< 23 June	25 June >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close; duplicate nomination. Non-admin closure. PC78 (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Robertson (politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

non-notable person. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 01:06, 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 result was no consensus. Flowerparty^☀ 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Toon[edit]

Absolutely no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: some of the text appears to have been copied from here: [1]. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Would it be possible to merge this article with the Randy Cunningham#Education and military service Section? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for referencing. He apparently isn't a real person but a propoganda hoax. However, sources do seem to be available. A google book search indicates addiitonal information can be found in this book. -- Whpq (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - Whpq's book linked above mentions Toon on 3 separate pages, and they are more than brief mentions. It quotes ex-pilots discussing him. I found another book that lists Toon as an "ace" with 13 kills, consistent with what is claimed in the article. This is still just barely clearing the hurdle of WP:N so if it is still felt that the article doesn't belong, information about Toon should be added to the Randy Cunningham article with the two books found as references, and redirect this page to that one. -- Atama ^chat 20:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - another reference found and added to the article - One Day in a Long War discusses "Colonel Toon/Tomb" with regard to whether he was the pilot shot down and concludes that he was didn't exist as such - but does devote more than a page to the matter.Nigel Ish (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 French helicopter crash[edit]

Wikipedia is not a newsite and it unlikely this crash will have any lasting encyclopedic value. ThaddeusB (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment helicopter crashes are probably commonplace enough that there wouldn't be just one a year in France. I know too little about this one to give any more info about it, but the title should probably be more specific. Sebwite (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seven deaths is a major aircraft incident. But this is a new story, and there should be some more information forthcoming. I would waited for better accounts before writing the article, abut once written, I would wait for them before nominating it for deletion. DGG (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All aviation accidents are notable. Lugnuts (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? There are literally hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of crash a year. --ThaddeusB (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With seven (or more) deaths? Look at these articles for more: one, two, three, etc. Lugnuts (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In its present form this is a news article. If it can be expanded to an encyclopaedia article I'll reconsider, but nothing I've seen suggests it's likely. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every crash is notable to someone, but not all aviation accidents merit their own article. Unfortunately, helicopters crash more often than scheduled airline flights and happen several times a month "helicopter+crash"|June 2009 news stories. This is a symptom of someone wanting to be the very first to write an article about something that they have seen on the news, and Wikipedia is not the news. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tragedy ≠ notability, per nom and Mandsford says is so well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be demonstrated that the article meets WP:AIRCRASH. Having looked at the article there is nothing to show that it does. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH, and for lack of multiple, independent sources providing in-depth coverage of the event beyond a single news cycle. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recentism and, alas, routine. Dahn (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we should add the older ones also. As for routine, we have no space limits. DGG (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. --Born2flie (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as last user said. Most are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Transwiki. While this is a major accident, it might be more suitable for Wikinews if necessary as Wikipedia itself it is not CNN or MSNBC (or should I say WP:NOTNEWS. JForget 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Usually if there is a fatalities for an aircrash, it is a notable event and I'm likely to vote keep. Although there are deaths, I just don't see anything special or out of the ordinary besides the plain fact that there were deaths (such as follow-up reports, safty concerns, detailed searches, etc.) So I'm on the fence, I could see this going any way. 15:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavix (talk • contribs)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat[edit]

fails WP:ORG, google news found nothing [2], google search yields mainly mirror sites. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.--Grahame (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:N Rmosler | ● 22:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Corey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lil' Corey

Article does not establish notability, especially the important factors like charted songs/coverage in secondary sources. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 After removing an utterly false claim of his being signed to Jive Records, there is absolutely no claim of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Anal Cunt. Flowerparty^☀ 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Anal Cunt band members[edit]

Unsourced list, redundant to Anal Cunt. Can be summarized in main article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a legitimate list, in line with others of a similar nature. No reason to list for deletion; a "citations needed" tag would have been more appropriate. Andre666 (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Band not notable enough for a separate list, also the list itself is not really long enough to merit a separate entry. The same criticisms may apply to some of the other "list of members of x" pages. Hairhorn (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the band article. There isn't enough content to justify a separate article.--Michig (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anal Cunt per WP:CFORK.--Cannibaloki 02:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anal Cunt. I agree with the reasons given by all three above "Merge" posters.

The result was WP:SNOW delete --JForget 23:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Cohen[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Author of one book of dubious notability, appeared in a made for TV movie as "green eyed girl." Is currently appearing in a reality show, for which no participants have articles (including from the previous winner). In short, no reliable secondary sources discuss this topic in any detail. This article was created by the request of the subject with the promise of a $75 dollar payment [3]. --Leivick (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2009

Keep references 1 and 3 are reliable and verifiables Rirunmot (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Reference 1 is 404 (and still is a press release presumably from the subject) and all reference 3 verifies is that she had a very minor role in a made for TV movie. --Leivick (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, no real claim to notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Delete - multiple reliable sources available, I added a few. Postoak (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yikes, I added several sources that I could find that I thought might possibly save the article, however the fact that this article was created by a paid request did not "register" until now. I wish to change my recommendation. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete One 81 page self-published "book"? Just a beginning contestant in a TV show. One extremely minor movie role. Zero reliable references. The "Forbes" reference is from their PR newsletter, which counts for absolutely nothing, and it's just PR for the show where she;s presently just one of the contestants. I would consider it a G11, promotional speedy. It's thissort of article which discredits the already dubious concept of paid editing. I think the subject should get her money back. DGG (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, as per WP:BIO. Sources aside, it's simply not a encyclopedic subject. And paying people to spam Wikepedia is reprehensible. akaDruid (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I became aware of this article since an editor asked what to do about it at WP:COIN. My response there was that it does not meet WP:BIO, unless there is something important about her career that has not been included here. She was in a made-for-TV movie, Soulkeeper, but IMDB's entry for that movie does not mention her (so she didn't have a major role). EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have checked out the references on the page and while the number of references seem impressive at first glance, the references themselves don't meet WP:RS. The only possible exception is the Columbus Dispatch, but that alone is not enough. Her only legitimate shaky claim to notability is as a contestant on a reality show, but unless more coverage can be found for that, she clearly fails WP:BIO. -- Atama ^chat 18:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to make a suggestion one way or another. As the writer, the only thing I'll say is that unless this is a space issue, any potential topic can be an encyclopedic topic. I didn't do this to drum up promotion for this person; at several points, I stayed away from adding information that would be promotional, though I didn't do as good of a job as the editors who followed. If it gets deleted, I'll return the money. I did it because I considered Wikipedia to have a broad enough reach to include someone like this subject. If there's only so much space to go around, then yes, the article should be removed. But there are plenty of examples of people only famous because of reality television who have articles that would also be considered promotional (Coral Smith, Becky Blasband, Mohamed Bilal to name a few). Just because The Real World is more popular and probably has a younger, more tech-savvy audience that would be more likely to write Wiki articles doesn't mean its contestants shouldn't be held to the same standard as a show with a different viewing demographic. Proportionally, it's obvious that this person is not deserving of a lot of space. But that doesn't mean she's not deserving of an article, particularly since the precedent of other only-notable-because-of-reality-TV people has allowed those people to have articles. If the content meets the standards, intent is irrelevant. User:Gkerkvliet

I agree with you that if the content meets the standard, the manner of editing is irrelevant. I suppose under the principles of free enterprise that the paid editors who judge rightly will be the ones that prosper. But perhaps that's unfair since it is true that our judgements are not all that predictable or consistent. The concept that anyone's life can be encyclopedic if treated in detail by a writer with full access to interviews and primary sources is possibly correct, but that's the province of original research. The idea that we should include literally everybody with whatever information is verifiable, is not what people expect in an encyclopedia. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, necessarily, but it's not what we're out to do. DGG (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please read WP:OSE and WP:BIO. – ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, and space isn't really a concern, that's true. But it's also not a place to store every piece of information about everything imaginable. It's a repository of knowlege, and there are policies and guidelines to help define what is considered actual "knowlege". You're correct that if the content meets the standards, intent is irrelevant, but we're not even judging the content so much as the subject. By the way, you did your job, and didn't do a bad job, so keep the money! -- Atama ^chat 20:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Clearly fails WP:BIO, paid spam. ukexpat (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -- Book is tiny and self-published through a notorious vanity press so fails WP:AUTHOR, only roles are insignificant in the extreme (so fails WP:ACTOR), and the sources here are all apparently self-published in one way or another (directly, press releases, sites allowing reviews/releases from the subject) and fail WP:RS rules (thus making the article fail WP:GNG standards). Probably should have been a speedy delete for outright marketing. DreamGuy (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Snow close anyone? Bueller? Bueller? – ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Algébrico (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted as hoax. – iride scent 22:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dub-core[edit]

De prodded. I think it's a dance step, but it's hard to tell exactly. No indications of notability, and even if I were to include the google hits for the phrase, it's common enough that there's no indication it's what's being talked about here. Shadowjams (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (we ec'd with my own setting up an AFD on this). There is a legitimate musical style called dubcore, but this article is not about it. – iride scent 22:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry about that. I figured you would do it soon. If there is anything notable about it, the commonality of the term makes it impossible to figure out, especially since there's no context. Shadowjams (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I think this article got 4 simultaneous nominations! Appears to be a music style created by the author but which hasn't actually been recorded yet due to drug use. db-band, db-group and possibly even db-attack seem like reasonable grounds for deletion. I42 (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As further additions show that this is clearly a hoax, I've speedied this. – iride scent 22:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 23:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Nguyen[edit]

Not notable. Only claims to notability are (1) dancer in an R. Kelly video, and (2) former "Miss Vietnam Budweiser Girl". She's also been employed by several notable artists, but in an apparently non-noteworthy capacity. Hairhorn (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No notability found. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Follows the guidelines Actor/Producer/Reliable references/internal links/notability/external links BioDetective2508 16:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? Hairhorn (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep supports guidelines in WP:ENT and WP:ACTOR. Significant notable lead roles in several films and tv shows with film producing. Not sure if she is the journalist as unclear if it's the same person at Los Angeles Times but researching if she is the Times writer. Do you know? BioDetective2508 (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Lead roles? Films? All I see is dancing in an R Kelley video... not a film, not a lead role. Hairhorn (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you clink on the wiki internal links and her third-party sources, she has a lead in the Charlie & Martin Sheen film No Code of Conduct and Let's Talk About Sex (also credited as Producer), lead guest roles in The District and Pensecola. She's established on those wiki pages and categories. Also, there are sites though not under the guideline of reliable source sites that she is credited as management for Velvet Revolver and on an MTV Velvet Revolver video special. I'm wondering if she is the journalist too. If anyone knows perhaps should add to bio? BioDetective2508 (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable third-party sources to establish notability of this person.Biophys (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The claims earlier about her "lead roles" are patently false; she has had a few bit parts in films. Not enough to satisfy WP:ACTOR, and not enough general coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. -- Atama ^chat 20:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. They are credited lead roles and supporting lead on numerous of film sites and does in fact fall under WP:ACTOR guidelines. BioDetective2508 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2009

Reply - No Code of Conduct only has 3 billed stars, she's not one of them, so your statement above is false. The "Let's Talk About Sex" film is arguable, and the TV shows were one-shots. You're inflating her career artificially. -- Atama ^chat 19:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - No Code of Conduct is considered an ensemble cast. Casting, billing credits and extended articles via internet state Tina Nuyen and Meredith Salenger are the female leads. Moreover, the 3 stars you mentioned received top billing (name before film title) which excludes other credited stars but notwithstanding (ie Gleason, Masak, Nguyen, Salenger, Lando, Gains). If you please view the wiki film link you will see that each person I mentioned has a starring and/or supporting lead role in the ensemble with three actors receiving top billing (top billing is a contractual agreement term usually reserved for marketing, sales and distribution purposes normally extended to "A" list or known actors with international appeal and excludes other starring players in the film with less marketable names; however, does not demean nor lessen the other starring actors creditability and notability in the project). Example: Dolph Lundgren receives top billing on most all of his projects however he is not the sole starring actor, he simply has international marketing appeal that commands top billing. Please do not confuse top billing with solely starring and sole leads. Lastly, this actress appears on the tiers sheets, posters and video cover of the film (viewable on IMDB link) that does not occur unless the actor has a significant/notable part in the film. BioDetective2508 (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2009

Delete The only Velvet Revolver references I've found are from the band's official site - a Tina Nguyen is included (amongst dozens of others) in sleeve-note 'thanks to' lists in 2004 and 2005. No indication of role. No sources referring to 'management' found anywhere - even though BioDetective states there are some "not under the guideline of reliable source sites." And to say the acting roles are these movies female 'leads' is misleading - some movies simply do not have equal gender involvement (off the top of me head: Snatch would be a similar example). The roles are comparatively minor and do not fit WP:ACTOR. As for the LA Times journalist - its hardly an uncommon name and she is quite clearly not that person. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply On the discography for Contraband, Velvet Revolver it states management team: Immortal Entertainment which goes on to distinguish the team of managers; also a radio broadcasting interview with Michigan quotes her as a manager. In addition, on her IMDB page it states it in her trivia information. All other reviews of film projects states she is the female lead "lead of the bad guys" how you wish to language the distinction of an ensemble is a matter of opinion but the facts on numerous of reliable film source sites issues her amongst other actors in the ensemble as notable roles and the blogging on the films mention her significant performance numerous of times. I've stated my opinion and added additional sources so it's up to admin. The name is common hence why I asked for clarification if she was the journalist, thanks for the answer if that is factual. BioDetective2508 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2009

Delete Lack of secondary independent reliable sources. IMDb is not reliable per WP:BIO/WP:ACTOR/WP:ENT. Algébrico (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator DGG (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elk, Kansas[edit]

Supposed ghost town in Kansas, but can't find any sources for its existence. The GNIS reveals nothing, even though it records long-gone ghost towns. Google produces plenty of results, but virtually all are for Elk County or Elk City, or the standard "Divorce lawyers in Elk, Kansas" etc.; nothing substantive is there. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There was no evidence outside of what Nyttend mention about divorce lawyers in Elk, Kansas.RFD (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I did come across this reference:[4]There is a possibility some sort of settlement existed.Thanks-RFD (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep or Redirect~~ Keep, I like this place I hate to say this because my personal view would be to put this back in to Marion_County,_Kansas#Ghost_towns and delete the pointless article as not notable but the place existed alright, founded by the great grandaddy of Councilman Stacey Collett [5]. Polargeo (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is on a 1921 map: [6] --NE2 23:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (without prejudice) to Marion_County,_Kansas#Ghost_towns. At present the only verifiable things we can say about it are 1. that it existed, 2. it was shown on a map in 1921 3, Councilman Stacey Collett's great-grandfather helped found it, and 4. it doesn't exist now. I don't think that point three is even encyclopaedic. Unless sufficient else encyclopaedic can be verifiable said that it would outgrow the target article, we might as well just redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some sources can be found here and here. Sebwite (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If people lived in a town or village, it does not matter when, it's notable. DGG (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, this nomination was made because I doubted the existence of such a community. Nyttend (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can withdraw the nomination yourself if you nominated it. Just say at the top "the result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin close). Sebwite (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish running guide[edit]

