources to show verifiability. And nowhere has Libstar said that the Canberra Times is unreliable, just an expectation that if something is notable it would be in multiple reliable sources. It does say multiple sources are preferred in WP:GNG after all. Quantpole (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments Quantpole, yes I never said Canberra Times was unreliable. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I totally understand the editor's nomination--it LOOKS like this would be something where there are absolutely no sources so the nomination is totally legit. But I agree very strongly with Rebecca's and Oakshade's comments about non-online coverage...I think editors in general tend to be too quick to claim there is no coverage just because there is no online coverage, or no public-access coverage and I think it's important for articles like this to give time (on the order of MONTHS) to turn up such sources. It is tricky to search for this party because lots of other things come up under "New Conservative Group" but even under google I was able to verify that this party existed, and was founded by Robyn Noland. Cazort (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If coverage exists in the Canberra Times then it should be verifiable. Many libraries have searchable archive of papers not available online. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've been through this already. The articles themselves from this entire period are not online; it would be fantastic if there was a searchable archive of articles not online, but unfortunately I am not aware of any. Rebecca (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with Rebecca's explanation. I regularly encounter material on wikipedia and elsewhere where print sources exist but are not searchable. Here is a book source I found just now: [25]. That book cites a print article in The Australian from 1991...which is also outside of the range of electronic archiving of that publication--from their website, archiving started in 1995. There's no question of verifiability, even without the newspaper articles. And my own research is verifying that Rebecca's claims are correct. Cazort (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable minor party with sitting MP --- clearly over the bar. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not many parties have had sitting MPs in a state or territory parliament; the fact that this one has makes it notable. Suggest nominator withdraw nomination, as there is clearly no way this will be closed as Delete, and I don't see anything productive coming from further discussion. Lankiveil(speak to me) 02:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable organization, 28 Google hits, 3 tangential Google News mentions. It is part of a larger regional association which does not have an article, and presumably the regional association is part of a national association. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable local branch of notable national organization per WP:CLUB. Merger doesn't seem appropriate in this situation. There are dozens of Math Leagues on this level and they all do the same thing more or less, just like the boy scouts or boys and girls state. Drawn Some (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanztalk 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All provided references are just minor mentions. Only press releases and first-party sources have the company as the subject. Also, this article is orphaned for a year (with the last attempt unsuccessful). Alexius08 (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely speedy delete candidate as a business providing services to other businesses that makes no credible claim of importance. The only reliable source mentioned that is not simply a listing or an internal site is to a book review of a book apparently written by one of the owners - the review tells us nothing about this business itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I tend to strongly favor including "businesses providing services to other businesses" whenever there's enough material to make an article that is tightly-sourced, even if it is short...these types of businesses make the world go round, and are often behind the scenes so it is expected that they receive less coverage. This source: [26] seems to establish some importance of the company and his CEO. Admittedly this case is marginal so I'm not going to lament if it's deleted but I just wanted to point out that I think people tend to jump overeagerly to delete this sort of thing. And I feel very strongly that this is not a candidate for speedy deletion. In my opinion, the article's current text already makes claims to it being important or significant. Google news shows that people from the company are often quoted about the state of business in China. Also, a google news search shows that the company owns Pacific Epoch. It's hard to assess the notability of Pacific Epoch because it publishes a great deal of material that is picked up in google news search. But this attempt at a search: [27] demonstrates that Pacific Epoch is very likely notable. Does this make this company notable as the parent company? Not necessarily. But the point is, this is hardly a clear-cut nomination. Cazort (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Businesses like this may be important, but the fact that they're "behind the scenes so it is expected that they receive less coverage" makes them poor subjects for Wikipedia articles. This is apparently a firm of market analysts operating in East Asia. This kind of business usually operates out of an anonymous office suite. Its only assets are human or financial. Having no hard assets, these businesses come into being and merge or dissolve quickly. It puts forth few products under its own brand that reach the eyes of the general public.
No matter how you slice it, it just stands very little chance of being notable or durable enough to become a subject of an encyclopedia article. Frankly there'd be something wrong with the notability guidelines if they didn't tend to the deletion of puff pieces about these scarcely visible businesses.
The sources you've mentioned make a case for the notability of the founder, not of the company. He serves on a board of some sort of trade website. He has a book published. He's the former head of Dow Jones in China. He might count as a historical figure about whom there might be some interest a hundred years from now. But this business? I am still not convinced. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think all the points you are making are valid. I'd rather have a very small article or stub of whatever material on the page can be well-sourced, than have it deleted. I mainly thought the suggestion of speedy delete was jumping the gun. But I don't feel all that strongly about keeping this page and I don't think much would be lost by deleting it. Cazort (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major firm in its field. The cvs of the officers of course should be removed. DGG (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanztalk 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poor estructure, lack of references. This page might as well be merged with Engram (Dianetics), with no significant loss. RUL3R (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While that is true, these 2 concepts (Engram and Reactive Mind) are very linked with each other, and both articles are very short, so an "Engrams and Reactive Mind" article could be created, merging information from both, without significant loss. It is very true that deletion might be a bit exaggerated. RUL3R (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not the proper place to discuss that - this could have been done at the article's talk page. We are here now, and should assess the notability of Reactive mind, which is notable and easily satisfies WP:NOTE, and the AfD should thus result in Keep. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I have seen many AfD's resulting in merge or redirect. RUL3R (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, you did not even try to bring this up for discussion anywhere before starting this Articles for deletion discussion. Cirt (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any attempt at discussion somewhere else would have involved just you, probably Jayen466 and me. And in such a big proyect like Wikipedia, 3 people cannot be considered consensus for tens of thousands of users. That would be like validating a presidential election where only 2% or less of voters actually voted. I just hope wikipedians don't believe this is an attempt at controversy or speculation. RUL3R (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any attempt at discussion somewhere else would have involved just you, probably Jayen466 and me.RUL3R (talk·contribs), please WP:AGF. Notices about an ongoing discussion could have been placed at central locations. If consensus could not have been come to amicably, dispute resolution could have been pursued. It was inappropriate to file an Articles for deletion discussion with the express intended purpose as you have laid out. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIZERULE: < 40 KB Length alone does not justify division. Merging this articles would make a < 10 KB article, concepts are very correlated. Reactive Mind makes few, if any, references to the concept of Engram. It is also very confusing to have separate articles covering topics that are so correlated. Or are we planning to carry an article on the history of Hershey's packaging image outside of the Hershey's article? RUL3R (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Things that could have been discussed at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. If this has been me I would have merged and redirected to start with, but the AfD will gauge consensus so this is not a fruitless pursuit. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Engram to this page, this being the broader term. --Dweller (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as keep. Nominator is proposing a merge to Engram (Dianetics). AfD is not the place to discuss a merge. There is no reason to delete Reactive mind, as it is a notable concept within Scientology. Fences&Windows 21:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient evidence of notability exists. No prejudice against a merge with Engram (Dianetics), but that should be discussed elsewhere - AFD is not for proposing mergers. (And in this case, I think there's reasonable grounds for having two separate articles anyway.) Robofish (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanztalk 01:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right-wing political support for the 1973 Chilean coup[edit]
Delete. This article at present does not even talk about the subject in the title,but just one small aspect of it. I cannot easily see how to sufficiently distinguish the subject of the article enough from the general topic to write a proper expanded article, but perhaps someone can. This is not a useful start.DGG (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC) see below DGG (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason to fork this off the main article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has been substantially expanded, and is no longer a clone of the above-mentioned section, but I still don't see that there's justification for a separate article here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now much more focused, does talk about the subject of the title, has a start of sourcing, and now seems like a good detailed expansion of important historical events. It meets my previous objections. Yes, I was asked to have another look. DGG (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I started this AfD I don't know whether I'm supposed to vote or not, so I'll just add a brief comment.