Non-notable publication. A bit of coverage on Facebook, Twitter, and Digg, but no reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A comment made by the creator on my talk page shows that he himself agrees he is unable to show that the publication meets our notability guidelines (which is not surprising, given the publication's nature). I pondered prodding the article, but this AfD came a bit sooner than I expected. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually monitoring abuse filter 29 (for removing CSD tags). I wanted to PROD it, but figured that if they would remove a CSD tag, they probably would remove a PROD as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a good faith article by someone who wasn't aware of the rules for notability. I've thought for some time that for non-autoconfirmed users, the process for creating a new article should make it clearer what the rules of notability are, rather than have their work deleted afterwards, which is demoralising for new users. However, concerning the article itself, it's a clear delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Speedy closing... deletion is obviously not an issue here, it's either a keep or a merge with reorganizing the content. But this should be discuss at the talkpages. Tone 22:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 FIFA Confederations Cup Final[edit]

No need for an article for a single game. It can easily be merged into 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup knockout stage, even after it happens. That subarticle of 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup details the four final games of the tournament and does not be split into three and one. There is no worry about length because 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup Group A and 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup Group B each cover six games. People just want to have all the information in one place and not have to keep going to subarticles. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The final should have its own page, like many other finals have. However, I believe we should delete 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup knockout stage. The tournament's knockout stage isn't as long as in other competitions (usually 7 or 15 games), and its article contains very little information. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 21:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have an article for the entire stage than a single game. How can the stage of four games be too short if a single final is long enough? I'd like it best to have all of those combined into the main article, but I don't see that happening. I disagree with having a separate article for the final for any tournament when it so often fits cleanly right into another page. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a final of a major FIFA tournament. Millions of people around of the world will watch this final. The U.S. team's route to this game is particularly noteworthy. --Tocino 22:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge Lets not continue this rather sheepish idea of making articles of things that aren't individually notable just because the wider event is notable. The winners of the cup each year will be worth recording but making a separate article for each final (and then semi final) is crazy. Unless something about the actual final itself is notable (and please argue what this is) this does not deserve an article. The article is about the actual 2009 cup final not the US result, or how they qualified for it, not the fact that millions of people regularly watch football/soccer finals on TV, this is average news that wouldn't even make the day's headlines. This should be on a list page or in a larger article unless the final becomes individually noteworthy. Polargeo (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the article's creator, I guess this is a bit of an obligatory keep, but I do believe that Confederations Cup finals (not just this one, but all eight of them - including King Fahd Cup finals) are worthy of their own articles. They all get plenty of press coverage, after all! – Pee Jay 23:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it may be notable enough for its own article doesn't mean it need its own article. There's nothing wrong with being merged with the knockout stage page. Maybe the World Cup, but there's not enough information to really need a separate page. The size is not long enough to be an issue. The information fits perfectly into the main articles; don't create a subarticle just for the sake of it. People care about the tournament itself and the winners, but the game is secondary. They don't want to have to go to a separate page. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per User:PeeJay2K3--James Bond (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something wrong with being in the main article 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup knockout stage? It's in no way too long, and splitting the final off is just an inconvenience to readers. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary content forking - can't see why this can't be in the main article?—Chris! _ct 02:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - This article has no any necessity in my opinion. However, according to WP:FOOTYN discussed before, Final match should be considered as notable match. As a balanced result has been given, I could not give any idea on the article. Raymond Giggs 03:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think this is a good example of "just because we can have an article doesn't mean we should have an article." Notability is not in dispute - the game is undeniably notable. But we create stronger articles when we consolidate these articles into respectable articles instead of having countless stubs. It's possible that the game will have some major impact, in which case we can revisit whether it warrants an independent article, but the game hasn't even occurred yet! Actually, we don't even know who will participate in it! It's notable enough for its own article, but such a move would not be beneficial to the encyclopedia. faithless (^speak) 06:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and redirct~~ to 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup knockout stage. Does seem to be unnecessary content forking, when realistically the article isn't going to expand a lot. The final is already mentioned in 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup knockout stage in quite a bit of detail. --Jimbo^[online] 08:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeep International competition final which has been covered globally. --Jimbo^[online] 12:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If we delete this article, we should delete also every single FIFA World Cup Final (ridiculous!)!--Andrea 93 (msg) 08:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who ever suggested that? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And the information will not be deleted; it will still exist in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)
Merge to 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup. One reason why the FIFA World Cup Final Match has its own article is because the main article is so long and has so many parts going into it, that full coverage merits a separate section (just take a look at the family of articles at Template:2006 FIFA World Cup). However, the Confederations Cup is (1) a smaller tournament and (2) not as complex as other international football competitions. I also recommend that the Knockout Stages article be merged into the main Confederations Cup article -- it really is not necessary to have a separate article in the grand scheme of things. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the final of a top-level, international competition is definitely notable. GiantSnowman 12:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we've established that, but why does it have to be a separate article when it fits fine into the main article? Reywas92^Talk 15:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree it is borderline notable, but I can make quite a good case for it not being notable, I've changed my vote above to merge. 1. I agree with the argument that in this context having a separate article for it is completely unnecessary and detracts from the coverage rather than enhancing it. Sometimes having stubs all over the place, just because we can, does not enhance Wikipedia. 2. Most soccer fans regard the FIFA Confederations Cup as a bit of a side show. The cups which the teams won to get into the confederations cup are more important than the confederations cup. It is not as notable who wins this cup (and the final is not as notable as for other cups) because it is a short competition with 8 teams and only 2 of these teams have actually had to win a top world class competition to get there (and those 2 (Spain and Italy) along with Brazil are certainly taking this competition much less seriously than their previous cups). Polargeo (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Confed Cup is a big enough competition to have a own Final article. chandler 16:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might be confusing "notable" with "large." Everyone (I think) has agreed that this article is notable ("big" in the football world), but the Confederations Cup itself is not "large" (8 teams, 16 matches is not "big"). Since it isn't "large," it only hurts articles if too much of the content is spread too thinly across Wikipedia. See WP:SUMMARY for more details. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page as I think the finals of major FIFA tournaments are notable. However I would be inclined to merge the Knockout stages page back into the main article? Eldumpo (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep- As per User:GiantSnowman... This is a major FIFA competition, with a large segment of the world's population watching the event, and of course the final. In addition, the winner will earn a major piece of silverware to their trophy case. If there is any section of this competition, or any for that matter, that deserves its own article is has got to be the final. Now, whether to merge the knock-out stage to the main article is a separate issue that should not be discussed here... take that issue elsewhere since it just muddles the principle issue at hand.

But then you have this scenario. As it stands, it is the US v. Brazil in the final. It is already important to the history of US soccer because the US is playing in their first FIFA final, regardless of competition. And, in the off chance the US should win, it is going to be even more notable and important to the history of US soccer. It would seem pointless to have this deleted, to have it finally come back as a new article.

Then you have to realistically think how big the main article will be if you merge everything to that. (That seems to be the idea some will eventually want others to push once we decide to merge the knockout round to the main article. But once that happens, they would want to merge the group articles to the main article. By the time everything is merged into the main article, its size will be in the neighborhood of 60,000 bytes... large enough to merit sections breaking off into different articles.) In any case, the first part of this tournament, besides the squads, that should be broken off into a separate article should be the Final because it is the most notable part of this tournament and the part will will most likely talk about in the future. Digirami (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one suggested merging every one of them together! Just because this one is combined doesn't mean the rest will be! Let's not close the AFD until after Sunday when it occurs, but unless there's a rediculous amount of information, there is still no need to have a separate article just for this. And whatever the outcome, the entire knockout stage is equally notable. And in the future, people aren't going to be talking about only the final, but the entire tournament. And YES, this final may be huge, but STILL, no one has told me what is wrong with having it combined with 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup knockout stage. People DON'T wan't to have to keep going to subarticles, they just dilute the quality. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The final is the first thing that should have it's own article. No one summarizes a tournament by discussing what goes on in the group or knock out stage, people say "so-&-so won after beat yada-yada 1-0 IN THE FINAL". It is the most important part of the tournament, the culmination of everything that has happens, the part that actually awards a prize... And like I said, if there is any part of this event that should have a separate article from the main, it should be the final.

I know no one is suggesting merging all of them, but the possibility of having that happened is high once one portion is merged. I am merely stating some consequences of what could happened if any merging happens. Digirami (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sorry, but this is not just a "single game" it's the final of the best of the best of all the world's confederations. -AMAPO (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Confederations Cup 16,000 bytes
1997 FIFA Confederations Cup 12000 bytes (no separate article for final)
1999 FIFA Confederations Cup 13000 bytes (no separate article for final)
2001 FIFA Confederations Cup 15000 bytes (no separate article for final)
2003 FIFA Confederations Cup 16000 bytes (no separate article for final)
2005 FIFA Confederations Cup 17000 bytes (no separate article for final)
2007 Didn't even bother having the competition
2009 SIX separate articles created. Polargeo (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out how silly it is to have separate article for the individual matches. USA route to final is beaten by Italy, beaten by Brazil then beat Egypt (world ranking 40) and that gets them into the semi final. This doesn't need a separate article for the final because the rest of the competition needs the final in that article. Polargeo (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

give me proper sources / refs for those final matches and I'll write them ;) -AMAPO (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough the USA has gone crazy over soccer. Never thought I'd see the day. Polargeo (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo, did you not consider that perhaps the reason why those other articles are so small is not because they're not deserving of more info but because no one has yet bothered to add it? I could easily create six articles on each one of those (it would take me some time, but I could do it). Anyway, the 2009 tournament is happening right now, so of course it will have more exposure. – Pee Jay 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. There is NO need to split out articles just for the sake of splitting out articles. That would be GREAT if you could add information to the main articles regarding the final, but I see none of them as being so big as to violate WP:SIZE, especially since most of it is lists and tables. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee you, after some football fans start working on those, it'll be big enough to need separate articles. Don't make a comment on something you obviously haven't seen before. Digirami (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo... I don't know if you have ever noticed, but the more recent the competition, the more likely it is to have more articles simply because the detail available to us is greater, and we can actually update it as the event progresses. (FYI, there was no 2007 event because the Confederations Cup will now only take place the year before the World Cup). And while we have new ideas for how handle current football articles with new precedents, users rarely go back to do the same for events in the past. Digirami (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For goodness sake this is the final game, of a major tournament it would be silly to delete it or even to merge it. Definitely meets WP:N requirement. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SCRATCHES HEAD Before we discuss KEEPING, DELETING, or MERGING This Article, should we not let the game be played first? Look if the United States should win, then it would be worthy to keep this Article, as it would be the first ever FIFA Championship won by the United States. It would be comparable to the the 1980 Miracle on Ice. Should the United States lose however, it would be just another notch in Brazil's Soccer Belt, in which case nobody would care, if it were to be deleted or not. This is just my thought.--Subman758 (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Response to talk message: The Super Bowl is more of an independent event, whereas this is the final of a tournament. Articles on Super Bowls are plenty long and there is no other article they could be merged into. This, however, fits perfectly into a main article and there is no need to dilute the quality of our information by spreading it onto another page. Reywas92^Talk 01:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why wouldn't the Super Bowl article be able to merge into the NFL play-off article? It's the same, except this is a international rather than domestic final. cha ndl er 12:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but just because the US don't care about football doesn't mean the rest of the world don't care... There's no criteria that makes it more notable because the US would win... ((worldwide)) anyone? This is a major final, no matter who plays in it or wins it. cha ndl er 01:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said the U.S. doesn't care about soccer? The win over Spain was pretty big news over here, even being reported ahead of traditional American sports on ESPN. And obviously it would be a bigger deal if the U.S. won their first ever major international cup than if Brazil won another. --Tocino 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here is arguing that 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup is not notable. The reason for deletion is that this is unnecessary content fork which can easily fit into the 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup main article.—Chris! _ct 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can make that same argument for any of the other articles, but finals for important international football/soccer tournaments have been deemed notable for its own article. If anything, it should have been the first article from this competition to become separate. Digirami (talk)

I still don't understand. Yes, the event is notable enough to stand on its own. But does that means it needs a separate article? I am afraid not. This is already covered adequately on 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup, so I really don't see why we need to cover essentially the same thing on another page.—Chris! _ct 06:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is all that should really matter. Plus, I can guarantee you that the final game will not be covered the same in the main article than it would/will in its own article. Also, because the final of any tournament garners the most attention, has the most information relating to it, has the most implications after the results, etc., finals NEED their own article. Besides, do you really think that the way it is now is how us football fans will leave it at? No. Digirami (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many championship games have their own pages. There is a precident for keeping, so I see no reason for this one.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The discussion is premature, and should wait until after the game, and/or when this particular match isn't so high profile. I think this discussion will (and would have) take a different turn once the focus is on new football matches. Right now this discussion will get enormous amounts of "Keep" votes because it is so high profile, but once it is just another article, I think a merge might be in order. (In other words, this discussion's decision should not be final.) Int21h (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly a notable match, and certainly far more notable on a global scale than any Superbowl or World Series, all of which have their own articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Super Bowls and World Series are more independent events that have significant information on their own, whereas this is the final of a tournament that does not need to be WP:FORKed off. Reywas92^Talk 14:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Super Bowl is simply the final of the NFL play-offs, the only difference is that some marketing person decided to give it a hip name. If the USA and Brazil had qualified not for the "2009 FIFA Confederations Cup Final" but for the "2009 World Football Ultramegabowl", would it still be considered a fork......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's no need be look at a hypothetical situation. This is a fork. And actually, the Super Bowl is a fork of the playoffs, which is a fork of the season. The difference is that it has not been shown there's actually enough information to need a separate article, like the huge Super Bowl articles. Since the final is part of the knockout stage, there's no reason to split until the article size is unwieldy. Reywas92^Talk 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well that is where you might to be mistaken. Articles are not made simply because there is enough information, but also whether it is significantly notable to merit it's own article. This match of this event clearly fits that, not because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (you misinterpreted ChrisTheDude's argument). Digirami (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is one of the worse and so far weakest excuse I have ever seen on deletion pages. The "Essay" is not policy and should stop being used as some sort of marketing tool for getting rid of something you don't like. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the worst essay on wikipedia and if we are ever going to get rid of an article, that would be the one I would choose. Of course we can create articles based on what exists already. It is called precident. If an article exists, then of course similar articles can be created. That is how we expand our little encyclopedia. We are here to inform, and if this can be accomplished with millions of articles, then I say we should go at it. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is only used as a last resort by editors who have run their own arguments into the ground and have nothing better to add or subtract.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the championship game of a MAJOR FIFA TOURNAMENT! Yes, it is only 8 teams in the tournament, but it is still a major FIFA-sponsored tournament between the champions of the international confederations. Whether the US wins or loses, this is still a major championship match on par with the UEFA Champions League Final, MLS Cup, European Championship, etc. John cena123 (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major final. If this was most any other match, I would say Merge, but its a major final, so I say keep.Whammies Were Here 10:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - final of an important event. It's not like we are running out of space here on Wikipedia, right? -NYC2TLV (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is a final, not a random match. And the event is a major FIFA tournament. It is ridiculous to see AfD for such an article. - Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 18:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Either Keep this or Merge all FIFA major tournament finals that are not uniquely notable. Although my knee-jerk reaction is to do the latter (although Wikipedia isn't "running out of room," most finals can be easily summarized within their tournament pages with proper citations to direct to a more elaborate telling) but I feel no strong pull either way. Given that the other final pages won't be Merged, Keep this one. HelpnWP (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. per WP:SNOW Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jellyfish[edit]

I don't really think that something like this warrants an entry in Wikipedia. Is it really encyclopedic? MacMed^talk _stalk 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is also completely unsourced. MacMed^talk _stalk 21:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just one line. Not notable. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In-universe trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources Rirunmot (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I have added a reliable source. I do not have much information on this subject because there is not much information on it. I feel that if a Star Trek enthusiast found this article, they would add more information. I know there is more information out there. This article should stay because The Jellyfish is a legitimate name for this starship and it deserves a page just as much as all other starships do. It was in the new Star Trek movie and played an important role too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.29.213 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 25 June 2009

Comment: I have removed that source as it was a wiki and therefore unreliable. Also, if the above poster could sign their posts, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 00:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article lacks any evidence of received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, failing the nutshell description of the English Wikipedia's Notability guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Trek (film). Apathetic as to whether underlying article is deleted. --EEMIV (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what. Screw Wikipedia if there isnt room for another Star Trek ship on here!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.29.213 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 25 June 2009
Delete Not notable. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 23:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Projectwhistleblower[edit]

No evidence that this website or the alleged controversy generated by it is notable. Possibly a thinly-veiled attack article. Wikipedia is not a forum for muckraking. Kinu ^t/_c 20:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lives are at literally at stake and this is a recent developing event. This article is important and should be kept. Catmin99 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then please provide reliable sources indicating why this subject is notable. A blanket assertion that it is "important" is insufficient without some sort of evidence. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is current. Wikileaks has mentioned it and itwire have run two articles. wikileaks is notable, so the first clone, and scam one at that, is also notable. should the article be deleted and someone be taken in by the site and die or be imprisoned as a result, wikipedia may also find itself notable, Catmin99 (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the two WP:SPA's (who I suspect are the same) that have spawned this article might think "lives are at stake", I think this is non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The news articles make this, well, a news item, and do not substantiate notability for an encyclopeia article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is too many "nots" to list. -- Atama ^chat 00:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was snowball speedy delete as a blatant advertisment and failing WP:RS and WP:N. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Singleton[edit]

This was seemingly started as an autobiography. The person does not seem to be at all notable and I see no reason for inclusion. At the moment it reads like a CV/advert and I can't see how this could be changed Smartse (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Autobio with no independent references. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was apparently created by the subject. Of the eight sources listed, none seem to be both secondary and reliable. A Google news search only turns up a story about divorced mothers mentioning her as an example. Rees11 (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete commercial self promotion by Susan Singleton, not backed up with secondary references. Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline notable (5 kids £240/hour) but a lawer :). Polargeo (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable POV piece.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Should have been A7 and G11 speedied. Non-notable autobiography. ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I need a rationale to SNOW close this? Really? I think not. I would suggest that the creator of the article seriously thinks about his WP:POINT behaviour in creating articles like this, because previous editors following this course have ended up on the wrong end of the block button. Black Kite 22:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama fly swatting incident[edit]

This event should not be its own article. At most, it could be given a small mention in one of the other Barack Obama articles. SMP0328. (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's noteworthy and well sourced. In future decades, people will still be talking about it. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "In future decades, people will still be talking about it." How do you know this?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an isolated, and insignificant, incident that only matters to PETA. SMP0328. (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikidemon (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it's kind of cool, and its presence here doesn't hurt anything, two more arguments we're not supposed to use in deletion discussions.... The tone of the article as it exists at the time of nomination is neutral and slightly humorous in a dry way, in that it is covering utterly trivial events with some degree of earnest seriousness. That can be cleaned up if necessary. The story has resonated with the press, and I think the reason runs deeper than mere fascination with celebrity. If someone in the same league of famousness as Obama (say, Oprah, Donald Trump, or Paris Hilton) swatted a fly nobody would care. There is a parable in there somewhere about the most powerful man in the world killing a fly, and some potential for this to become a cultural meme. I do think it adds something to the encyclopedia that people are interested in reading about. We aren't nannies here. If the reporters think it's worth reporting, the public wants to read about it, and we have reliable sources, we can't second-guess notability just because we consider the event unimportant. The more serious qualm about the article is WP:NOT#NEWS - if in hindsight this is no more than just a slow day's news story. But if Grundle's prediction is true and people talk about this in future decades, that's not an issue. Surely, someone will come out with a children's book - there's already a children's book about the search for a first dog. Wikidemon (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But does that incident deserve to be its own article? SMP0328. (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there shoulda been a ؟ in there somewhere, Tarc (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the above must be a joke vote-- all the arguments in favor of keeping come from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. OfficeGirl (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Inane, stupid. Oh yeah, and WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't even worth a mention in the president's own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This incident is so insignificant it doesn't even deserve to be merged. If kept this article won't grow beyond a stub. Rcurtis5 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, most of the above objections are certainly valid points (inane, stupid, notnews, insignificance, lack of available inormation), even if I personally disagree. Regarding information placement and organization, just as an FYI, most Obama-related articles do not merit a mention in his main bio. It's kind of the opposite of most situations due to his hyper-notability. Depending on how widely you cast the net, we have somewhere between 150-250 articles that are about some aspect of Obama, his career, family, events, election year stories, etc. Most, though notable in their own right, are simply not important or relevant enough to overcome WP:WEIGHT concerns due to the limited amount of space available in a single article. In the (unlikely?) event that this article survives, it probably will not get a mention in the main bio or presidency articles. Wikidemon (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Honestly, I would urge a speedy delete as yet another in a long line of extremely bad faith article creations and/or article edits by Grundle2600. All the valid reasons to delete this can be found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama, etc...; fails notability guidelines, it is trivial, it is a piece of end-of-the-news-cycle fluff wholly unworthy of an article or a passage in any other article. Grundle2600 has already responded above with the "but its reliably sourced!" bit, and will no doubt do so again below. Despite numerous editors having told him that sourcing wasn't the sole justification for an article, or an edit, it just isn't sinking in. Because here we are. Again. Tarc (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Precisely what NOTNEWS is meant for. Every day there are stories about Obama in the press, and most of them do not warrant articles. Come back in six months and see if there has been persistent coverage in reliable sources. Quantpole (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get the impression that there's more at work here then I know about or care too. Ignoring all that and just focusing on the article itself I can't see it being worthy of an article. As for my reasoning, there are probably stronger policy arguements, but in my mind it's a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE. (This is my opinion, and is not meant to reflect on any who may disagree with me in good faith.)--Cube lurker (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTNEWS indeed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete per Wikipedia:News articles. "Nuff said. OfficeGirl (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would go along with deletion if it dies down in the media after a week. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#NEWS with a healthy serving of Wikipedia:Recentism on the side. Just because something make a news cycle does not mean it automatically becomes encyclopedic. --Allen3 ^talk 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear case of WP:NOT. Many of the NOT indications are here; I'll say WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and WP:NOTREPOSITORY to change it up a little. Abductive (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have Wikinews but it seems like we're in desperate need of "Wikitrivia" (and I'm almost serious about it).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Or maybe "Wikifunnies".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, may become interesting to a historian in 140 years, but there's nothing truly significant in this incident. If this happened to a nonnotable person, even if they got tons of coverage, we'd delete the article on the person by BLP1E — so how does it help the encyclopedia to have an article on a truly trivial subject? Nyttend (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the article as it appeared when I wrote it. Since then, someone has edited the article to substantially reduce the number of sections in the article. I disagree with that edit, because one major point of the article was to have lots of different sections. When you cast your vote on keep or delete, please look at the version that I linked to. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the comments and votes, including my own, are regarding the article as you originally wrote it and as it is currently. SMP0328. (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dito, and I think we can assume that other editors took a look at the very short article history as well.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the irredeemability inherent in the subject matter itself, the version of the article is irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Delete (should be {prod}, but I suppose that would be challenged). It's an amusing anecdote, and enjoyable tongue-in-cheek comments by various people. I'm sure I'd enjoy reading it on some blog, but it has no resemblance to encyclopedic content. LotLE×talk 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was prodded, Grundle declined and it was removed. Speedy was also declined, so, here we are. With any luck, there's a bit of snow in the forecast, though. Tarc (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTNEWS, heck even the whole WP:NOT, is only trivia, and is not notable outside a slow news day. Brothejr (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, content fork. From Michelle's arms to Barack's flies in a week, looks like a speedy category ought to be defined soon. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[added after closure] - the vote was serious and I truly think it could have been kept, although I was having a little fun in the way I said it. When I realized that the reasons I like the article run afoul of that essay, I decided to save time and point it out myself rather than waiting for people to point it out for me. :) Wikidemon (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No evidence could be found that this person passes any of the relevant notability thresholds. ~ mazca ^talk 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Stanley[edit]

Removed recently-placed PROD template, since this article has actually been deleted twice through PROD. The nominator's reason was: "Not a notable person; notability was queried 7 months ago with no update". Jamie^☆S93 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Look, I have my own Wikipedia article, I've arrived......but still not notable. A side not, the last deprod was by a user who is now indef blocked for his disruptive de-prodding. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not WP notable yet but could be in the future. Sarcasm is not appropriate on these pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Neither the article nor the various Google searches that I tried provide any indication of the academic impact that would lead to a pass of WP:PROF #1, nor that his ideas have become sufficiently widespread in the popular press to pass WP:BIO more generally. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Unanimous consensus that this is unsourceable and likely original research. ~ mazca ^talk 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Brazilian[edit]

Started by a banned user, and zero evidence in independent sources that these people actually exist. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As either experiment or prank. Dahn (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. The statistic for the alleged population is uncited. --Folantin (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't locate any non-trivial WP:RS with typical Google searches like "Romanians * in Brazil/Sao Paolo", "Romenos * em Brasil/São Paulo". This article and its alleged population statistic seem like yet another one of these hoaxes about migration to Latin America (Iranians in Venezuela, Afghans in Chile, Vietnamese in Mexico, etc.) which various users/socks like to pollute Wikipedia with. cab (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the good reason mentioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Algébrico (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is probably original research and does not present RS. I am brazilian and I haven't been able to find any previous work about the subject. Lechatjaune (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. There was obviously a lot to parse here, and a lot that was frankly off-topic, particularly from those who support keeping the article (several of whom very much have a vested interest in doing so, which is not irrelevant to the final decision). Ultimately this comes down to notability, and while Baker has been discussed in some reliable sources, the general read I get from most of the comments is that Baker's only real claim to notability lies in her purported relationship to Oswald, and that WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. It is also pointed out that the basic key points about Baker's claims are already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia, and that this article is thus in a sense an unnecessary fork with some serious POV problems.

I'd point out to the subject of the article who apparently commented below and to her supporters that this is in no way an attempt to censor information, but is merely part of a standard process on Wikipedia whereby we evaluate whether articles belong here or not. That process can be tricky, and sometimes we reverse ourselves later. It is entirely possible that once this book is published (and reviewed in mainstream sources) that the consensus will be that an article on Judyth Vary Baker should exist. Deletion is not necessarily permanent, and I imagine most everyone who supported deleting would be open to re-creation of the article if that seemed warranted. Several of those who commented below will not be happy with the decision to delete, but I welcome them to contact me on my user talk page with any questions or comments.

Suggestions were made below about possibly merging some of this to another article. If anyone wants to do that, I can userfy the article and someone can begin working on possibly moving some material into an existing article (there was no clarity about where it should go). Creation of a redirect was also mentioned and that might be a good idea, but again there was no consensus about where, if anywhere, we should redirect this to so I've not created a redirect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judyth Vary Baker[edit]

This article isn't verifiable using reliable sources. I checked when it was prodded and could only find websites and other self-published material. Briefly, the article presents the biography of Judyth Vary Baker, who it asserts was a young scientist who was Lee Harvey Oswald's lover, when they were both involved in a covert organisation. None of this can be substantiated, and the article further acts as a coatrack for JFK assassination conspiracy theories. Fences&Windows 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 18:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 18:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - she does not seem notable as an artist. Can't see why she has been delsorted to Visual arts. What I can say definitively is that she has not ever contributed to anything of note in cancer research: Pubmed [7] has 16 records on a JV Baker, from 1983 on, and this is Jason V. Baker, not her. Enki H. (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she does have a tenuous connection to Lee Harvey Oswald, which in itself makes her notable due to the controversy surrounding the part he is alleged to have played in the JFK assassination; also there are many sites on Internet which discuss her at length. If Wikipedia can have articles on models whose sole claim to notability is having engaged in a bit of horizontal dancing with Mick Jagger, then it should have an article on Judith Vary Baker.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This argument contradicts the WP:BIO guidline: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, [...] is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); [...] However, person A may be included in the related article on B. Nominator has explained that the "many sites on the Internet" appear to fail WP:RS. Enki H. (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

please note J V Baker wrote this material herself, and she has severe eye problems. I have left it as she wrote it, however. Allan Mattsson truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am allowed to to defend myself. First, I did not place my own biography here: someone else did. However, it had many errors, so a Dutch friend (Wim Dankbaar) began correcting it, later aided by a Swedish friend (Allan Mattsson). I have been on many radio and TV programs, and decline many invitations.

Secondly, 'notable as an artist' is not the main reason for the listing, though my paintings are occasionally purchased by celebrities. One reason for the listing is because the my life story, an hour-long (with commercials) documentary "The Love Affair" is being viewed worldwide, beginning in November, 2003 when the History Channel aired it five times. In Europe, another documentary featured my story in 2006 on Dutch national television. Other documentaries and CDs exist, some furiously opposed. This is not a 'coatrack' article to defend Oswald. Me & Lee is a new hardcover book about my life (to be released in November, by Trine Day, it is already receiving a sales ranking, as it's being pre-ordered on Amazon.com). Two prior books about me were also published by others. Besides documentaries, CDs, and books directly about me, other writers such as Edward T. Haslam have devoted significant chapters in their own books to the subject.

Other events are upcoming which I am not allowed to divulge, for the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. If you google my whole name "Judyth Vary Baker" more than 1600 references come up, with a number of attack articles included. Googling "Judyth Baker" brings up many thousands, most about me. I urge you to visit the websites and references for yourself: they are not bogus. If you visit my official website, Judythvarybaker.com, you can view some of the evidence. Of course, if Wikipedia doesn't allow articles about people who have created controversy, though books and documentaries and fierce debates continue about that person, then so be it.

As for my being an artist, writer and poet, though my contributions have been minor, they are of interest to others. I have been unable to exhibit in galleries because my paintings get destroyed by vandalism. I was forced to flee the US and was in political asylum for over ten months. I now have to use other people's computers to keep my own from getting hacked, and my location undisclosed. I wouldn't mind some material being deleted from the article, over which I have personally had little control. The person who suggests that my references are bogus apparently believes you won't check this out for yourself. First this was listed as a 'hoax" --that I did not exist. Now it is being listed as so unimportant that it does not deserve to exist. I was in Marquis Who's Who online, and a hostile person convinced an editor there that I did not exist: the biography was removed. therefore, I thought I should at least state the fact that I do actually exist, and that the book Dr. Mary's Monkey, which has three large chapters about my life and my relationship (controversial though it may be) with Lee Oswald, has gone into several new printings. If you read that book, I believe you would agree that some reference to my name should exist.