While the article has been expanded (with no sources so far) I still don't see how it merits to be an article on its own and it is not better suited in the overall context of the 1973 Chilean coup d'état. Allowing forks like this one is a slippery slope. What if somebody was to create other politically loaded forks such as Allegations of unconstitutional ruling by decree during the presidency of Salvador Allende?
Certainly that "article" might be rightly called Forking and POV as it would be better suited as a section of Chile under Allende than by itself.
The same goes for Right-wing political support for the 1973 Chilean coup.
Your nomination is taken as a not-vote to delete, unless you state that it's a procedural nomination. If you want to make it explicit, you can say "Delete as nominator" or put the "Delete" in bold somewhere in your nomination. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see thanks for the clarification.
Since you're an Admin, I'd like to ask you something.
Today I was reading WP:DPR#AFD and it says that the AfD should be closed after 7 days. I nominated this article on 06/17/09 so today is the 7th day.
So far I see a pretty strong consensus for deleting this article as the voting count stands 7 (delete or merge back) to 2 (keep).
So my question is; When and who will close this discussion and take appropiate action regarding the article?
I could close the discussion, but that would be frowned on, since I've already !voted in it. I expect someone will get to it soon. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article focused on the political events leading up to the coup which hadn’t been dealt with in focus in other pages. Evidence of this is the fact that in English Wikipedia there is no page or entry on the Confederation for Democracy (CODE). Nor is there a page on the XLVII Legislative Period of the Chilean National Congress (1973). As I stated in the discussion of this page, presenting these “resolutions” or “declarations” in a political vacuum or in disassociation with the scheme of the CODE that lead the Chilean right (1973) to acquire control of the Chile’s National Congress with a simple majority is in itself an “Allegations of unconstitutional ruling by decree during the presidency of Salvador Allende?” To present these resolutions as a counterbalance to Allende’s speeches that denounce them also constitute an “allegation of unconstitutional ruling by decree during the presidency of Salvador Allende? Because it gives both the unconstitutional declaration and what Allende had to say as President equal legitimacy. The page specifically focused on an attempt to put forward “Allegations of unconstitutional ruling by decree during the presidency of Salvador Allende.”
On the only grounds that the pages content could have been challenged is that it presented the “political-right” in a rather good light given that the article distinguishes the political right in 1973 as a separate entity from the Pinochet regime. Many would argue that the dictatorship was the continuation of the rule of the Chilean right by other means.
But this page was not about political ideologies nor about social theories but rather it was a simple attempt to compile and format material and information already on the public record in a manner that clarifies to the reader the outcome of a political development: in this case being that of Chile in 1973.
The fact that this page will be deleted on the advice of an editor who proved in his comments that he didn't understand that the terms “left and right” in politics are not concrete but relative to a given political event or development. Who, moreover, kept changing the posts of his reasoning from allegations of “bias”, to “copy and paste”, to “forking” and now to “lack of sources” turns the whole nature of the project on its head.
In regards to sources:
The scheme of CODE is political history documented in various media.
The congressional boycott of Allende is there in the XLVII Legislative Period of the Chilean National Congress (1973).
The Chamber of deputies "declarations" are on Wikisource (they were made 3 weeks before the coup).
The coup is already in the project.
The speeches delivered by the 2 generals, the admiral and the police chief have been published.
Another final point is that this - wikipedia - project claims to be collaborative and if the page under scrutiny contained no libellous or illegal content why do did the editors demand that the page be completed by the person that started the page. This page was a start it was far from completed, it had one editor.
Albeit, the debate was rather boring; devoid of any substance. Regards__Moshe-paz (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was G12 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect unless evidence of the notability of the Wu Wikipedia can be provided. Fram (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias. The only outside sources provided are to threads from a mailing list (not a reliable source), and the links don't even point to specific posts about the Wu Wikipedia; one of the threads starts out as a proposal for a Quenya Wikipedia (a language from The Lord of the Rings). --Metropolitan90(talk) 11:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable Wiki language site, it has only less than 7,000 articles. No references or sources are found. ApprenticeFantalkcontribs 10:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, like all the other small Wikipedia versions without evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Māori is important as a language and as a culture. Have you really looked for sources in Māori? This and, indeed, all other language wikipedias should have articles. How does deleting this improve wikipedia? --Bduke(Discussion) 12:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google is important, Belgium is (somewhat) important, does that make www.google.be automatically notable? It currently redirects to Google... If there are reliable, independent, indepth sources about the Maori Wikipedia, the article can of course be kept as a standa-lone. If these are absent, it should be redirected. The burden of finding sources is on those wanting to keep the article. Fram (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable Wiki encyclopedia site, only fewer than 2,000 articles. Well, notability does not meet the requirements. ApprenticeFantalkcontribs 10:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, like all the other small Wikipedia versions without evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable Wiki encyclopedia site, it has only fewer than 2,700 articles and notability isn't inherited. ApprenticeFantalkcontribs 10:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Actually, very similar to an AfD I submitted yesterday. No independent sources. No real release date. The sources consist of blogs, Twitter, MySpace and an unofficial fan site. None of those are reliable or independent. Just like with the aforementioned AfD I submitted yesterday, there isn't a title yet either. My main issue with these is that they are notoriously unreliable. How often have albums been pushed back for many months or even years after their "expected" release date. It's simply not reliable until it has a title, release date and some independent sources. User:WoohookittyDiamming fool! 10:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:SLOBBERINGFANBOY, which I should write someday. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was G3, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete, evident hoax. You can be fairly certain no team called or from Zimbabwe has played in any major European soccer league, beaten teams like FC Barcelona or Arsenal, or won La Liga. Nor has any stadium called Ulusal Egemenlik (Turkish for "national sovereignty" I believe) in Harare, Zimbabwe hosted any European Cup final, & in particular not the 1982 World Cup, in reality hosted by Spain. The article's creator has a handle suspiciously close to the supposed team's alleged manager. I strongly suspect that this "manager" is manager of nothing more than some fantasy soccer game in their own head, such as may be played in videogames like FIFA (series) from EA Sports or similar, and this heroic team's exploits were played out on a computer screen and not on any real-life football pitch. cjllwʘTALK 08:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under Wp:CSD#G3 - it's completely made up. For example, I don't think any stadium in Africa (even those hosting the World Cup next year) have 100,000 seats. Not that it matters, though, seeing as the bit for the stadium is copied verbatim from the Santiago Bernabéu Stadium article, and "-spor" is a bit at the end of teams in Turkey (e.g. Trabzonspor). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. Alexius08 (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article does not need to exist. The information provided is already listed within the Boy Meets Girl (TV series) page, so I see no need to spill it over into this page. To date, there are only four episodes, and only two of those have been given descriptions here. magnius (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this point, just duplicates a section within Boy Meets Girl (TV series). If the list gets long enough, though, it may be necessary to split into a separate article. But not yet. And since this list doesn't seem to add anything to the information in the main article, there is really nothing to merge. Rlendog (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Boy Meets Girl (TV series). There's no need for this article right now. Can be recreated in the future if it gets longer. TheLeftorium 11:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is premature. There is nothing wrong with episode list articles, if written properly, but they only become necessary when the article for the series will risk becoming too large and the information needs to be moved to a spin-off article. That isn't the case yet. -- Atamachat 19:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not include references to establish importance or notability (I don't think that being a former member of a band that went on to become famous automatically grant this, aside from a few exceptions). There isn't even evidence within the article that even proves that this person exists. magnius (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article even states his non-notability: "There are no recordings of Robin with Mötley Crüe"! GNUSMAS : TALK 08:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - obviously it's a joke. Speedy delete it - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BryanG makes a good case for IAR here, and the deleters don't really offer any argument other than insisting on a rigid adherence to the MoS. Flowerparty☀ 01:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page normally has one single term that can be many things. This one has a list of names beginning "Nuclear", which goes against WP:MOSDAB:
“
On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists).