If you decide to erase my biography, I will certainly mention it in future interviews and documentaries: Sixty Minutes tried to film me three times (see Sixty Minutes' founder Don Hewitt in his C-Span interview complaining that "the door was slammed in our faces" --I can provide the URL, etc.) -- and I will be happy to answer any questions anyone has. It seems to me that because I'm a controversial figure (stories about me occasionally show up in tabloids) that I am not to be considered an honest person, a good person, or a decent person. This is not self-advertisement: ask yourself why my biography should be erased, but a 28-year old cricket player, James Anderson [8] is included. Since films and programs continue to be made about me as more evidence is found that I'm telling the truth, how long will it be before you would then restore my biography? The 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination is just around the corner. If I had said Oswald was guilty, I would have been a very rich woman by now. But because I tell the truth, my biography is to be wiped out? I am making this effort because I don't believe history should be censored. Sorry to take up so much of everyone's time. Here are just a few various references online--from almanacs and encyclopedia references to books and radio/TV... NOT ANY of these were generated by me, no art, literature or poetry references are shown, and these are but a few of those available. Whatever you decide, I do hope you will keep an open mind. Witch hunts, book burnings, and inquisitions don't allow much in the way of self-defense. I'm sorry, again, for taking up so much space and thank my friend Allan Mattsson for retyping this for me. JVB:

This the first time I've heard of anybody trying to keep their own biography on Wikipedia. Or atleast, somebody claiming to be a person trying to keep their bio article. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of references collapsed by F&W for space reasons
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[PDF] Judyth and Lee in New Orleans File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Video interview of Judyth Vary Baker, Title III. (2005) Amsterdam: Dankbaar. 84.Fonzi, G. (1993). The last investigation. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press. ... judythvarybaker.com/.../Judy%20and%20Lee%20in%20New%20Orleans.pdf - Similar by JD Williams - Related articles - All 2 versions Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald (Hardcover) by Judyth Vary Baker (Author), Edward T. Haslam (Foreword) List Price: $24.95 Pre-order Price Guarantee. Learn more. This title has not yet been released. You may pre-order it now and we will deliver it to you when it arrives. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available. Judyth Vary Baker was Lee Harvey Oswald's girlfriend from april 1963 until his death. .... www.jfkmurdersolved.com/judyth.htm - WordPress www.infibeam.com/.../judyth-vary-baker/.../9780979988677.html - Cached - FTR #644 Interview with Ed Haslam About Dr. Mary's Monkey ... spitfirelist.com/.../ftr-644-interview-with-ed-haslam-about-dr-marys-monkey/ - Cached - SimilarYouTube - The History Channel: Documentary: TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.8 The Love Affair, seg.1-5 Nov. 2003, 15 Nov 2006 - ... "The Love Affair" focuses on eye-opening interviews with Judyth Vary Baker, .... Statistics & Data. Loading...39,000 views... www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ry3DrsN9PY What does `Judyth Vary Baker` mean? Judyth Vary Baker - Meaning and definition. ... Statistics. Encyclo has been online since october 15th 2007. It currently contains 3264100 words from 1007 ... www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Judyth%20Vary%20Baker - Cached - Judyth A. Vary Baker - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase ..."Judyth Vary Baker and the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald," More... www.indopedia.org/Judyth_A._Vary_Baker.html - Cached - SimilarVary - Ask.com Search Vary is a given name, and may refer to: • Judyth Vary Baker (born 1943), woman who claimed to have an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald • Ralph Vary Chamberlin ... dictionary.reference.com/askhome/browse/Vary - Cached - SimilarStateMaster - Encyclopedia: Judyth A. Vary Baker "The Story of Judyth Vary Baker - The Woman who Cracked the US Govt. Whitewash ...DoeWatch www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Judyth-A.-Vary-Baker - Cached - Anna Lewis's Portfolio : Completely Novel Judyth Vary Baker · www.completelynovel.com/authors/5 - www.ip-adress.com/whois/www.jfk-online.com - SimilarAmazon.com: Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor ...Following a trail of police records, FBI files, cancer statistics, presenting witness Judyth Vary Baker.... ... VIDEO JUDYTH VARY BAKER 2003 Part 1 DivX (30m. ... www.monova.org/.../KENNEDY%20MURDER%20COLLECTION.PART%203%20OF%20%205%09.html - Cached - SimilarScientists - HIV - Monkeys and JFK? 7 Apr 2009 ... FBI files, cancer statistics, and medical journals, .... Edward T. Haslam and Judyth Vary Baker are modern American heros, ... Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor, a Secret ... Following a trail of police records, FBI files, cancer statistics, ... Haslam's primary witness, Judyth Vary Baker, proves beyond a doubt that all of this ... allnurses.com/nursingbooks/NsgStudent-14074-0977795306.html - Similar What does `Judy Baker` mean? Mathematics and statistics. Meteorology and astronomy ... Judyth Vary Baker `Judyth Anne Vary Baker`, née `Judyth Anne Vary` (born May 15, 1943)worked with ... www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Judy%20Baker vary with - Ask.com Search Vary is a given name, and may refer to: Judyth Vary Baker (born 1943), woman who claimed to have an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald Ralph Vary Chamberlin ... dictionary.reference.com/browse/vary%20with - Cached - Similar The Secret Epidemic - Literature - Portal Language Services Haslam's primary witness, Judyth Vary Baker.... According to the CDC's own statistics, the number one transmission for ... portallanguageservices.com/shop/product/The-Secret.../Literature/ - Similar The Final Chapter ep.2, The Love Affair, Pt.5-5 - LiveVideo.com with Judyth Vary Baker, a cancer-research specialist who was having .... Following a trail of police records, FBI files, cancer statistics, ... www.livevideo.com/video/.../the-final-chapter-ep-2-the-lo.aspx - Similar History Channel Sell Out, The Guilty Men/LBJ in JFK: A Presidency ...The Love Affair Recent statistics show that 85% of Americans DISCOUNT the Warren ..... like "The Love Affair" with Judyth Vary Baker, who makes a credible case for having ... boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=100005482... - Similar Lee Oswald planeaba refugiarse en Mérida \| Florecita Yucateca - [ Translate this page ] 28 Feb 2006 ... “El pensaba que luego del atentado quedaría libre y podría reunirse conmigo en Mérida para casarnos”, dice Judyth Vary Baker en un ... www.florecitayucateca.com/.../lee-oswald-planeaba-refugiarse-en-merida/ - Cached - Similar Did she have an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald? \| HeraldTribune.com ... 22 Nov 2008 ... Judyth Vary Baker will always love Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy and the man she had an affair with ... www.heraldtribune.com/article/20081122/ARTICLE/811220362 - Similar http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/book/may15.html Wilson's Almanac: birthday, May 15, 1943: Judyth Vary Baker... (Investigated by crime researcher Peter DeVries, he then featured her in his documentary...) Peter R. De Vries Judyth Baker DVD ... his own crime show on Dutch TV since 1996 ... solving cases that have run cold with the Dutch police. ... www.jfkmurdersolved.com/vries.htm - Cached - Similar PDF] F09 Small Press Frontlist:Layout 1.qxd File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML “They thought they could frighten Judyth Vary Baker into silence. ... trail that led from London and Amsterdam overland ... www.ipgbook.com/catalogs/F09/F09SmallPress.pdf - Similar June 2009 De vermeende Kennedy-moordenaar en zijn laatste minnares: «Een ... - [ Translate this page ] Judyth Vary Baker, naar eigen zeggen de laatste minnares van de vermeende ..... van het nieuwe museum Hermitage Amsterdam, en dat is volkomen terecht. ... www.groene.nl/.../De_vermeende_Kennedy-moordenaar_en_zijn_laatste_minnares - Cached - Similar Book 1 - The True Story of the Accused Assassin of President John F. Kennedy, by His Lover, Judyth Vary Baker published by Harrison E. Livingstone 9789703704316 970370431X ... www2.loot.co.za/index/html/index859.html - Cached - Similar "Jag var Oswalds flickvän" - Dalarna - Dalarnas Tidningar - [ Translate this page ] 22 nov 2007 ... Judyth Vary Baker är amerikansk medborgare. Hon har sökt politisk asyl i Sverige men fått avslag. "Jag är det sista levande vittnen om vad ... www.dt.se/nyheter/dalarna/article253753.ece - Cached - Similar [PDF] Sida 1 (4) "LANSRXTTENX — — ~TH>M " Máhir- - - STOCKHOLMS LAN 2008 ... - File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Judyth Vary Baker överklagar beslutet och yrkar att hon skall beviljas up- .... Du reste in i Sverige den 11 September 2007 och yrkade om m**^ ... Download Summer of 2007 Movie video - Videos search engine ... It is part of the 4 hour DVD on Judyth Vary Baker, who was the girl friend of Lee .... It is an account of government lies, cover-up, black ops, deception, ... www.bollywoodsargam.com/download_video.php?... - Cached - Similar Covert History "The history of the great events of this world are scarcely more than the history of crime. ... Judyth Vary Baker's upcoming book can be pre-ordered here. ... coverthistory.blogspot.com/.../judyth-vary-bakers-upcoming-book-can-be.html - Cached - Similar Timeline results for judyth vary baker history1963 Judyth Vary Baker Lee Harvey Oswald's Mistress Judyth Vary Baker From time to time, if he had an argument with Marina , he would simply go to my ... ahivfree.alexanderstreet.com 2002 4. Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch post, November 14, 2002. 5. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance: Outline of the ... www.jfk-online.com www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-6-2004-53814.asp - Cached - SimilarInterview with History: The JFK Assassination - Google Books Result by Pamela J. Ray, James E. Files - 2007 - History - 464 pages LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND JUDYTH VARY BAKER Lee Harvey Oswald's mistress, ... 2003 books.google.com/books?isbn=142595992X... AAAAAA DOEWatch, Welcome to The Environmentalist Newsletters ... JFK, Judyth Vary Baker, Castro-cancer, Dallas, Oak Ridge nuclear accidents. ..... The Anti-Christ and the A-Bomb-->History of Religion Orientation on ... www.doewatch.com/ - Cached - Similar Black Op Radio 317 Fletcher Prouty World History 316 Lisa Pease The Zenith Secret .... 171 Judyth Vary Baker Lee Oswald May 13 170 John Judge Washington Update May 6 ... www.blackopradio.com/products.html - Cached - Similar 图片集_Judyth Vary Baker - [ Translate this page ] Judyth Vary Baker的海报- 第0页. 图片网址; 本地图片上传. 输入网址: (输入图片的网址) ... 推荐Judyth Vary Baker给网友. 看的人越多越流畅，赶快推荐给好友 ... bk.pps.tv/ct101591166/image/ - Similar vary synonym \| Thesaurus.com Synonyms for vary at Thesaurus.com with free online thesaurus, antonyms, and definitions. ... Vary inversely · Judyth vary baker · Karlovy vary czech . ... thesaurus.reference.com/browse/vary - Cached - Similar Meria With Ed Haslam - Dr. Mary's Monkey at Meria...June 2009 Judith Vary Baker - Oswalds girlfriend ... meria.net/2009/.../meria-with-ed-haslam-dr-marys-monkey/ - Cached - Similar Judyth Vary Baker in History Alive in History Channel Judyth Vary Baker: I have known Judy for years. I have seen her evidence. I have met and talked with others that believe her. boards.history.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300002070... - Cached - Similar

List of references collapsed by F&W for space reasons

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

[PDF] Judyth and Lee in New Orleans File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Video interview of Judyth Vary Baker, Title III. (2005) Amsterdam: Dankbaar. 84.Fonzi, G. (1993). The last investigation. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press. ... judythvarybaker.com/.../Judy%20and%20Lee%20in%20New%20Orleans.pdf - Similar by JD Williams - Related articles - All 2 versions

Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald (Hardcover) by Judyth Vary Baker (Author), Edward T. Haslam (Foreword) List Price: $24.95 Pre-order Price Guarantee. Learn more. This title has not yet been released. You may pre-order it now and we will deliver it to you when it arrives. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.

Judyth Vary Baker was Lee Harvey Oswald's girlfriend from april 1963 until his death. .... www.jfkmurdersolved.com/judyth.htm - WordPress

www.infibeam.com/.../judyth-vary-baker/.../9780979988677.html - Cached - FTR #644 Interview with Ed Haslam About Dr. Mary's Monkey ...

spitfirelist.com/.../ftr-644-interview-with-ed-haslam-about-dr-marys-monkey/ - Cached - SimilarYouTube -

The History Channel: Documentary: TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.8 The Love Affair, seg.1-5 Nov. 2003, 15 Nov 2006 - ... "The Love Affair" focuses on eye-opening interviews with Judyth Vary Baker, .... Statistics & Data. Loading...39,000 views...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ry3DrsN9PY What does `Judyth Vary Baker` mean? Judyth Vary Baker - Meaning and definition. ... Statistics. Encyclo has been online since october 15th 2007. It currently contains 3264100 words from 1007 ...

www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Judyth%20Vary%20Baker - Cached - Judyth A. Vary Baker - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase ..."Judyth Vary Baker and the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald," More... www.indopedia.org/Judyth_A._Vary_Baker.html - Cached - SimilarVary - Ask.com Search

Vary is a given name, and may refer to: • Judyth Vary Baker (born 1943), woman who claimed to have an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald • Ralph Vary Chamberlin ... dictionary.reference.com/askhome/browse/Vary - Cached - SimilarStateMaster - Encyclopedia: Judyth A. Vary Baker

"The Story of Judyth Vary Baker - The Woman who Cracked the US Govt. Whitewash ...DoeWatch

www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Judyth-A.-Vary-Baker - Cached -

Anna Lewis's Portfolio : Completely Novel Judyth Vary Baker · www.completelynovel.com/authors/5 -

www.ip-adress.com/whois/www.jfk-online.com - SimilarAmazon.com: Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor ...Following a trail of police records, FBI files, cancer statistics, presenting witness Judyth Vary Baker....

... VIDEO JUDYTH VARY BAKER 2003 Part 1 DivX (30m. ... www.monova.org/.../KENNEDY%20MURDER%20COLLECTION.PART%203%20OF%20%205%09.html - Cached - SimilarScientists - HIV - Monkeys and JFK?

7 Apr 2009 ... FBI files, cancer statistics, and medical journals, .... Edward T. Haslam and Judyth Vary Baker are modern American heros, ...

Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor, a Secret ... Following a trail of police records, FBI files, cancer statistics, ... Haslam's primary witness, Judyth Vary Baker, proves beyond a doubt that all of this ... allnurses.com/nursingbooks/NsgStudent-14074-0977795306.html - Similar

What does `Judy Baker` mean? Mathematics and statistics. Meteorology and astronomy ... Judyth Vary Baker `Judyth Anne Vary Baker`, née `Judyth Anne Vary` (born May 15, 1943)worked with ... www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Judy%20Baker

vary with - Ask.com Search Vary is a given name, and may refer to: Judyth Vary Baker (born 1943), woman who claimed to have an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald Ralph Vary Chamberlin ... dictionary.reference.com/browse/vary%20with - Cached - Similar

The Secret Epidemic - Literature - Portal Language Services Haslam's primary witness, Judyth Vary Baker.... According to the CDC's own statistics, the number one transmission for ... portallanguageservices.com/shop/product/The-Secret.../Literature/ - Similar

The Final Chapter ep.2, The Love Affair, Pt.5-5 - LiveVideo.com with Judyth Vary Baker, a cancer-research specialist who was having .... Following a trail of police records, FBI files, cancer statistics, ... www.livevideo.com/video/.../the-final-chapter-ep-2-the-lo.aspx - Similar

History Channel Sell Out, The Guilty Men/LBJ in JFK: A Presidency ...The Love Affair Recent statistics show that 85% of Americans DISCOUNT the Warren ..... like "The Love Affair" with Judyth Vary Baker, who makes a credible case for having ... boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=100005482... - Similar

Lee Oswald planeaba refugiarse en Mérida | Florecita Yucateca - [ Translate this page ] 28 Feb 2006 ... “El pensaba que luego del atentado quedaría libre y podría reunirse conmigo en Mérida para casarnos”, dice Judyth Vary Baker en un ... www.florecitayucateca.com/.../lee-oswald-planeaba-refugiarse-en-merida/ - Cached - Similar

Did she have an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald? | HeraldTribune.com ... 22 Nov 2008 ... Judyth Vary Baker will always love Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy and the man she had an affair with ... www.heraldtribune.com/article/20081122/ARTICLE/811220362 - Similar

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/book/may15.html Wilson's Almanac: birthday, May 15, 1943: Judyth Vary Baker...

(Investigated by crime researcher Peter DeVries, he then featured her in his documentary...) Peter R. De Vries Judyth Baker DVD ... his own crime show on Dutch TV since 1996 ... solving cases that have run cold with the Dutch police. ... www.jfkmurdersolved.com/vries.htm - Cached - Similar

PDF] F09 Small Press Frontlist:Layout 1.qxd File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML “They thought they could frighten Judyth Vary Baker into silence. ... trail that led from London and Amsterdam overland ... www.ipgbook.com/catalogs/F09/F09SmallPress.pdf - Similar June 2009

De vermeende Kennedy-moordenaar en zijn laatste minnares: «Een ... - [ Translate this page ] Judyth Vary Baker, naar eigen zeggen de laatste minnares van de vermeende ..... van het nieuwe museum Hermitage Amsterdam, en dat is volkomen terecht. ... www.groene.nl/.../De_vermeende_Kennedy-moordenaar_en_zijn_laatste_minnares - Cached - Similar

Book 1 - The True Story of the Accused Assassin of President John F. Kennedy, by His Lover, Judyth Vary Baker published by Harrison E. Livingstone 9789703704316 970370431X ... www2.loot.co.za/index/html/index859.html - Cached - Similar

"Jag var Oswalds flickvän" - Dalarna - Dalarnas Tidningar - [ Translate this page ] 22 nov 2007 ... Judyth Vary Baker är amerikansk medborgare. Hon har sökt politisk asyl i Sverige men fått avslag. "Jag är det sista levande vittnen om vad ... www.dt.se/nyheter/dalarna/article253753.ece - Cached - Similar

[PDF] Sida 1 (4) "LANSRXTTENX — — ~TH>M " Máhir- - - STOCKHOLMS LAN 2008 ... - File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Judyth Vary Baker överklagar beslutet och yrkar att hon skall beviljas up- .... Du reste in i Sverige den 11 September 2007 och yrkade om m**^ ...

Download Summer of 2007 Movie video - Videos search engine ... It is part of the 4 hour DVD on Judyth Vary Baker, who was the girl friend of Lee .... It is an account of government lies, cover-up, black ops, deception, ... www.bollywoodsargam.com/download_video.php?... - Cached - Similar

Covert History "The history of the great events of this world are scarcely more than the history of crime. ... Judyth Vary Baker's upcoming book can be pre-ordered here. ... coverthistory.blogspot.com/.../judyth-vary-bakers-upcoming-book-can-be.html - Cached - Similar

Timeline results for judyth vary baker history1963 Judyth Vary Baker Lee Harvey Oswald's Mistress Judyth Vary Baker From time to time, if he had an argument with Marina , he would simply go to my ... ahivfree.alexanderstreet.com 2002 4. Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch post, November 14, 2002. 5. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance: Outline of the ... www.jfk-online.com

www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-6-2004-53814.asp - Cached - SimilarInterview with History: The JFK Assassination - Google Books Result by Pamela J. Ray, James E. Files - 2007 - History - 464 pages LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND JUDYTH VARY BAKER Lee Harvey Oswald's mistress, ... 2003 books.google.com/books?isbn=142595992X...

AAAAAA DOEWatch, Welcome to The Environmentalist Newsletters ... JFK, Judyth Vary Baker, Castro-cancer, Dallas, Oak Ridge nuclear accidents. ..... The Anti-Christ and the A-Bomb-->History of Religion Orientation on ... www.doewatch.com/ - Cached - Similar

Black Op Radio 317 Fletcher Prouty World History 316 Lisa Pease The Zenith Secret .... 171 Judyth Vary Baker Lee Oswald May 13 170 John Judge Washington Update May 6 ... www.blackopradio.com/products.html - Cached - Similar

图片集_Judyth Vary Baker - [ Translate this page ] Judyth Vary Baker的海报- 第0页. 图片网址; 本地图片上传. 输入网址: (输入图片的网址) ... 推荐Judyth Vary Baker给网友. 看的人越多越流畅，赶快推荐给好友 ... bk.pps.tv/ct101591166/image/ - Similar

vary synonym | Thesaurus.com Synonyms for vary at Thesaurus.com with free online thesaurus, antonyms, and definitions. ... Vary inversely · Judyth vary baker · Karlovy vary czech . ... thesaurus.reference.com/browse/vary - Cached - Similar

Meria With Ed Haslam - Dr. Mary's Monkey at Meria...June 2009 Judith Vary Baker - Oswalds girlfriend ... meria.net/2009/.../meria-with-ed-haslam-dr-marys-monkey/ - Cached - Similar

Judyth Vary Baker in History Alive in History Channel Judyth Vary Baker: I have known Judy for years. I have seen her evidence. I have met and talked with others that believe her. boards.history.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300002070... - Cached - Similar

---Thank you for reading this.

A. M. truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting, but most of those sources are not of any use to us. We need reliable sources, not web forums, web pages, self-published books or the like. Fences&Windows 21:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proofread JVB's comments for clarity, as they were difficult to read, and I have placed the references in a drop-down box. Fences&Windows 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep - (however ...!)~~. (Changing my analysis, see at bottom Enki H. (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)) Apparently the History Channel aired an episode featuring Ms. Baker in November 2003 [9]. This is enough to make her notable as per WP:Bio (significant coverage). Note that this has nothing to do with the veracity of the claims in the article. Even if this were a hoax, at that point it would be a notable hoax. However, the article still needs to fulfill WP:V and it does not for the most part, since the sources it uses for the most part do not fulfill WP:RS. There is however a detailed discussion of the Ms. Baker's claims on a Web page [10], hosted within the Web site of Marquette University, and authored by John C. Macadams a faculty member of the Department of Political Sciences who specializes in American History. By the looks of it, this qualifies as a reliable source as described in WP:RS: it is published (on the Web), by a scholar in the field (a third-party source), and hosted by an accredited academic institution. That article spells out in detail that practically none of the claims can be substantiated. I find it remarkable that this essay has not been used by the editors of the article, but it seems like a comprehensive, accessible source that could be used and cited in a complete rewrite of the article. Perhaps someone from WP:WikiProject History could kindly take this on. Enki H. (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enki H., thanks. Keep but heavily edit might be the right outcome, but we have to do it without breaking BLP rules. With the History Channel episode - which you can see on YouTube - we have significant coverage, also an article in the Herald Tribune.[11] We need to remove all the poor sources, and we can't use Baker's website or interviews as references to support facts other than non-controversial info about herself. I've also now found two more articles: [12][13]. If we are to use McAdam's detailed analysis of Baker's account, we need to have it cleared by the reliable sources noticeboard, and probably the BLP noticeboard. Fences&Windows 01:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a plan. The website may be as reliable is it will get - it is unlikely that anything peer-reviewed would be published on a fringe- and conspiracy topic, journals are usually reluctant to touch such topics; it's a lose-lose situation in the academic world since any amount of attention implicitly validates the fringe. Are you going to take it to WP:RSN? If not, I could - but American history is really not my expertise :-) Enki H. (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I attempt comment for Baker. (1)The books "Dr. Mary's Monkey" and "Me & Lee" are NOT self-published books. (2) The History Channel documentary "The Love Affair" is, you agree, a suitable reference. (3) John McAdams' 200 page website attacks Baker, but he and his listed informants never met or interviewed Baker at any time these past ten years. (4) Several large websites support Baker and unmask McAdams' mis-statements and errors, concerning his 'research', written by researchers who have written books about the JFK assassination (McAdams never did), including JFKMurdersolved.com and Edward T. Haslam's author website.(5)The Sarasota Herald Tribune front page article 2008 is not the only recent newspaper article: example: another front-page article in a big paper was The Bradenton Herald's 2003 article; dozens of newspaper and mazine articles overseas can be cited, including in my own country (6) you mention remove all personal websites: is this done with all other living persons? (7) there still remain radio, TV, DVD, CD, documentary trailers, witness interviews, interviews with authors who have written about her, incl. independent websites of quality that provide access online to her life story (8) Harrison Livingstone's 700 page book was not published by Baker. (9) Pam Ray's two self-published books were not published by Baker. (10) Livingstone's book mentioning Baker prominently was not self-published. (11) McAdams quotes from "Deadly Alliance" stolen from Baker in Holland and published online, with alterations. (12) Baker ran her own art gallery in The Netherlands and qualifies as an artist in describing her. QUESTION: who first removed Baker from 'living persons'? I fixed that. Immediately the person then said Baker was 'hoax." I deleted that. She is a living person and controversial. Who then brought up again for 'deletion' under a new excuse, that Baker's references were not real? Now it is admitted 'some' are worthwhile, with untrue comment making it seem all books referenced were 'self-published.' Who is continuing this string of false statements? I have been contributing, along with Baker, to many Wikipedia articles (she is better than me in English, I have better eyesight). We will resign if injustice continues in Wikipedia, and will support the academic community's verdict about Wikipedia instead of striving to make Wikipdia a better and more reliable source. A biography that has stood since 2003 should not be deleted simply because the individual is controversial and somebody here continues a vendetta. I say no more. Allan Mattsson, Stockholm, Sweden.truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep---this article on Judyth Baker is highly significant for those interested in finding the truth on the JFK assassination. The references are reliable and there is adequate documentation to support her statements. Unfortunately, in order to sell books or cause discourse, there are those that object to the JVB story and the saga continues. Jim Phelps---knowing the story on JFK since 1963 from Oak Ridge

Jim, please sign your posts. Also, we are not interested in "The Truth" on Wikipedia, only what is verifiable. Fences&Windows 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsubstantiated self-promoting claims that have attracted little to no attention in the mainstream. A magnet for conspiracy theories and few legitimate sources available to fashion it into a reasonable article. Gamaliel (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Truehistoryjvba, please be careful what you accuse other editors of. "somebody here continues a vendetta" cannot apply to me; I had not heard of Vary Baker before I saw the article proposed for deletion. The History Channel documentary is evidence of notability, but cannot be used to verify fact, as interviews with a subject are not reliable sources. I have asked about McAdam's site here. Fences&Windows 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why we can't use self-published sources as references: WP:SELFPUB. Another very relevant guideline to how we write this article and source it is Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Fences&Windows 16:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - History Channel documentary and Herald Tribune article are enough for Wikipedia:Notability. Truth or falsehood is for courts to decide, all we are deciding here is whether reliable sources have covered her story substantially. They have. Also meets Wikipedia:Verifiability, which doesn't mean "we can verify that what they say is true" it only means "we can verify that they have actually said it". We can. --GRuban (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Baker appears to be notable solely due to her claims of an alleged relationship with Oswald and the resulting coverage of said claims. As relationships do not confer notability, the proper action here would be to merge her claims to either the Oswald article or the Kennedy Conspiracies article and create a redirect to those articles. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Lee Harvey Oswald per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ONEEVENT. Algébrico (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and fold into Kennedy assassination theories. To summarize, subject is not notable except per possible relationship with LHO. Evidence of this relationship consists solely of subject's claims and those who allegedly believe that she is telling the truth. I would like to note that the citations in this article are very shoddy and do not tend to bolster the subject's claims. The subject also claims that the issue here is whether wikipedia is wrongfully deleting her biography. Note that the proposals here are not to delete her biography, but instead to move it to a different article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Judyth Vary Baker is a notable person in her own right - given the fact a) that she has been the focus of the forementioned Nigel Turner program episode - which Wiki references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy [Additionally made even more notable by being banned - by the United States of America].

Further, b) given the role Baker played during a darker part of essentially secret US history which has little documentation or reference backing - HOWEVER - a substantial amount of research confirms and verifies that the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States did in fact pursue several different courses of action with respect to the elimination of Fidel Castro by means of assassination - this was not public knowledge and in 1963 no reference of any kind was available whatsoever - which makes your rule someone moot and self-defeating - considering the scale of data made available over the past 40+ years on the subject. Add the fact that Richard Helms gave the order for the destruction of all files related to the MKULTRA related projects in 1973 - good luck finding a reliable source to substantiate more than 5% of it through normal channels and methods. The 5% that does exist, btw, provides insight into process and procedure for projects - via use of cut-outs without paper trails, covert contacts, code names, etc. Reconsider the value of a person like Judyth Vary Baker for her experience in working directly with one of these cutout groups for the purpose of creating a bio weapon.

Lmforman (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC) — Lmforman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

COMMENT-I'd ask people not try to argue whether her claims are accurate in this forum or use this as a soapbox to sprout other related theories and claims. This is about WP policy and whether Ms. Baker has sufficient independent notability outside of her allegation of a relationship with Oswald to warrant a bio. By her own admission, all of her coverage seems to be related to her claims and the fallout from making it. Her claim is indeed verifiable and notable, and should be in this encyclopedia in some form, the question is where. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vary Baker is not notable for her early science research, or for her subsequent work as an artist. There are only a handful of sources that I would call reliable that refer to her claims regarding Oswald. A section on these claims could be included under Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#CIA and anti-Castro Cuban exile conspiracy. Fences&Windows 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--- =I see gamaliel has said Baker provided no evidence and some others say this. But references show filmed live witness from New Orleans who everyone knows, testifying Baker had a sexual relationship with Oswald. See Anna Lewis http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lewis.htm I really want to stay out of this, but live witness testimony does not count in Wikipedia? Anna Lewis and also Edward Haslam http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/haslam1.htm but are not only ones on film or tape for Mrs. Baker. Mac McCullough of New Orleans is on tape. If someone has evidence they had an affair with accused assassin Oswald, and History Channel shows it, and then Mr. Haslam provides more evidence from 1972 (see his interview) then this is not fringe issue any more than biography of Carlos Bringuier is in Wikipedia really because he interacted with Oswald. As for Baker's cancer research, her young age made it remarkable and what was brought her to New Orleans while only age 19. She was first high school student ever allowed at national science writer's cancer research conference in 1961 and was guided by Nobel Prize winners in her research which is unusual age 17. There were hundreds of newspaper articles about her 1961. I am sorry Mrs. Baker got upset, but this has been a bad experience for her, be glad it not happen to you. I need her English skills to continue editing many articles so hope she will still help me. Allan M. truhistoryjvbsTruehistoryjvba (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMHO, this is a hoax article, it should be deleted. What's next? articles of every lover JFK had? GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. So you will delete Judith Exner biography then? How about deleting George deMohrenschildt, too, because he is only in Wikipedia because he knew Oswald and wrote a book that never got published about it. You need also to delete Chauncy Marvin Holt who only claims to have known Oswald, no evidence at all. I am finished. truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you might not be aware of it, but there is a lucid essay on this argument: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. If you are aware of other articles that are not well sourced from reliable sources or violate Wikipedia's policy in other ways, you are encouraged to propose their remediation or – if that fails – their deletion. Wikipedia relies on knowledgeable editors who are willing to uphold and defend the community standards. Thank you. Enki H. (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. In the matter of Lee Oswald, the only Judyth Baker topic which would be of any public interest, Baker is widely believed in the assassination research community to be a fraud. And that is as nicely as I can put it. — Walloon (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your are argument for this deleting the page is because you claim it to be "widely believed". By whom? Have these sources (you fail to name) interviewed or spoken to her first hand? Have the sources thoroughly evaluated the material she provides (e.g. (a) Bugliosi made up his mind on the case long before he heard of Judyth Baker and (b) he seemingly fall back on an ad hominem attack when it comes to her..).