Common examples:
Title County
Title City
Title Hospital
Title University
”
To make matters worse, there are plenty of other articles in existence with titles beginning "Nuclear" that don't appear on this page. The user is hardly helped by being diverted here and missing a lot of them. PL290 (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But you can just edit the disambig to fit your interpretation of MoSDAB, including linking through to other disambigs. Abductive (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that that would leave it empty. PL290 (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be turned into a redirect? Not that I'm saying it should, just that this seems to be "soluble" by editing. Abductive (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you keep reading below the bit that you quote, you will see that it supports the inclusion of Jefferson County at Jefferson (disambiguation), among other things. Disambiguation pages are highly important for purposes such as this one is fulfilling right now. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's bad reasoning. A place named Jefferson County is sometimes known as and is sometimes called, simply "Jefferson", therefore it is disambiguated at the title Jefferson. Please name one thing that is known as, or called, a "nuclear". Also note that "nuclear" is an adjective. "Jefferson" is a noun, in contrast. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) for more on this. Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly there are not even two articles listed that are ambiguous. The page is not actually a disambgiguation page at all but merely a list of articles contain nuclear or even related words from the same root. (This is one of most off-base disambiguation pages I have ever seen.) See WP:DISAMBIG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drawn Some (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dab page and redirect Nuclear to the Nucleus disambiguation page instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to delete before using the ordinary editing tool to make a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to !vote for that then. Should my !vote simply been Redirect? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nucular. No, seriously, Delete as an improper dab, doesn't dab anything at all really. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) says that adjectives such this should redirect to the corresponding nouns, which would of course be nucleus. However, you make a better point than you realize. Presuming such a redirect to be enacted, which does not require the deletion tool, how is a reader to get to nucular from "nuclear"? Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not from a disambiguation page, since they are different words. Drawn Some (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from the disambiguation page. If Nuclear redirects to Nucleus, then Nucular should be added to Nucleus (in the See also section, at least). Different words can be ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep essentially in the spirit of WP:IAR. I'm looking at this from the reader's perspective: someone searching for "nuclear" is probably looking for nuclear physics, nuclear power, or nuclear weapon, not nucleus. Since none of those terms could plausibly be put on the nucleus disambiguation page, I dislike redirecting to there. Yes, I'm well aware that this page violates MOSDAB, but in my opinion it's justified in this case. BryanG (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In practice it's useful for navigation, which is all the justification necessary.If it doesnt follow the usual way we do it, that's not an argument to delete, but an argument to recognize that these loosely constructed pages are also acceptable. DGG (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But is it useful for navigation, or is it in fact obstructive to navigation? Consider: a user looking for Nuclear technology or Nuclear terrorism, on typing the first seven characters "Nuclear" in the Go/Search box, is offered Nuclear. But neither term is found there (although it has been necessary to read a full page to discover that). The same is true if Nuclear is redirected to Nucleus or anywhere else. Whereas, if Nuclear is deleted, the user may now:
Continue typing more characters, "Nuclear t", and see the required title right there as it pops up in the Go/Search box; this is probably perfect, but otherwise:
Use Search, including by prefix to find titles starting "Nuclear" (which currently number about 350, of which an arbitrary 24 are listed by Nuclear).
Strong Delete or redirect to nucleus. Since "Nuclear" is an adjective, it is always used in conjunction with a noun; therefore none of the articles should be known simply as "nuclear". Per WP:DAB, disambiguations exist to help one find the page they are looking for when multiple articles are known by the same term. None of these articles are known by simply as "nuclear" so it violates the purpose of a disambiguation and should be deleted. Tavix | Talk 17:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete with no redirect. I agree with Tavix. This page doesn't disambiguate anything. There is not a single article listed on the page where "Nuclear" (with nothing following) would arguably be the best name for the article. --RL0919 (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That will turn current blue links into red links. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Links pointing to it probably ought to be pointing somewhere more specific anyway. Anyhow, there are less than a hundred such links in the article space, so they could all be fixed within a short time. --RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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♥♦♣ ♠ 20:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure enough of the non-notability of this organisation to put a prod tag on it, so I thought it would be appropriate to run it through an AfD. They have 96 Google hits, but 5 Google News hits, where they are mentioned along with other school canteen associations. I don't think this rises to notability, but would like input. The article is written in a very promotional tone. Abductive (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I helped the article creator a bit with this last year. My own conclusion was that there were enough sources out there to have a reasonable article and to make a modest case for notability. For what it's worth, I had planned on incorporating this source[28], but I ran out of interest in working on the article.--Kubigula(talk) 04:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped the "weak" in the keep - additions by Colonel Warden are enough to strengthen my resolve.--Kubigula(talk) 04:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article creator's user name matches the Communications Director of the organization.—C45207 | Talk 23:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup (but I did some anyway). Please address issues at the article's talk page before bringing them here per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In no way did I fail to do the research suggested in WP:BEFORE. Are you saying that my nomination was not in good faith, per WP:AGF? I also note that you loaded up the article with non-independent sources, and you are saying "speedy keep"? Abductive (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE contains many steps. The section I had in mind states, "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". The nominator in this case neither engaged with the principal author nor with the article's talk page. These are better places to discuss concerns because the editors there are more likely to have some interest and knowledge of the topic. As for myself, the source I added seems to be quite independent. I reformatted some links to better present them in the External Links section. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My belief is that even though this organisation has been mentioned in a couple of news articles, it is still not notable. Your sources are not convincing me otherwise. Let's be quite and allow the rest of the Wikipedia community to notvote here. Abductive (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE asks you to consider tagging it. It doesn't require it. So stop lecturing. He did a good faith search. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One of the independent sources is a 404 and one of the others does not mention the Association. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 07:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Colonel Warden. Granite thump (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. (Expanding:) I know of the organisation and it is definitely notable, they achieved a fair level of publicity and their work with government in New South Wales takes them beyond the common-or-garden advocacy group. Sourcing should be doable from a reliable source such as the Sydney Morning Herald and various local Sydney-area newspapers, which can be searched via Factiva if anyone has access and can be bothered to do so (not intended as an insult - I have Factiva access and genuinely cannot be bothered) Orderinchaos 10:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as is typical, the Article Rescue Squadron uses bogus links that don't work or are not on the subject. One link is good, isofar as it actually has the words "Healthy Kids School Canteen Association" in it, but seriously, this is what they call a trivial mention. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Improvement I have added another citation and cleaned up the existing ones. Some seem to have expired but they have access dates which testify to their existence at that time. If it matters, we might recover them from the Wayback Machine. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is not at all noteworthy beyond beyond an attempt by cybersquatters to 'rebrand' themselves. [29]Magicalthirty (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Barely merits being a small note in the article on Cybersquatting. Also note that none of the references actually use the term 'Domaining' except the one which talks about it simply being a rebranding attempt by cybersquatters. Magicalthirty (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator hasn't exactly withdrawn but he's leaning toward "keep" and there are no other arguments for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability for this non-single track. It did not chart, win an award, has no references or reliable sources, and has only one cover (The Breeders). The one cover alone is not enough to imply notability. DisturbedNerd999(Delete!) 06:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article's history [30] indicates that this article survived a previous AfD. Why is that AfD not linked and this nomination shown as a "2nd nomination"? Rlendog (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't listed as a 2nd nomination because it was previously Round and Round (Aerosmith song) that was nominated, and this article was bundled with it. There previously wasn't a "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord of the Thighs" page, so creating a "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord of the Thighs (2nd nomination)" page, in my opinion, wouldn't make any sense. I'll link to the old discussion as you've suggested.--DisturbedNerd999(Delete!) 