"..to be a fraud. And that is as nicely as I can put it." The name calling you (or anyone else) retort to do not in any way increase the validity of the argument and it should be given zero weight when discussing deletion or alteration of a wiki page.

Schatz87 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there now exist evidence to support her claims e.g. she did indeed work on the Reily Coffee Company in the summer of 1963 (see copy of her W2 form from the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans: http://www.judythvarybaker.com/docs/The%20Coffee%20Company.htm). Furthermore, there is at least one surviving witness who have attested LHO and JVB knew each other well: the wife of David Lewis who worked for Guy Banister in 1963, see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2140352666545542746. Thus, hard evidence exist and it does not matter whether one uses the criteria of "The Truth" or what is verifiable for keeping articles in Wikipedia. By any criterion the article on Judyth Baker qualifies for inclusion. Schatz87 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC) — Schatz87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Schatz87, there has never been any doubt that Baker worked at the Reily Coffee Company in the summer of 1963. That is not the question. — Walloon (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Walloon". Go back and read again what I wrote: there is at least one living witness that has stepped forward and attested Lee Harvey Oswald and Judyth Vary Baker knew each other well. Thus, the page need to be kept.

Schatz87 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a properly edited short version of the article limited to published material. Since she does appear in a good deal of the JFK assassination fringe literature, it is reasonable that people might look for information here. If you want my speculation, she probably did know Oswald, and embroidered a myth around it. That the CIA might have tried to kill an immediately threatening enemy with the slowest acting known disease is typical. DGG (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP KEEP KEEP! Who are Fences&Windows and Enki to judge this article? They want to delete or re-edit based on the "research" and claims of John McAdams?

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/mcadams.htm

Can you read the article thoroughly, including all the references and sources? Otherwise I can't see how anyone can conclude that this is a story without references and evidence from backup witnesses, documentation and contemporary newspaper articles. By the way, I am largely the author of the article as it is today. A year ago I replaced the lone assassin propaganda that Mcadams and his minions put out here. It stood for over a year without any problems. If you have problems with it, you better specify EXACTLY what it is that cannot be substantiated or why the sources are not valid enough for Wikipedia. If a source like McAdams is only valid, that speaks volumes. One might ask why the the Discovery special about Judyth Baker was pulled, buried and removed from the public eye without ANY given argumentation, and after enjoying huge praise and succces from its viewers. Is Wikipedia going down this path too?

Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ry3DrsN9PY

Wim Dankbaar - Netherlands - www.jfkmurdersolved.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wim Dankbaar (talk • contribs) 08:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wim, I'm a Wikipedia editor. So I have every right to judge this article, as I have a right to judge every article. Please have some respect for your fellow editors. The problem with the article is that it is not balanced, and it rests far too much on self-published work, improper synthesis, and primary sources based on Judyth Vary Baker's testimony. Wikipedia articles must be neutral - giving due weight to different sides based on coverage in reliable sources - and must be based on secondary sources that are reliable - with a reputation for fact checking - and that are independent of the subject. McAdams is an academic who works on American politics, and I've checked on the reliable sources noticeboard for opinions - the single opinion is that his website is a reliable source. The History Channel documentary was fine to show notability, but it cannot be used to state fact, as it is entirely based on Baker's own claims, with no fact checking or independent analysis. It is a good source for Baker's claims, but it is nothing more. You've admitted replacing McAdams' POV with your own - I think you need to read WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not here to advertise Baker's story or push certain interpretations of the JFK assassination, it is here to report notable information based on reliable sources. And it's certainly not here as a battleground for you to continue a feud with people like McAdams. Fences&Windows 23:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Note, I am a Wikipedia contributor. Baker is interesting enough to have her hour-long biography aired on History Channel in US, Europe, Australia, etc. five times, before its suppression, and itis still being viewed on YouTube. Biological weapons are of interest to many, as well as the known contamination of the polio vaccine with cancer-causing monkey viruses, which Baker was trained to handle. Then she was also Oswald's lover. I add about witnesses below, because requested on BAKER'S TALK PAGE by someone who wishes to delete, asking who her witnesses are:
ANNA LEWIS is a living witness for Baker as Oswald's lover. Some peoole have even called for Baker's arrest as Oswald's 'co-conspirator." ANNA LEWIS, mother of ten children, Louisiana native, WITNESS: worked at Thompson's (Restaurant where anti-Castro activists met)known in Warren Commission and Garrison documents. Consented to be filmed only once, testifying before 6 persons in Jan. 2000 in New Orleans that she and husband, David Lewis, double-dated with Baker and Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, and that her husband and Oswald discussed assassinating Castro. Further, she stated Baker was Oswald's "mistress" and Oswald was "a dominating man" regarding Baker. Lewis took her four children and left her husband in 1965, disgusted because of his involvement with Jack Suggs Martin, an alcoholic, and with Martin's homosexual friends, such as David Ferrie, before Garrison subpoened David Lewis: he testified he did not know her whereabouts. She states she was pregnant, and even though they were estranged, her husband wanted to protect her, so never mentioned his and Anna's relationship to Oswald and Baker.
EDWARD T. HASLAM is a well-known New Orleans native, the son of a respected Tulane doctor who knew David Ferrie's friend, Dr. Mary Sherman (violently murdered the same day the Warren Commission came for unsolicited testimonies to New Orleans). Haslam also knew Sherman and was angry that the case went cold. He filmed his testimony about Judyth Vary Baker's involvement with Sherman and Oswald in 2003 and has repeated it in many interviews, especially concerning his being invited by "Judyth Vary Baker" in 1972 to discuss Oswald and Sherman (at this time, he had begun investigating Sherman's brutal death, a task taking three decades). He then decided to ignore rumors about Baker, until 1999, when Sixty Minutes asked him to research her (he refused due to his bad experience with "Judyth Vary Baker" in 1972). However, Haslam finally met Baker in 2001, when she visited Florida (where he had moved): he was shocked that she was was not the woman who had invited him to meet her in 1972. After Baker presented evidence, including information nobody had known but Haslam concerning Dr. Sherman, he went back to his old records, etc. After more evidence surfaced, he then rewrote his book (Mary, Ferrie & the Monkey Virus) adding three chapters about Baker and Oswald: published in 2007 as Dr. Mary's Monkey by Trine Day, it has gone to multiple printings. Haslam states Judyth Vary Baker worked in an underground lab with Dr. Mary Sherman and David Ferrie in a clandestine cancer project, where his own investigations had already placed Oswald. Haslam presents well-researched information and references.(I copy this from Baker's friend, S. W.) TruehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not "vote" twice in the same AfD. Your support of the article is duly noted. You do not have to state Keep each time you post. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==John McAdams and freinds is ONLY reference you accept about Baker? The name calling here is shameful.
Note what McAdams posted in the talk section of Baker's biography:
McAdams: "Actually, the section that begins "Killers and the women who love them" was lifed from my essay on Judyth. I'm not exactly mad about that, but it still should not be used without attribution. I think I'll just go in an rewrite it, and list my page as a citation. -- John McAdams
Much more than this was used from McAdams, and by McAdams, to discredit Baker. He labels her the lover of a 'killer' making Oswald guilty when many think not, showing bias that makes me uncomfortable. Same people here keep adding new objections when prior objections got answered, or they repost same old argument again as if no answer was provided. Claiming a fraud, a hoax, over and over again after all this discussion, ignoring researchers on other side of controversy providing evidence supporting Baker that checks out. Claiming 'fringe' when people try to assist the editors to see the other side of the picture. So Baker will be removed after six years on Wikipedia. I now believe everything she said about being persecuted in the US. I see 'remove template' so this record of how Baker was verbally abused here will be erased. So we all wasted our time as you will do what you intended from the beginning? Discussion is just for the show? truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please be calm and brief. Long and emotional paragraphs do more harm than good. --GRuban (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truehistoryjvba, several points.

Clearly the Herald Tribune article is also a reliable source, and there is a Dutch news article, and possibly others.
Who is name-calling, exactly?
If a section was plagiarised from McAdam's site, that goes against Wikipedia policy.
I'd suggest that McAdams, along with you, Wim Dankbaar, and others personally involved, should not be editing Wikipedia articles on this topic of the JFK assassination, due to your conflicts of interest and that you are having trouble following a neutral point of view.
Calling Oswald a killer is not neutral language, but Wikipedia must follow the consensus of reliable sources that he assassinated Kennedy. Wikipedia is not going to endorse a view that Oswald was innocent; if that's your hope, you don't understand Wikipedia.
Claims of conspiracies or Oswald being a patsy are fringe theories, as defined at WP:FRINGE, which you need to read. Fringe is not a perjorative, it is an accurate description. Oswald shooting JFK is accepted by the mainstream.
Whether Baker's story is true or not is irrelevant to whether Wikipedia should have an article about her. Editors should refrain from calling her a fruad or a hoax, as per WP:BLP. The decision on keeping the article rests on whether she is independently notable, and whether enough reliable sources exist to allow us to write a properly referenced article.
Nobody here is trying to persecute Baker. Don't get paranoid. First, nobody has a right to have an article on Wikipedia. You do not WP:OWN this article, neither does Wim. This discussion will remain as a record, even if the article is deleted, and you will be avble to request a copy from an admin if it is deleted.

Fences&Windows 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contents as CFORK, redirect article to Kennedy_assassination_theories. I am changing my conclusion based on the information of all editors commenting here and what I have reviewed. (i) Most of the article is not sourced by reliable sources. That material would not survive editorial challenge to the degree that it contradicts McAdams, who appears to be aceptable as a source, according to WP:RSN. (ii) what remains is covered in the article Kennedy_assassination_theories#New Orleans conspiracy, that section discusses Ms. Baker's notable claims in context; having separate articles covering the same contents is discouraged as per WP:CFORK, or worse, POV fork. (iii) independent notability arising from a History Channel episode is covered in the article The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy#Contents of the Three Banned Documentaries - the same consideration of CFORK applies. (iv) The Herald Tribune reference could be added to the Kennedy assassination theories, it is focused on that contents. Enki H. (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 6.Claims of conspiracies or Oswald being a patsy are fringe theories, as defined at WP:FRINGE, which you need to read. Fringe is not a perjorative, it is an accurate description. Oswald shooting JFK is accepted by the mainstream."
OK. You told me to read, so I did read. BTW, the word is 'pejorative.' Definition of mainstream: "•the prevailing current of thought; "his thinking was in the American mainstream" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
...every poll I found shows mainstream America does not agree with you. You state belief in a conspiraycis 'fringe' without references. I looked for statistics. More American people by percentage believe there was a conspiracy than voted for your President. Despite your unsourced persoal opinion, mainstream belief is that Oswald did not act alone.. You asked me to read and here is what I find:
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn" ...polls are conducted among Americans and consistently reflect, beginning in 1998: (1) American majority believes Oswald did not act alone and that a conspiracy existed:
(20 in 2003: "-40 Years Later: Who Killed JFK? - CBS News Belief In A Conspiracy Remains Strong Among American People. ... A 1998 CBS News poll found that only 10 percent of respondents felt Oswald acted alone. .... www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/20/.../main584668.shtml -
More results from www.cbsnews.com »FOXNews.com - Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination ...On the 40th anniversary of JFK's assassination, a recent FOX News poll shows most ... Kennedy's assassination was part of a larger conspiracy (73 percent to 58 percent)... www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102511,00.html - -Majority believe JFK assassination a conspiracy 14 Nov 2003 ... Thursday, June 4, 2009, Morning Edition ... Majority believe JFK assassination a conspiracy. Poll: 57% reject government's ..."...Poll: 80% Believe Kennedy Conspiracy. Tuesday, 22 May 2007..." But YOU are mainstream, is that it, and the American people are not? truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are interesting numbers, indeed. However identifying something as fringe or not is not a question of having a majority in the general population. Please note that the guideline says: [A fringe theory] depart[s] significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. This means it violates a scholarly consensus in the field, usually because it is not backed up by proof. The field of study in this case is recent American history and professional historians do not appear to be supportive of these claims and writing about it. But once again - all of this is not really at issue; we are discussing here whether the article should be kept in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and none of this has anything to do with what my – or anyone else's – personal opinions on the truth of this matter are. Enki H. (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentNot to take this discussion too far off track, but I do have some experience with editors who believe that mainstream equals public opinion. Two things-- first you must go deeper than a general American belief in conspiracy. To wit, although most people do believe in conspiracy, there is no overriding conspiratorial narrative that has reached anywhere near the support to be considered mainstream. Most of those polled actually say "I don't believe the Warren Report, there was a coverup, but I have no idea what actually happened." That is far from an endorsement of any conspiracy theory. Second, the mainstream referenced here is not the general public but the mainstream of historians, researchers, and academics. They are the ones who give us reliable sources, and we are restricted on editing based on their verifiable claims. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've found two more sources: an article in De Groene Amsterdammer:[14] and one in the Jewish Post in 1999,[15], which refers to an article in Publisher's Weekly, which would have been the first story about Baker and Oswald. That article is replicated here:[16]. I would now definitely support an expanded section on Baker in the New Orleans section of the JFK conspiracy article, but I'm not sure that this current article should be merged into it. Fences&Windows 21:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. While a reasonable argument can be made that a national television program that ran for multiple series should be notable; searches by multiple participants have failed to provide adequate sources to satisfy WP:N. Consensus therefore seems to be that this article is insufficiently sourceable at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three's Company (1989)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Three's Company (1989)

Contested prod; I believe this fails WP:GNG because of a lack of reliable sources available for the TV show. I tried to do a Google search but the only thing I could get were for the early 80's sitcom. Tavix | Talk 18:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete per Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Programming, which says, "a national television program can be non-notable if it got cancelled too quickly to have garnered any real media coverage". This particular article is actually about three different programs in China, each of which lasted a single season (their so-called "popularity" notwithstanding).--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "speedy" doesn't apply as it doesn't meet any of the WP:CSD criteria. Tavix | Talk 19:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "speedy" would apply if the originator[17] sees the light and requests deletion, per WP:CSD#G7. If one (such as myself) conscientiously believes that should happen, should one not encourage it?
Furthermore, as I noted above this "article" is actually three mini-articles (about three unrelated programs); each mini-article is either one sentence or two short sentences. At WP:1S and WP:2S, it says, "All articles that are only one or two sentences long should be either expanded or deleted. Wikipedia decision-makers are urged to make one sentence "articles" a speedy deletion category as there is no purpose for them." [emphasis retained from original]
Please pardon my enthusiasm for what seems a reasonable idea. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AuthorityTam, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deprodded the article. It was prodded on the basis of "Fails WP:GNG due to the lack of English language reliable sources" This is a totally incorrect reason, as it is not necessary to have English language sources at all. any language is good, and there are certainly enough people here who can evaluate a Chinese language source, though I am not one of them. There was what appeared to be such a source (if there had not been, i would have simply changed the reason to "lack of reliable sources"--as the nom did here. I see two or three articles a day being nominated for speedy or prod on the basis of the sources not being in English. I certainly intend to decline all such deletions. DGG (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I used English to be more specific because I can confirm I no of no English language sources, however I can't read chinese so I can't do the same for that language. Simply saying "No such sources exist" may or may not be true depending if you can understand Chinese or not. I understand where your coming from and should have worded it differently, but the idea that there isn't any reliable sources (that I can read) still stands. Tavix | Talk 03:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand why AuthorityTam believes it "got canceled too quickly to attract attention." The article asserts in ran for 30 episodes and then had a 40 episode spin-off. While, I can't confirm this fact, if it is true there are almost certainly Chinese language sources to establish notability.

A very rough translation of the one source in the article suggests that the "unrelated" 2001 show by the same name did indeed run for the claimed 46 episodes. (The article is about the first episode, but it seems to link to plot summaries of 45 additional episodes.)

The Chinese title of the the series (not surprisingly given the generic name of the show) returns tons and tons of results, which makes it extremely difficult for someone who can't read Chinese to find anything useful. What we need is someone who can read Chinese to figure out if there are sources or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NME#Programming, AuthorityTam believes it "got canceled too quickly to attract attention" because six weeks is "quickly". The program aired from May 22 to July 3, 1989: six weeks. The second program did not return the same actors or the same name, which doesn't exactly argue for the first program's "notability"; the second program lasted from June 21 to August 15, 1990: eight weeks. By what standard is six weeks or eight weeks anything but "canceled quickly"? I'd guess the originating editor saw that his article was insubstantial and made a desperate attempt to beef it up with a third program from left field.
I don't mind non-English sources, but the only ones I've seen are silly websites and trivia websites rather than substantive journals or scholarly works.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if true that is highly bizarre. A sitcom that airs daily? Weird! --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to previously stated Delete. Per WP:NOR#Translations, the very title of this article is troublesome. The article author never sources his English translation of the program's title (that is, the article title). Automatic translation engines have generated nothing even remotely similar to the article title chosen by the originating editor. Ironically, engines seem to have done what seems a better job!
The first program, where the parents hope to find wives for their sons, has been automatically translated as "Lining up three wives".
The second program, where the parents try to convince three daughters-in-law to get pregnant, has been automatically translated as "Three wives line up". Very clever, and more evidence that this author didn't/doesn't have a good sense of his subject.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the title of that sitcom: the American sitcom Three's Company (1977-1984) was translated into Chinese as San ren xing 三人行 when it came out, probably in Taiwan in the 1980s. The title was funny because it alluded to a well-known passage in the Analects of Confucius that said "when three people are walking together, I am sure to find a teacher among them" (三人行必有我师焉). The series we're discussing aired in 1989 and was called Zhuiqi san ren xing 追妻三人行, which means "Three's Company in Finding a Wife" (clearly an allusion to the American sitcom) or "Three people [= brothers] walking together looking for wives." Anyway I doubt there is an official translation for that 1989 sitcom. A Google search for "Three's Company" and "追妻三人行" gives only five results. One of them is the wiki we're discussing, the other four are pages that mention 追妻三人行 AND the original American sitcom side by side. This means "Three's Company" is just the translation proposed by a Wikipedia editor. This means AuthorityTam is right that the translation sounds dubious, and "Three's Company (1989)" probably will probably not satisfy the WP: TITLE requirement even if the article is fleshed out. Madalibi (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Chinese sitcoms in general. All the Chinese sitcoms I know air everyday, and most of them even air two episodes a day. My Chinese friends who watch American series on Hong Kong television find it really weird that they have to wait an entire week for the next episode! In other words, the show we're discussing was not "cancelled": it just aired all its episodes in six weeks, like all other Chinese TV series do, so I don't think this should be a factor in the AfD's decision. Otherwise I'm not familiar enough with notability requirements for TV series to judge whether this wiki should be deleted, and I don't have time to look for reliable sources. I say let the creator of the article PROVE IT! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a problem in terminology here, I think, because most Chinese "sitcoms" are closer to what Westerners (or at least Americans) would call a "soap opera", and Western soap operas do run every day, although usually for years on end, not just 6 weeks.--Aervanath (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can read some Chinese, and looking through the webpages I got from a Google search only provided one hit in an actual newspaper, and that was promotional material. The other sources I could find were all copies of the channel's press release. So I don't think these are particularly notable in China or Taiwan, either. (If someone wants to point me towards some sources which look reliable, I'll be happy to re-evaluate my opinion.) Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The creator was not notified of this request. I have remedied this.--Aervanath (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians who died before the age of 60[edit]

Listcruft without main article. The second problem is WP:OR because the title has the word young, but the definition of young may vary (see: Youth). Third problem is definining people who are 40 and 50 as young. Although it is not clearly defined, at least according to the sources on the article Youth, none of them defined 40 or 50 as "young", which make me believe it's also a problem of undue weight. Algébrico (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Algébrico (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No definition of "young" (I'm gonna live forever if the good die young). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename I don't see OR as a problem here, as the list has a clearly defined criteria - musicians who have an article on Wikipedia who died before they were 60. I do agree that the title could better match the actual list - "young" being vague and rarely including people in their 50s. I don't see any requirement for all lists to have a main article - see List of accidents and incidents involving general aviation and List of national decorations to foreign recipients for example. I see no reason not to keep this at a better title. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 60 is an arbitrary cutoff. Old age is also not clearly defined. And even if someone is not old, it doesn't mean that he/she is young. Algébrico (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The only problem with this one is the lack of sourcing, and I'd favor a delete if it doesn't move in that direction. However, it is has the level of detail that one would expect from an online encyclopedia, and there has been enough written about musicians who died young for the subject to be sourced. Yes, I'm sure we'll get a bunch of lawyering about "define 'young'", "define 'musician'", "define 'died'", etc., and the title will probably change to something awkward. There are some persons who die before they have become has-beens, and they attain legendary status. Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Buddy Holly, etc. etc. etc., fall in that group, and it's a logical topic that an encyclopedia user would consult. Mandsford (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indefinable trivia collection. Might be better presented as a set of categories for various age ranges. Mangoe (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename- "too young" is subjective. Retitling and refocussing so that it instead reads something like "before age 40" (for example) would, with the proper sourcing, make a personally acceptable list. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List not viable. What's the definition of "young"? I guarantee you won't find one which will meet our policies on neutrality and avoiding original research. --Folantin (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see this AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is Listcruft is it not? Dvmedis (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 50 is young?? As per a similar afd. Artyline (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Struck comments of a banned user. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft with no definitive end and subjective listings. Relies on WP:OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of strong definition of Young. -- Luk ^talk 08:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - However needs better focus and sourcing. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I took the liberty of renaming the page and AfD, and added some citations; it is far less of a liberty than to delete an article because it has a bad title and/or no citations.

As for Listcruft, here is the relevant text showing that this article is none of that:

“

Valid examples of standalone lists would include List of University of Chicago people and List of Oz books. In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles—University of Chicago and L. Frank Baum, respectively—and in both cases the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out.

On the other hand, topics such as List of small-bust models and performers, List of songs that contain the laughter of children, and List of nasal singers should be considered highly questionable because there are no articles on those topics.

”

There is an article for each and every one of the elements of this list. Moreover, there is a value to this article that greater than the sum of its parts. You cannot find all of the musicians who died before the age of 60 by looking at any one of the articles, only this one. Anarchangel (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the modern life expectancy has increased from 70 to 80 can hardly fail to have been noticed by the great majority of editors here. Many here have used the word 'arbitrary'; I ask you, what is your definition of arbitrary, and what is the alternative? In any article at all, the creator has decided upon a topic to discuss. In many articles, there are parameters applied that limit the article to a manageable size. This is a virtue of the article, or at the very least, necessary, and yet it is being portrayed as a detriment, even to the point of being a reason to delete. I believe that it is the inexperience of those responding in creating articles, that leads them to this conclusion, but of course I do not know, and it could be for any number of reasons. It is particularly irksome that, with seeming disregard to the fact that they have called into question the necessary limiting factor of the title, that sometimes the same editors have also claimed that there is no limit to the article, that it is doomed to become too large. The irony is really quite thick. I have added the preceding to my assertions, in the hope that if these arguments are placed higher on the page, people will read them. Anarchangel (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another addition:

The cutoff for the article is as I have clarified in the lede; it must now carry the burden of elucidation that the original title did: these are untimely deaths. A death of old age at 30 in the middle ages, for example, will never be a problem for this article because it was a death by natural causes. Anarchangel (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- While I agree with many of your points, dying at age 59 or 57 is not particularly notable, and you cannot find anything close to all the musicians who died before age 60, because despite the title the list only includes certain types of musicians, and expanding to genuinely include all musicians who died before age 60 would be an incredibly large undertaking resulting in a list too long to be very meaningful. Rlendog (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think a list like this can be of use, but it needs to be much more focused, say on rock musicians who died before age 40. Many, many musicians died before age 60, to the point that such a list would be meaningless. I mean, dying at age 59 is not particularly notable. And I don't see any classical musicians here, such as Wolfgang Mozart, who died in his 30s. And what about violinists, session musicians, blues musicians? So as currently scoped, even with the improvement in removing the arbitrary term "young", I am still tempted to think that deleting is appropriate. But, since I think this information in a more focused form is very useful, I would prefer to see the scope narrowed and kept in that form. Rlendog (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't looking very hard. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is on the list. Anarchangel (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I missed that. But people will be much easier to miss once this list - if it truly includes all musicians - are included. And the general point I was trying to make still stands. For example, Ludwig van Beethoven is missing, as well as virtually all other classical musicians. And what about Latin American musicians, East Asian musicians, African musicians, etc.? To try to include all musicians who died before 60, or even 40, would be unwieldy. But I still think that a List of rock and pop musicians who died before 40 would be very useful. Rlendog (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I considered Beethoven yesterday, and ultimately rejected it, as his death seemed far too much like what would normally be called 'natural causes'. He was a heavy drinker, and there is some speculation he died of lead poisoning, but there just isn't room to put all that in. 56 was probably pretty late in years, in the time that he lived. I don't suppose I would object to him being included, but I won't do it myself. There is a short list of other classical musicians proffered on the talk page, and I will be pursuing their inclusion if appropriate. It's a fun project, and I look forward to being able to do it. Anarchangel (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rejecting Beethoven because is death is too much like 'natural causes' is one of the problems with using 60 as the cutoff age. I suppose if enough people are working on this article we ought to (weak) keep it to give it a chance to develop and see what happens. I am still concerned that the scope is way too broad to be meaningful though. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you have to use a solution to fix a problem is not a problem. The problem -was- the problem. It's fixed now. Using death by natural causes and old age as a counterindicator for inclusion isn't a problem. It's the solution. Anarchangel (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even when you stabilish 60, it's an arbitrary cutoff (like this AfD). Why 60? Even if it is changed to 59, 87, 22, 48 or whatever, it would be still arbitrary. It's also unlimited and unmaintainable. Algébrico (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"List of people who died before the age of 30"? The only proper reason for listing that is the sheer size of the entry: all people who have ever lived who were notable and died aged 29 or below? I myself would have voted to delete such a list.

All dead notables aged 29 or below would not fit within a 100k article; this article, with focus of only musicians, is currently 21k.

I would estimate it to be half complete, and it is easy to maintain. Only Top 40 artists or better can make it on. Heavy rotation keeps most on for months. The number is severely curtailed by the 59 or below rule. 90% of the 60 or so deaths are from 10 years ago or more. That's about a death every 2 years, and if you consider that the rap/gang culture that lead to Tupac and B.I.G.s deaths is now split into musicians and gangs, then it is a death every 3 years. The article can then be split into music categories, or time periods. Can you honestly say that once every three years, someone can't come along and maintain the article? I already removed a recent entry, myself.

Arbitrary cutoff? Please show the WP rule that requires the scope of articles' subjects to be confined to Universal Constants, so I can delete that rule, too. Anarchangel (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rule against making arbitrary cut-offs is called no original research. You can't just make a figure up off the top of your head and create a list around it. You have provided no evidence that multiple reliable sources regard musicians dying before the age of 60 as a notable criterion. --Folantin (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. But you do win the prize for most ingredients in a WP rule Mulligan Stew. Anarchangel (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless you rename it "List of contemporary popular musicians who died before the age of 60" or something equivalent, since it's obviously intended to be a popular music only list. It's bizarre to include only Mozart for the thousand years of documented music-making before the 20th century, and as the only representative outside of the popular music realm. At least half, if not most, musicians died before the age of 60 prior to modern times. Shall we add them all? Antandrus (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard many editors declare other editors' intentions. Hence the WP:AGF rule. But what is it called when one asserts they know the intention of an article? If the documentable musicians that died before modern times truly were as numerous, which I very much doubt (verifiability, less drug use, no airplanes, no automobiles, and WP:N applied, because life expectancy was lower), there would still be room in the article. It is 21kb at the moment. Deleting an article because material has not yet been found to round it out, is just crazy talk to me. And the arguments to delete are contradictory to a certain extent. First, there isn't enough material in the article, which is obviously fixable by finding it and putting it in the article, then there's obviously too much material out there, which is obviously fixable by leaving some out. Take heart, mon brave ami. It will be fixed. Anarchangel (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Crazy talk?" "Assume good faith"? Have you even read the article you are defending with a WP:BLUDGEON? Have you? The opening line is, and I quote, "Rock, pop and blues music has a long history of premature deaths of influential musicians." That's "rock, pop and blues music." I'm not making that up, it's there. Read it! If that is not a statement of what the article intends to be about, then what is it exactly? I wrote in my comment that the article would need to be renamed; else it is an exercise in absurdity. You would need to compile the names of the majority of musicians who ever lived prior to the time that the average age of death exceeded 60. Anarchangel, that's one hell of a lot of people. Antandrus (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for bringing that phrase to my attention. It's gone. It was a fluff sentence in any case, I usually zone out when reading those. And your point about life expectancy earlier in history goes to the argument for calling the article its original title "Musicians who died young". You can see above how popular a name that was. Editors will have to use their discretion on this article. Anarchangel (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading over my sentence "I have heard many editors declare other editors' intentions." again, I feel I should point out that I was not referring to this discussion. It was by way of introducing the concept of AGF to show the futility and inappropriateness of ascribing intent to an article, when even persons are given the benefit of the doubt. No one had said anything up to that point resembling AGF. And this incident does offer an object lesson about the usefulness of the process of assertions backed with reasons backed with citations faintly outlined in WP:EQ and in the Disagreement Pyramid. Had you quoted that phrase in the beginning, to clarify your reasoning and back up your assertion, this would not have been an issue. Anarchangel (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is dying before the age of 60 really an achievement in anything but the past thirty or so years? It is not, and this is a list which will never be complete, for there are too many questions: Is 60 classed as young? How does a musician become notable enough for the list (does the drummer of a band with a sole minor chart hit in 1963 count, for example)? And, as Antandrus suggests, how about all of those early musicians where it would actually be rarer to die after 60 years old? I don't see any encylopedic value to the list, either. Esteffect (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of who is notable enough for the list, the answer is that anyone who is notable enough for their own Wikipedia article is eligable - no article, no entry. The title can easily be changed to reflect the actual policy of the list in terms of rock/pop/etc musicians. This is not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As shown above, Esteffect, the concern of WP:N for reasons of life expectancy being lower in earlier history, is applicable to individual entries on the list. Because the problem is dealt with by the article's editors, and is part of the normal process of crafting an article, it is unnecessary to make it a part of an AfD. For example, I left out Beethoven, who was in his 50s when he died, not only because of seemingly natural causes, but partly because people died earlier in his time. AfD should be concerned with problems that cannot be solved with the normal editing process, but this is not such a one. Anarchangel (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as arbitrary listcruft. Eusebeus (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ITSCRUFT. That the article is your peeve is irrelevant. Anarchangel (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is impossible to maintain this list to be even close to completion. There are millions of musicians in the world and I'm not seeing a criteria that would trim this list to a useable size. Also, why 60? Seems like an arbitrary number... Note to User:Anarchangel: see WP:BLUDGEON before you comment on my (and other's) posts simply because you disagree with them. Tavix | Talk 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Response Anarchangel (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this simply has no encyclopedic value. -WarthogDemon 02:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xbox 360 controller compatible PC games[edit]