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. That makes sense. Thank you for the link. Given the circumstances of that AfD, that discussion seems to have little or no bearing on whether this article (or any of the articles in that mass nomination) should be kept or not. Rlendog (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per allmusic there have been several covers, including Whitfield Crane and a group called Mystik. Although Mystik doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, it has recorded albums on significant labels so would appear to be a notable band.[31]. Furthermore, although I have not done an exhaustive study, the song has its own allmusic article,[32] which leads me to believe it is very likely to have significant coverage in multiple independent sources (after all, allmusic is one already), thus meeting WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added some additional refs from books which cover the song.Rlendog (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I didn't know that such sources about the song existed, or that there were other covers. I now see how this is notable, and may agree on a weak keep.--DisturbedNerd999(Delete!) 06:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable song by notable artist. Has been covered several times. Is a staple album track, is on several compilations, and has been played live numerous times over the past 35 years. Also, the several references added from numerous sources prove its notability and worth. Abog (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article seems to be autobiographical and doesn't seem to meet notability guidlines. Also has not had any substantial edits to bring it up to inclusion. Ryanthewebguy (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and clean-up). The Guardian's review establishes notability. The article may have started as an autobiography. However the quality of the text is good and appears neutral, although it would benefit from more rigorous referencing. Axl¤[Talk] 06:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is written in a factual manner and reads similarly to other person entries on Wikipedia. In what way does it seem too autobiographical? Also I agree with Axl that the guardian piece does show notability and that there are lesser known people on wikipedia. The lack of substantial edits is due to people not editing not due to the person's entry. Sheerin84 (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, I guess I am still learning what is notable and what is not. Cunard, after reading your talk page about not wanting to become an admin, I now see why. It seems like this article resembles some of the articles you talked about that may have been deleted quicker. I am glad that I got my hands dirty by coming here. Ryanthewebguy (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, adminship is not in my future. Anyway, I've wikified and sourced this article so that it establishes clear notability. Contrary to what 141.156.165.77 said above, this article was not "[p]ure vanispamcruftisement". I read through the article and have determined that it is not an autobiography. Although this article was created by U0wen (talk·contribs), it did not contain POV and tone issues that are present in all autobiographies.
Before you nominate an article for deletion, remember to search for sources on Google, Google News Archive, Google Books, and Google Scholar. That's why I do, and that's why nearly all of the articles I've nominated for AfD have been deleted. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanztalk 01:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Individual CCG cards are likely not notable at all, but if this card is, then hundreds of other cards likewise will have to be considered as such. There will never be a full length work such as a book on this card, and no non-Magic publication will ever publish any article with this as the subject. Croctotheface (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a quick note on sources: I'm aware that the article cites a small handful of sources. However, they just establish that Wrath of God can be an important card in certain contexts within the game of Magic. The same could be said of articles on poker hands where the ten of diamonds has a pivotal role. The queen of spades doesn't even gets its own article, despite its relevance to a game like Hearts. This Magic card should not get its own encyclopedia article either. Croctotheface (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has no independent notability outside the game of Magic. The sources just seem to be "Card of the Day" sites, which do not establish independent notability. Although nominator should beware "similar articles don't exist so this shouldn't" or "if we allow this article to exist, we would have to create lots of others" arguments. The point of Wikipedia is for it to be a growing work in progress. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 07:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said neither of those things, for the record. What I did say is that if this card is notable, then there would be no reason that hundreds of other cards wouldn't likewise be notable. That would not mean that we'd "have to create" those articles. And my point regarding the ten of diamonds and queen of spades was not "if they don't get articles, neither does this," the point was to provide a parallel case for editors unfamiliar with the game of Magic. My point was essentially: (1) we wouldn't/shouldn't give the queen of spades an article, and (2) the queen of spades is more notable than Wrath of God, so we shouldn't give Wrath of God an article. Croctotheface (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources have to come from outside the MTG community (they can be general gaming sites talking about the card, but any MTG-related site is a primary source). I would figure there's only one MTG card that could potentially be notable, and that would be "Black Lotus" due to it's game unbalancing, rarity, and current worth, but that's just a guess. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable outside the realm of MTG - Masem is right to compare it to Black Lotus (which rightfully doesn't have an article). It's a nice piece, and clearly very verifiable, but the general populace just doesn't care, as evidenced by no coverage whatsoever. I think mtg.wikia.com is the place to go for interested users. ~ Amory(user • talk • contribs) 15:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep while many of the sources are primary, some are not. I'd actually recommend a merge into some kind of a list article which lists "notable" MtG cards. Further, the notion that notability must come from outside the "realm" of the topic is, well, crazy talk. Should baseball players be required to be written about by sources outside of the realm of baseball? Come on. WP:N has no such restriction for a reason. Hobit (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N requires sourced independent of the topic. Wizards of the Coast are not independent of the game (since they publish it) and thus aren't suitable as the only sources for notability; this would be like if myself, I wrote a freeware program, then posted a bunch of articles on it on my site, and then said it was notable because of that. Now, if there was a general card & game magazine or website that mentioned the card in detail, that's different. In the situation of baseball, it would be improper to use the MLB or the team information to support the article on a baseball player, but using sports journalism as well as another outside that is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources aren't from WoTC. Hobit (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two non WoTC. One is simply a promo card database - this is not significant coverage (it's just a data point, much like using IMDB to identify actors and TV shows), so it fails as a secondary source. This leaves the "pojo.com" "Card of the Day" reference. First, I don't know what to make of this site's reliability; there's no indicator of editorial fact-checking on the site, and I can't find any suggestions that the cited authors or the site maintainers are past reliable sources. Even ignoring that (which is hard to ignore), the way this site is set up, reviewing a card a day, does not mean there's anything unique about "Wrath of God" as a card as to why it was reviewed - it just was. It would be one thing if a professional MTG Card reviewer (someone akin to what Roger Ebert would be for movies) reviewed every card, this just happening to be his review, but we're lacking the "professional" credentials here. The remaining sources are all WOTC, fine in context but not appropriate to establish notability. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete with merge preferred. I did some serious looking and found a lot of trivial references to this card (including the NYT). But not enough for it's own page. I think a list of "notable" cards would be good and would meet WP:N, but this doesn't as far as I can tell. Hobit (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with a "list of notable cards" article as well. Croctotheface (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a comment on a list - I'm not against it, but I would encourage there to be some minimum standard of recognization - more than just being a "card of the day" or the like. A similar metric is used at List of Internet memes which could easily suffer the fate of everyone and their brother adding their favorite memes, but kept in check by having some RS to describe it being a meme. Similarly, for Magic cards, there needs to be more than just an appearance in a database or some site's card of the day. An explanation of the card's history, or why the card is great to make combos from, published from WotC? Sure, that's fine, I'm sure there's also a few other RS' that can be used to identify potential article sources. But in checking "Wrath of God" on google, I'm not coming up with much, however, I noticed I'm not getting much from WotC. So it may just take some more investigation. Just make sure that there's a threshold here for inclusion in the list otherwise it will become unmaintainable fast. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the most notable cards in the game. Second choice merge. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see above, I tend to agree, but I'm having problems finding sources that are reasonable. Do you know of any? Hobit (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do either of you make of the notion that a single consolidated article on, say, 20 or so notable cards, would be a better way to present such information than a questionably sourced standalone article? Croctotheface (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I'd be happy with such a thing. Frankly, I'd be happy with all 20 having their own page, but I'm not seeing the case for WP:N for this card. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. No assertion of notability. Simply a random pairing of countries. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I woulnd't object to a G5 speedy deletion but I don't think it meets the letter of the law as although he was banned for creating this sort of article, this article was created before that ban. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant in-depth coverage of the subject of this article, relations between Spain and Armenia, simply doesn't exist in independent reliable sources. The two countries can't even be arsed to exchange ambassadors. This is the last one of these bilateral relations articles we will have to decide on until July 1 and it is a good example of a silly article on a non-notable topic that needs to be zapped. Drawn Some (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another random combination with no significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy closure with no action A standstill for Afds on these articles was proposed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive195#Proposed_standstill_agreement_on_Bilateral_Relations_articles to take effect on June 17, the day before this nomination took place, providing that "New AFDs and DRVs created on FBR articles are eligible for speedy closure with no action". The standstill was actually enacted by an Admin at 09:12 on 18 June 2009. I can see that it is at least debatable whether the standstill was in place on June 17 (the time the proposal referred to), or the time the proposal was approved. However, since the proposal to enact the standstill was explicit as to the time at which it was to take effect (June 17), the weight of the evidence shows that this proposal was to be retroactive to that date. Since this Afd was started on June 18, it would be prudent to speedy close per that discussion. Since I believe the issue of timing is debatable, I would oppose the corresponding sanction being applied to the nominator that was put in place during that discussion ("Persons disruptively violating #1 or #2 are liable to be blocked for a short period"). --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. Look at the data stamps. The WP:AN/I thread was still open and unresolved when this AfD was started. Your argument that the standstill is "retroactive" is absolute non-sense. At 01:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC), Libstar proposed that the thread be closed at on June 17 (time unspecified), but the discussion wasn't actually closed until 09:12, 18 June 2009. If anyone should be sanctioned it's Cdog for misconstruing the outcome of that discussion.YilloslimeTC 19:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point out where I "misconstrued" the outcome of the discussion. I think I laid out the facts rather clearly. As far as sanctioning each other, that discussion was an attempt to end the vitriol. Your failure, Yilloslime, to understand or internalize that is distressing. I urge you to assume good faith in the future.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, sorry. I misread your sentence there, reading the word "oppose" for "propose". Sorry about that. I've struck my comment re:sanctioning. As for misconstruing the debate outcome, I was referring to your argument that the standstill applies retroactively. Nowhere in that discussion or the admin's close was there any talk of the standstill applying retroactively. Rather, it was explicit that AfDs and DRVs already running would not be affected. YilloslimeTC 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the discussion to suggest that is should apply retroactively. But, on the other hand, it wasn't really a good idea to create this, as you were aware of the ANI thread (you commented in it). But the standstill was only (in my eyes) supposed to prevent venom in discussions anyways, and the discussion is looking so far like delete, so let's just drop it for now, eh? Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 20:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Water under the bridge. You are right that the idea that there should be retroactive applicability for the standstill is only implied by the choice of a concrete date (June 17) for the results of discussion to take effect. However, I think it's pretty strongly implied. Since a consensus had clearly been reached by that date (the last edit in the discussion was on June 16), the decision to close was a mere formality. The lateness of the close was due to the Admin not taking notice of the discussion, not the community consensus which was to close on a specific date, June 17.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely random and non-notable. (As an admin myself, I'd note that the "standstill" is entirely voluntary on the part of the editors concerned, although a very good idea given the level of hostility on the topic, and the completely obvious lack of notability of this particular relation should be a guiding factor per Wikipedia policy. I'd say the standstill would necessarily apply to topics which *could feasibly* be notable.) Orderinchaos 20:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read that discussion as being "voluntary", unless you mean that you can voluntarily get yourself blocked by violating its terms.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that creator of this page User:Groubani was banned subsequent to his creation of this page (for unrelated sockpuppetry) has no impact on the notability of the subject matter of this article and should be disregarded as a reason for possible deletion. This article should be judged on its merits, not on the merits of those associated with it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The wording of G5 is pretty clear and it doesn't apply here. Orderinchaos 04:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep and close. This comes under the terms of the standstill .he agreement was not intended to apply to things nearly closures, but to game it by afding an article this close to the end was not a good choice of action. If people disagree on this, close as non-consensus, because articles like this are why we had the stand still, having no consensus on them. DGG (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of the standstill was to let people cool off and reduce the level of acrimony surrounding these articles. Accusing me of gaming the standstill certainly doesn't further that cause. It'd be one thing if I'd AfDed a bunch of articles during the discussion. But I've AfDed only this one, and only after the PROD tag was removed--a PROD tag that was added before the standstill discussion was started, and that was removed during the discussion (by DGG). So it seems like a perfectly reasonable course of action to take this to AfD. You're assuming that I can tell the future: "by afding an article this close to the end"—when I AfDed this article the discussion was ongoing. I had no way of know if, when, or how the that discussion was going to be closed. And it was looking like the thread might be archived with no action, having wound down without any admin brave enough to close it at that point. YilloslimeTC 17:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the admin who closed the standstill discussion to weigh in on whether this article is covered by it. YilloslimeTC 17:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
doing it at the time you did, to try to get under the deadline, still looks to me like gaming the system. In any case, the article is improvable, since the existence of the relations given implies there will be more. Nations don;t sign such treaties unless there is a reason to do so. DGG (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG you're trying to invent an artificial deadline. there is an official deadline and that's what people should go on. Yilloslime or anyone else is entitled to nominate before this deadline. if anything because there are now very few other bilateral AfDs...this gives this article the best chance ever of being rescued if it can. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the standstill was expressed to apply to AFDs opened after it started, so it doesn't apply to this. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm striking out my vote above per the comment of lifebaka. In case anyone decides to look at the article that they are voting to delete, these two countries have historic ties that have been documented by independent 3rd party sources that go back over a millennium. The Armenian king Leo V (or VI) married a Spanish wife and was later ransomed from Egyptian captivity by the Spanish king Juan I. Even before that, the two countries were part of the Umayyad Caliphate together, at the same time as is indicated by the included map (which Yilloslime has attempted twice to remove). Even more recently, Spain attempted to mediate between Turkey and Armenia in 1920 (independently verified by the New York Times). That clearly meets the notability requirements under Wikipedia:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations (which are not set in stone), but also WP:N. It is also verifiable and cited that the two countries have had current bilateral relations for over 15 years. There are large numbers of Armenians living in Spain (independently verified) and the two countries have embassies within the other country. Does it serve any purpose whatsoever to erase this article? If anyone can answer that question I'd like to hear it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how I'd answer that: I'm a firm believer in the spirit, logic, and application of general notability guidelines--the idea that we need secondary, independent sources to write an an encyclopedia article on something, and at least some of those sources should address the topic directly and detail. Without such sources, article writing becomes either an exercise in synthesis, or you end up with a collection of somewhat related facts with no context or interpretation to hold them together. And this is exactly what we have here. YilloslimeTC 17:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Yilloslime's appeal to Wikipedia:IINFO#IINFO is also misplaced (and the policy is disputed anyway). This is not a lyric database or the plot of a TV movie. These are the relations between two nation states. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator, Yilloslime, has repeatedly removed material from this article (a map of the Umayyad Caliphate and a sentence explaining that both countries were once part of the Umayyad Caliphate). I have started a discussion regarding the restoration of this material. In my opinion, the situation presents a conflict of interest for Yilloslime and the deletion of this article should not be based on a version that has been degraded by the nominator. Please comment here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a conflict of interest to work on article that's currently at AfD, even for for the nominator to work on it. And I consider removing off-topic/irrelevant material from an article to be cleaning it up, a form of article improvement. YilloslimeTC 21:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umayyad Caliphate (green) at its greatest extent, c. 750.Just so everyone knows what we're talking about, Yilloslime has removed this map from the article three times.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of multiple, independent sources actually covering "Armenia–Spain relations". We can pretend an entity existing 1300 years ago (the Umayyad Caliphate) has something to do with today's Republic of Armenia (independent since 1991) and the Kingdom of Spain, but really, let's not. We can also showcase our Google-searching talents by plucking out bits of trivia from decades-old news stories with no contextual relevance, but again, see WP:NOT for that. We can find trivial details of the sort that we'd never notice outside these inane "rescue" efforts, but no, a ministerial meeting is not evidence of an actual phenomenon, no matter how hard we try to pretend. So let's put a stop to the silliness and delete. - BiruitorulTalk 23:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTE. Has not received significant discussion in WP:RS sources, about the subject itself. Cirt (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails due to lack of significant coverage in RS. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Verbalchat 09:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect, no need to have separate articles on non notable websites, but redirects are cheap and the general concept of Wikipedias in many languages is notable. Fram (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want it deleted (I find the idea of an Amish Wikipedia interesting), but I can't really argue against its deletion - there isn't any third-party coverage cited by the article. However, I'd like to note that the nominator is nominating several Wikipedia editions for deletion. Andjam (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As there is so few internet material about the idiom, and as other Wikipedia's have articles too, I am for keeping it.--Ziko (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many Wikipedias without an article, an at least seventeen who currently redirect to the same list. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not really the best arguments to keep something. Fram (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notability has not been established and the lack of third-party sources proves this, just as in the case of Daniel Stedman, which was kept because of WP:ILIKEIT. Laval (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability established via the proper reliable independent sources, created by COI account, advertising, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Student group at a small university, has 78 Google hits. Nothing amounts to much in News Books or Scholar searches either. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when i took off the prod i did not know it was just a fork of it so its best to either delete of merge/redirect it to Saint Mary's University (Halifax). Kyle1278 15:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably misusing the term "fork"... I meant only that this content merits no more than a paragraph on the SMU page, rather than its own individual entry. Hairhorn (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to main university article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails WP:ORG. very little third party coverage [36]. current citations are all its own website. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has several news articles just about it. Also, it is massive: [37], as it is located in the historic Old Kingston Powerhouse. See [38]. Abductive (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The building is the former Kingston Powerhouse, which is one of the most historic buildings in Canberra; it's really notable in its own right, and there's a tonne of sources about it. In addition, the Glassworks was a fairly major development project and tourist attraction in its own right; I dare say it shouldn't be at all difficult to source, considering the press coverage I recall from when it was under construction. I've tried to get Factiva to load to give some example articles, but it doesn't seem to be working and I have to go out - nonetheless, it shouldn't be hard to source. Rebecca (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial in-depth coverage is available in independent reliable sources. I added one such to the article and corrected some information that was incorrect according to that reference which points out the need to used reliable sources in the first place. I am concerned that the building itself is being commingled with the glass studio which could go out of business or move and still leave a notable building in need of an article. Drawn Some (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The glass studio couldn't really move as is - it was created in the first place, as a use for the building, and the building was specially refitted to accomodate it. Rebecca (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is the two are separately notable and should each have their own article. The studio could be disbanded or move and the building would still be there. They glassblowers could show up one morning and find that the building's location is a smoking hole with remnants of a giant asteroid in it and re-open the studio in an abandoned warehouse on the other side of the river. It is appropriate for the article on one to mention the other but the topics are worthy of separate articles. Drawn Some (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair call, although I suspect there would be significant crossover in article content. (The reason I suggest this is because much of the content of both articles would be what they did to the building as a result of it becoming the Glassworks.) If you can make an interesting article on the Powerhouse alone though, be my guest. Rebecca (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete-This appears to be more advertising then encyclopeadic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While a little spammy, the guardian article certainly does give significant coverage to this site. Corpx (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete INsufficient notability. Coverage is not substantial enough to warrant inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Could be cleaned up and seems to be noteworthy. REALLY needs a clean-up though. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:17, 11 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) 02:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Keep it is using inappropriate propaganda in which makes the article spammy. If it gets cleaned up, maybe I'll go with a stay. ZooFari 02:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup: Coverage is significant for a website. Need for cleanup is not reason for deletion. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 07:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on merge Flowerparty☀ 01:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails both WP:GNG (no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") & WP:PLOT (only substantive content is the plot summary). Only cited sources are (two) for bare existence & (one) brief recommendation in a book on choosing children's books (by an author of no apparent prominence). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see you are still using Google(-news)-hits (the majority of which are mere announcements of video releases and the like -- "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." -- WP:NOT#NEWS) in place of evidence of "significant coverage of the topic. I would suggest that this does not bring much (any?) more depth than the sources already cited in the nomination. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The very first hit on Google News is a story with this article subject in the title that appears (from the preview available) to cover it substantially and it's not yet included as a citation. [40]ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Author:. 3 2 1 PENGUINS! THE CHEATING SCALES OF BULLAMANKA. Big Idea Productions, 60 minutes, $12.95. "3, 2, 1, Penguins" is a Christian animated children's ...", a 235 word blurb in the 'Calendar' section -- it appears to be a video-release-announcement. About as 'substantial' as candy floss -- or as your argument. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The portion of the article that is available to me states "The main characters are 7-year-old-twins Jason and Michelle, who are spending their summer vacation at their eccentric English grandmother's cottage. The two kids think it will be boring until they discover Grandmum's cool attic. "The Cheating Scales of Bullamanka" is the second episode in the series. In this story, Michelle cheats to beat her brother in a game of "Squid-Tac-Toad," a game Grandmum got while vacationing in Australia." Which seems to have substance and to be more than just an announcement or a blurb. But opinions can differ. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That portion (which is 1/3 to 1/4 the total 'article') is merely a plot summary, which is quite in keeping with "an announcement or a blurb". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:38, 13 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) 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment clearly the reference given by ChildofMidnight would make a good example of a "blurb" and in no ways constitutes in-depth coverage much less significant or substantial in-depth coverage. Drawn Some (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ( or keep -- see below) into a list of episodes. This is one of a series of animated half-hour videos, & I would treat them as episodes, not individual titles. The series has some notability. The individual ones probably do not--and even if they were borderline, it should not be handled this way; such articles should best be included as part of a combination article, not separately, unless the series is actually famous not merely notable. We could probably justify treating Star Trek or MASH in this fashion; sometimes certain individual ones may be particularly notable. The ref cited by CoM is a 200 word routine TV-guide like plot summary, exactly the thing that does not represent significant coverage. It detracts from the good case we can make for episodes of famous series to try to stretch it this far. DGG (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree with DGG that a merge is worth considering, I was able to sandblast the plot and expand and cleanup the article. I find it has received individual attention from children's reviewers outside of the series as a whole, allowing it a seperate, albeit minor, notability. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is also OK and then we can consider whether to retitle it as a combined article on the group of episodes, with this the 2nd section. I think you did a great job of rewriting the content. It will do very well in the merged article. But it doesn't actually matter. What matters is the content, not how we divide it up. It does make a difference whether we have good content on the individual episodes. It matters very much--we're an encyclopedia and we ought to have it. so. It does not make any significant difference whether or not they get combined into an article. There are many equally good ways to organize material. What we really need is some information on the other episodes, and--even more--some information on the importance of the underlying show, so we can judge how much detail is appropriate. DGG (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable. Lacks sources. There are thousands of these motorcycle models such as this one [41], but the meager information that you can find on web sites typically is devoid of context, and is never from reliable third parties. If you had a source where you could gather up all the various clones made under different names and talk about them as a group, it would be a pretty interesting article. Maybe a good book on the topic will be written some day. Dbratland (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't such an article to merge into. All I was saying is that if secondary sources were some day created (and wouldn't that be great) then a good article could be written. The only thing it could be merged into is Zongshen, but none of the material in Kd50qt-4 is appropriate for an article about a manufacturer. And even then, Zongshen itself is a candidate for deletion for the same reasons -- no third party secondary sources, no notability. Besides their own company website, their biggest claim to fame is that a (very poor) Wikipedia article about them exists.
My point was only that I don't want to disparage the Chinese motorcycle industry. I suspect there is a lot of interesting things that could be said, but not much of anyone is saying them, yet.--Dbratland (talk) 20:04, 11 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) 01:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs to be merged into a wider subject, probably Zongshen, as the beginning of a sereis of paragraphs on theri various models. However, unless a reliable source can be provided for the problems (so that it is quoting fair comment from others), this section must be deleted as a potential commercial libel. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The song has not appeared on any major music charts, is not covered by reliable sources, and is not even a single yet. It blatantly fails WP:NSONGS. Timmeh!(review me) 01:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Timmeh. The other day, I saw one source that said the song was going to be played on the radio, but it didn't say it would be a single. Alex (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs to actually be released and then chart before we can even consider an article for this song. Fails WP:NSONGS. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album article. Like the band, like the song, but this currently misses the notability criteria by a mile. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted several times via speedy and once via prod. No sources, WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe salt. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't yet exist, and no evidence of notability; no obvious rd candidate. JJL (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all the information I could find on this is from 2006. There does not appear to be any current info on this game and the 2006 data says there is no release date yet. Nothing to say this is notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Delete so that the next time it comes up we can use G4. ~ Amory(user • talk • contribs) 01:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah - G4 concerns copies, "by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion," which excludes, as it later comments, content that was "deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions." Essentially, G4 is only if it has already been discussed; CSD and PROD are by definition not discussions, so since this article has only been dealt with through those avenues it isn't eligible... yet. ;) ~ Amory(user • talk • contribs) 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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♥♦♣ ♠ 20:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concert series lacking reliable sources to indicate it meets the general notability guidelinesoutside of the Tulsa/Oklahoma area. Google News gives local listings about Dfest, but I could not find any sources with full coverage outside the area. (in other words, excluding "Band X is playing at Dfest this year"). tedder (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator sums this up pretty well. Some independent, reliable sources such as a newspaper article would save this article from deletion, but right now, there is nothing to prove that this article is notable. I searched through Google and Yahoo News, and all I could find are two pages in localpapers that aren't enough to merit notability. Even if we did find something, over half of the article needs to go — and that's the lists concerning what artists played during what years. Wikipedia is not a directory, see number four there for the specifics. One interesting point is that the places of local interest essay dictates that well referenced, non-stub articles about local places may be kept, but if we remove the directory-esque information, we aren't left with very much. If this really is signifigant for the local community, we can merge it with Tulsa, Oklahoma, but I don't think it is notable enough to merit its own article. TheEarwig(Talk | Editor review) 01:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not aware of any general consensus that WP:GNG excludes substantial, unusual annual events solely because they are of mainly local interest. Based on the press reports, D-Fest has become a big deal: I don't think 140 bands, 60,000 people, a bunch of notable speakers and panelists, and a multiyear track record is the sort of "run of the mill" local event for which arguably one might find an exclusionary consensus. I found the discussion page of the proposed guideline Wikipedia talk:Notability (local interests) instructive on this point: the proposals for hard-and-fast requirements of non-local sources have met with fairly overwhelming opposition. Having said this, I'd certainly agree that the article does need more specific sourcing from reliable sources, and the long, long lists of every single band and every single panelist don't need to be there--some highlights (duly sourced) will do just fine. Here are a few more Tulsa and Oklahoma City sources; please note the references in a number of these to the festival's evolution from small-time to big-time.[42][43][44][45][46][47] This one from 2008 calls it "Oklahoma's largest music conference and festival."[48]--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and well established festival. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:56, 11 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) 01:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has multiple reliable sources, it is a notable festival. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems a notable festival. Something doesn't have to be world-famous to be notable. It just needs coverage in reliable sources, which is established, especially via the research of Arxiloxos. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 07:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn and sent to WP:RFD. Lenticel(talk) 03:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, should the deletion be cancelled? Alex (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would suggest withdrawing the nomination and bringing the redirect up at WP:RFD, as the title is too general to redirect to Appeal to Reason, IMO. Timmeh!(review me) 01:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable person. Interestingly, his Wikipedia article predates his suicide, so don't say "Wikipedia is not a memorial". Previously prodded and deprodded. Abductive (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Also looks like it was a WP:SPA that created it. The only things the author has edited is articles about this guy, Brandeis University and the high school this guy attended. Might be a WP:COI. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here that suggests any reason why there should be an encyclopedia article about him. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see anything out of the ordinary here. Fences&Windows 00:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No notability for this fictional place. There is already an article for the setting of king of the hill: Arlen, Texas. Quantpole (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to King of the Hill or Arlen, Texas. Very plausible search term Abductive (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and I too agree that Arlen, Texas is the more appropriate target. Drawn Some (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not request for deletion This is not a request for deletion and should not be here. I can best interpret it as a request for help in making a redirect.DGG (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a notable actress or model. Other than the "AMTC" web site I can't find any reliable sources to establish notability, web search only brings up links to social networking sites or blogs. Frehley 00:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and allow back in a few years when she actually has an acting career that receives some sort of covergae. On IMDB it lists just one project that aired on June 13. Is User:Guomimi a relative? [49]Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because even though iCarly is her first role, she is notable for having won a teen division and for modeling.PeterGriffin11298 (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:BLP. She is not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanztalk 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that Azerbaijanis in the United Kingdom are notable. No coverage in news sources, or on Google Scholar. 2001 UK Census recorded only 561 people born in Azerbaijan. No indication that they think of themselves as a group. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability due to a lack of reliable and independent sources with any significant coverage of the topic, and Wikipedia is not a directory for stubs on every combination of two countries. Edison (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have actually managed to find quite a bit on Azerbaijanis in the UK, despite it being a very small community there is an article on Wikipedia about a newspaper set up by Azeris in the UK. I don't know if I can expand it enough to make it noteworthy, I would like opinions, but I totally agree that there is no need for a list of British Azerbaijanis when the list includes just one person. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Census is right as it is calculated by professionals. Also there are 15 000 Azeris in UK according to Azerbaijan.az, which is governmental site. User:NovaSkola (talk) 05:44, 17 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 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the census is correct, then how can the 15,000 figure be too? Anyway, it's not just about numbers. I still don't see evidence of notability through coverage in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Census counts British Born Azeris not Azerbaijani population in UK. Deleting this topic would not achieve anything as soon mo:re reliable source going to available, somebody will still going to open same topic. User:NovaSkola 04:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very strange logic for not deleting the article. If reliable sources exist at a later date, then the article can be created, but it's no reason to have the article now when those sources don't yet exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, NovaSkola, yes the 2001 census recorded ethnicity but the figure for Azerbaijanis in the UK is Azerbaijani born people in the UK and doesn't count one single British born Azeri. That is why it is important to have alternate and more recent sources that include Azeris in the UK regardless of birthplace. Also like Cordless Larry stated, the group needs to be notable by more aspects than simply population size. I have already expanded the article from one sentence, and it would be helpful if you could make further additions or provide more sources, since it was your inital creation. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How come you can delete this article, while allowing British Armenian article up there. In fact, their sources are also taken from 2001 census!--NovaSkola (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. You are free to nominate that article for deletion if you wish. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this supposed to be about citizens of the country Azerbaijan and their descendants, or any speakers of Azeri Turkish regardless of national origin? I notice a number of articles from Azerbaijan media which are referring to "South Azerbaijanis" (i.e. Iranian Azeris) in the UK, but the coverage seems to be mostly trivial or not exactly focused on the community itself:
Thanks, cab (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
61 Google News Hits, loads of Google Books hits; why do you say it isn't notable? Abductive (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 38 news hits on my computer, nearly all of which seem to be FECRIS-written press releases (although I can't read the russian ones!). A grand title and what appears to be a high volume of activity by a handful of dedicated people doesn't make this organisation notable. The Google hits are posts and links by similar organizations and/or individuals. I can't find anything that provides third-party verification of any notability. I have not contributed to the article and have no vested interest or prior knowledge of FECRIS. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Among the Google News hits a few of them are for people with the last name Fecris as well. I can't read any of the news articles except the one from Jerusalem Post, "COUNTERING CULTS", and that one requires a subscription. The burden of proof for notability lies with those adding information or wanting to keep an article, you don't have to prove non-notability. The article itself has zero reliable sources and doesn't even attempt to explain why the subject is notable, it essentially says that it exists, is involved with cult activities, and then lists its members. -- Atamachat 21:09, 11 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 00:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will improve this article with WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Cleaned up the page, removed all the unsourced info, added some new sources and some material cited to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, started subsection on History and on Analysis, added an infobox. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Cirt (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's an impressive cleanup, Cirt. The article certainly looks a lot better and the information makes sense. With regard to notability, the number of references in books alone, doesn't mean that the subject is notable. The definition of 'significant coverage' is somewhat subjective. We'd need to look whether the books were widely distributed/sold or just made available in a niche. It's not that hard to get a book published these days, especially if one wants to self-fund it. Similarly, the number of organizations under the "umbrella" of FECRIS is indicative of notability, but doesn't, of itself provide conclusive evidence. We would need to ascertain the notability of the member organizations. Looking into FECRIS a little further over the last few days, it seems to me that it's a rather narrow organization working within a small niche. Nothing I have found changes my delete recommendation. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reasserting your original position as the AfD nominator. Let's see what others think after all the work I have put into this. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have only gone through a few books so far in the recent improvements to the article. I have not even begun to add in material from published scholarly sources, but will do so soon and continue to improve the article's quality further. Cirt (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hint: When dealing with a French organisation, look for sources in French.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 23:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved. DGG (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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♥♦♣ ♠ 20:32, 24 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 00:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Deleted as G11 but contested at DRV. No real consensus there so I am referring it here. This is a procedural nomination. Shereth 20:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a good G11 to me. ukexpat (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A news search turns up plenty of sources [50]. Few of them are kind, but coverage is certainly there. [51] reviews a number of programs of this type, Wizetrade first. [52] covers the topic, [53] has four paragraphs, [54], [55] each provide significant coverage. There are a lot more RSes. I strongly suspect this is a hard-sell scam, but a well-sourced one... Hobit (talk) 17:16, 17 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 00:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The significant coverage in multiple reliable sources found by Hobit proves that this company passes WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 11 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 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails notability guidelines per WP:MUSIC. No indication is given of the song charting, suggesting it falls short of the bar put in place for singles. Tyrenon (talk) 09:46, 4 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, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some decent sources and a chart position now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:35, 11 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 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep minor level of notability; rd to Sabrina Salerno would also be reasonable. JJL (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per JJL. Notable Eurodance song. While WP:MUSIC is not policy, apparently it reached #15 on the Finnish singles charts. I would expect it to have reached the Italian and German charts as well, can we get those online? Sources have been added, and many more non-English sources should be available. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD declined. No evidence is provided that the subject of the article is notable (Gnews search turns up nada), and it appears to be a passing news event except in small circles. WP:N, WP:NOT#NEWS both apply. The article's style also smacks of WP:SPAM. RayTalk 14:26, 4 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) 00:05, 11 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, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and apparently now defunct organization; it doesn't make a meaningful assertion of notability. It is a Spanish memorial fund that is not notable enough to have its own entry at Spanish Wikipedia. The fund's own website lists only two small newspaper mentions, google.es had only 4 hits for "Fundación cultural Ernesto Koplowitz", and Spanish language google news had nada. I can read some Spanish, and from what I can tell, this does not meet WP:NOTE, but I decided to list it here instead of "prod"ing because Wikipedians more fluent in Spanish probably have a better chance of seeing it here and letting us know if there is anything salvageable here. With the information I have now, though, my vote is to delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:40, 4 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) 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really lousy translation, needing much editing, but apparent the family foundation of a family of billionaires, and therefore almost certainly notable while it was active. DGG (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The family is indeed notable, and Ernesto's daughters Alicia and Esther both have their own entries here and on Wikipedia español. I still don't see how that makes memorial fund in question notable - I couldn't find independent sources for the foundation in either language. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:57, 15 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 00:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Five Google hits in either language. Abductive (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable event mostly limited to one city, with only blogs and one article in that city's gay paper as sources. Seems to be a case of "create the Wikipedia article to get notability" rather than "get notability and then create the Wikipedia article". Rebecca (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I removed the prod template from this article as I felt there was some evidence of notability, but it's not much; looking at it closely, only one of the sources seems to pass WP:RS. (Yes, I could have just let this article get deleted, but I think it's borderline and deserves wider attention.) Robofish (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think covering it under the section of "Annual events" in Culture of San Diego in a similar style to other events will be good enough.--Revth (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's even notable for that - I get the vibe that this more some 25-person thing rather than something with citywide notability - or at least that's what the lack of reliable sources implies. Rebecca (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of RSs and notability. If more sources appear, then a sentence in Culture of San Diego may be useful, but with only one source, this does not have enough notability even for that. I can use the local city paper to source every tiny special interest meeting, but they certainly shouldn't have wiki article if that is the only basis.YobMod 15:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Improvement I have added another citation and cleaned up the existing ones. Some seem to have expired but they have access dates which testify to their existence at that time. If it matters, we might recover them from the Wayback Machine. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