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 23:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaked Spirit[edit]

Delete per WP:SOAP and maybe WP:HOAX. I've tried to clean up the article a bit but it is still so far removed from what actually appears to have aired on Israeli TV that I suggest deleting and starting again. Despite claims in the article that this is a 5 min. 30 sec. documentary about a massacre of Egyptians POWs -- with refs from Arab news sites and blogs repeating incorrect hearsay originating from Al Ahram-- the Haaretz article makes it clear that this is in fact a full-length documentary by Ran Adelist on the Israeli military unit, which included a brief segment on the killing of retreating Egyptian troops, and the qualms of some of the Israeli veterans, 30 years later, about following that order. No POWs were killed. This article was written by the creator of the now-deleted Holocaust of Gaza, and as the comments on the YouTube EL ("kill the jews," etc.) indicate, constitutes an attack piece more than anything else. I would consider withdrawing the Afd if someone else wants to rewrite from scratch: with a text that describes the actual The Shaked Spirit Channel One TV documentary – and the ensuing controversy sparked in the Egyptian press – in a factual, neutral fashion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—does not appear to be notable in any way. Also basically an advertisement for a political video. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the video was the excerpt from the film where the veterans discuss the controversial operation, but modified and re-titled to make it fit the Al Ahram version of events. Is that basically the case? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A news item is not a documentary. --Shuki (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Shuki and User:Ynhockey Historicist (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was WP:Snowball. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in Los Angeles County, California 1985-2009[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:NOT Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place to publish your term paper. Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox as advocacy essay and/or opinion piece. — Satori Son 17:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Reso lute 18:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a publisher of original thought.Wik-e-wik (talk)
Delete per WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreadable OR essay with no hope of becoming an encyclopedic topic. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essay, not encyclopaedia article. Seems like someone's homework. Canterbury Tail talk 19:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inappropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. Looks like someone originally tried to created something for publication in a journal or magazine and was (rightfully) rejected, and failing to find a paying audience tried to publish it here. Unencyclopedic. Article's creator also tried to incorporate some or all of this text into Human rights in the United States and it was explained to him on that article's talk page and on his own talk page why the content was deleted as inappropriate for Wikipedia. The article's creator clearly does not have an understanding (yet) of WP:NPOV OfficeGirl (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 23:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Minar[edit]

Prod was deprodded by a sock of a banned user doing block evasion, but I did not reprod since someone else has edited it slightly since. Am going to AFD because this person seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC criteria for an article here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC. The only citation is a link to Ed Minar's personal website.Wik-e-wik (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable.DGG (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable and no notability is suggested or asserted in article. He is an associate professor with a normal background and accomplishment level found in that sort of job. OfficeGirl (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of sufficient academic impact to pass WP:PROF #1 is presented in the article, nor could I find any in Google scholar nor Google books, and he appears even less likely to pass any of the other WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF, non-notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information metabolism[edit]

This is a classic case of a WP:COATRACK; the only point of this article is to direct people towards socionics. There is a legitimate biochemistry use of the term, and it is connected to the cited authors, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with socionics. Suggest deletion without prejudice towards recreation of genuinely relevant content. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a supporter of the idea that page deletion is the way to deal with pages that need to be improved....this is what the "edit" button is for. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have suggested doing that, or done it for that matter, except that the current content of the page is completely irrelevant. That's why I said "without prejudice": when someone gets around to writing an article on the actual subject, that's fine, but at the moment the only solution I have for "improvement" is to delete every last character of article text. As far as I can tell, the references are the only truth in the article. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Uncertain'~~ changed to Keep or merge Posssibly merge with Antoni Kępiński. consider also Socionics (typology), & Socionics (esoterism), and Aušra Augustinavičiūtė and the site [18]. Judging by the articles in the other major WPs, this may all of it be taken seriously as an extension of Jungian psychiatry. From just reading the present article, i would have assumed otherwise, but I think Jungian theories have always been more highly regarded in Europe. In a sense, they';re a closed subject field of their own, but that does not mean they are not notable. I do not think this is a coatrack in the sense of just adding another link -- it is clear that Kepinski and his followers did use that term, at least in English -- see [19]. Based on Gopogle Scholar [20]. I am not sure the term is used in any other sense or by any other school of thought--it does not seem to be standard in any field of biology. DGG (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nothing in this article is worth keeping. A new article could be in future created using WP:RS, but this article has nothing of benefit to the project. Verbal chat 15:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree is it a WP:COATRACK. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Needs more development. This kind of logic is harmful to Wikipedia, which is meant to be the de facto resource of human knowledge, as stated by Wales. The idea of deleting articles "until they are improved" is unacceptable. That's not what deletion was made for. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep and remove most of the socionics content. socionics does derive from the idea of information metabolism, and does warrant mention here, but the main focus of the article should not be on socionics directly, as kepinski's theory is a well-sourced, notable, and unrelated theory in its own right. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to socionics, no independent notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 23:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayk[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:N. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitly not notable and only citation is a myspace page. Rcurtis5 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His 15 minutes are up. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Belongs on MySpace-- and he's there. Not notable. OfficeGirl (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William F. Halsey, Sr.[edit]

Subject has no individual notability. Only claim to notability is being the father of William Halsey, Jr.. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being related to someone notable does not make you notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to have any independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - captain was much more of a big deal of a rank in the 19th century, when the United States Navy was a much smaller entity. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he's probably covered by multiple sources, but we'd need those sources to know that for certain; until then, he fails the general guideline. Moreover, captains of this period surely aren't notable — some time ago I proposed adding the top military commander of a nation to the list of people considered automatically notable, and that suggestion failed. If the top commander isn't automatically notable, surely a captain isn't. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that the top military commander of a given country _is_ notable and that many of the lists of minor characters in <insert video game here> are not. But most of the time WP bends to the loudest, though least appropriate, masses. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after moving any relevant material to William Halsey, Jr. as the father doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. As stated above, being related to someone does not make a person notable. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a disambiguation from the son's article. Merging this information into the son's article is not appropriate as these details are not pertinent to William F. Halsey, Jr.. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep For the same reasons given by Bearian --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both Bearian and MrDolomite make good points, but an Amazon search for the exact name turns up this. On page 57, this work not only mentions Senior as the commander of the USNA, but also asserts he was influential in exposing Naval Academy midshipmen to the martial arts in 1905. This book says beloved naval academy "master steward" William E. Fletcher kept track of Junior's career initially because of his personal knowledge of Senior at the Academy. That's significant independent coverage which meets the notability bar. BusterD (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socionics (esoterism)[edit]

This article is a content fork from socionics (typology), which latter really should be at socionics (currently a disambig). Socionics proper appears to be some sort of fringey personality type system which merits coverage of some sort. The article in question seems to be a mass of original research and synthesis, and it seems to exist because the material was chased out of the main article. I can't tell whether this is the primary author's personal theory or a fringe of the fringe, because some of the sources are in Russian; those sources I can read do in general have nothing to do with socionics. In any case the article titles imply that there is a psychology socionics and an esoteric socionics, when what appears to be the case is that the article in question is claiming that socionics IS esoteric. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Esoteric, in this case, means non-notable fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with socionics in the case of wikipedia is that its own english development was over the internet from Russian language sources. It has in its original form a heavy esoteric base that included chakras and psychic energy, yet it was later framed to seem something more 'psychological' and similar to something from Jung or MBTI and disconnected from the original esoteric elements that formed the theory, despite the fact that these esoteric things dominated the origin of socionics theory and that there is indeed a split where some people take a mystical and esoteric approach [usually involving chakras and psychic energy] and others claiming a more psychological or empirical approach. There are extreme differences in interpretation and opinions on the usages of socionics. On account of the lack of creditable english sources and that the main sources are all in Russian makes it easy to claim original research on the matter, when these are actual viewpoints within the realm of socionics. There is also the fact that there are people who [usually only after learning just the generalized form over the internet and] are completely unfamiliar with the history of socionics, completely denying the esoteric version and mystical interpretations of socionics that literally exist as legitimate viewpoints within the realm of socionics, and this has caused neutrality issues in the original socionics article where there are people intent on oppressing any viewpoint that claims or shows that socionics has more to do with esotericism and mysticism than it does to something with a scientific approach, when socionics has no scientific validation whatsoever other than perhaps some speculation that 'such and such' about the theory is always the case. And this is the exact problem with the way people are using socionics. They are definitely not totally telling the truth about socionics in the main article socionics (typology) at all in the origination of the theory and anybody who tells the truth about socionics and its origination usually gets ganged up on by people who want to claim that socionics has absolutely no esoteric, mystic, or occult ties whatsoever, and that is how the socionics(esoterism) article came to be. In any case, I agree that the credible information that exists in the socionics (esoterism) article should be in the main article, but as I have said there is a neutrality dispute over the nature of the presentation of socionics and it is a legitimate battle to present the actual factual information without some form of bias. The socionics (typology) article in itself is full of things that can also be considered origional research and lacking credible source materials as well, so it is not just this article, it is socionics in general that there is just not a lot of viable sources that can be cited. It is the nature of the theory at the moment. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying and pasting this from the Talk:Socionics_(typology) talk page just to show the extent of this debate:

The rational skeptics are currently investigating socionics to discover the the real truth behind socionics that people are attempting to hide in order to make unsubstantiated scientific and others claims about socionics that is simply not true in light of the legitimate esoteric background of socionics, the mystic interpretations that are present in socionics theory and associated with the founders such as Ausura Augusta, and the substantiated connection between socionics, information metabolism (otherwise known as psychic energy), mysticism, tattwas, chakras, physiognomy and any other connected protoscience or pseudoscience. For this reason, the 'rational skeptic' tag has been added to this article.

Wrong. It is not just a mystic psychology. It is also a concrete and realist psychology. If you want to focus on the mysticism half of socionics, you need to focus on the duality relation itself. Although Augusta dabbled in mysticism, she was not in herself a mystic. Tcaudilllg (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mystic psychology" is often indistinguishable from "realist philosophy", as the two go hand and hand. Ontology and mathematics are often used in both separately or together. It is ridiculous to say that socionics is a "realist philosophy" and not also also say that it is a "mystic psychology". Socionics is a realist philosophy and also a mystic psychology. Claiming that "ausura augusta herself was not a mystic" is about as silly as going back up to a couple of debates ago where people were claiming that "you can claim Jung was influenced by hermeticism, alchemy, hindu philosophy, but socionics sure the heck was not" when in fact the basis of socionics is nothing except chakras, tattwas, psychic energy and that it was actually Antoni Kepimski's theory developed from these and hardly Jung or MBTI at all. I am getting so sick of people making these silly unsubstantiated claims and making false claims about its origin in order to frame socionics away from the actual truth about its esoteric foundation. You are just telling mistruths about its origion in order to 'make it seem acceptable' to people who want nothing to do with chakras, psychic energy, or esotericism. In fact, I would call the history of its origin as originally told in english to be a big fat western lie, and it is sad that people believe something to be true about socionics that is false and making it seem like it is something that it is not. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. First, It may well be true what you say. However, Wikipedia is not the place to write your exposé; you need to find someone else's and use it as your source. Second, regardless of how you come up with materal, we cannot have two articles on the same subject which give different versions of what it is. That is precisely what I meant by "content fork". If there is a problem with ownership of the subject there are ways of dealing with that. Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Never having encountered this before tonight, it does seem clear that there are two intellectual traditions. My own personal bias is to call one pseudo social science and the other utter nonsense, but I can see that others may evaluate differently; there does seem to be a respectable body of though that would instead use the terms analytical psychology and mysticism. As I understand it, Jung's thought has been susceptible to both tendencies of interpretation. I haven't the least idea howe to straighten it out, but it does seem to be two different subjects. DGG (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable fringe theory. Verbal chat 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose since it seems that there is a movement to delete the article what is credible in this article should be salvaged and placed in the other article ... again. Nevertheless, I am pretty sure the same problems are going to arise with people who do not want to acknowledge the existence of a legitimate mystic approach spawned from the esoteric tendencies of its founders are going to try to keep any evidence of the viewpoint out of the article again to present it as something it is not entirely, causing more neutrality issues in the presentation of socionics where you have a heavy esoteric basis on the theory that carries through even as it is deceptively being framed to seem to be something "scientific" or like "Jung or MBTI". You think a neutral party would allow the evidence that this is the case to be present in the socionics (typology) in some form. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to a merge of the three articles (including the dab page). I had not heard of it either, and a brief look at the article and in search engines found little in English-language sources. If anyone can salvage this mess, please be bold. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have put all socionics-related articles up for deletion, as further inquiries have led me to the conviction that, whatever its nature and origins, it is insufficiently notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionics. In any case I do not think this content fork should be allowed to continue. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content fork of a fringe theory. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as an unverifiable and original research content fork. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niffweed is one of those people who have bought into the western lie that socionics is "something like Jung and MBTI" and has done nothing but intensely persecute those who tell the truth that socionics has an intense esoteric background. When I literally owned the the16types.info forum for 4 straight years, he made a regular habit of following users around during that time who spoke anything contrary to "his opinion on the matter" and harass them. He even goes so far as to commit slanderous and libelous accusations against people such as "calling them insane" or labeling them with "psychiatric disorders" even as such is libelous false. This tactic seems to be his main response to those who disagree with him and otherwise shows that "his opinion on the matter" lacks a high degree of respectability. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to socionics, protect redirect. No harm in keeping the edit history around. --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on why the Socionics article deletion would potentially be a good thing taking the circumstances

First off I should probably state who I am. I am officially recognized in Russia and the United States as a practicing socionists. I studied Religion, Theology, Metaphysics, Biblical Languages, at a University in Texas for 4 years, and the German language at a University in Northern California for 3 years, where I had the opportunity to exchange to Tuebingen University in Tuebingen, Germany to study Theology, and improve my Greek. I have studied socionics since 2003 and was the owner of the largest english speaking socionics forum the16types.info since 2005 (bought from Jimmy Caretti) until I sold it in late 2008. Since that time I formed the forum metasocion.com in order to present socionics in its natural form, as I found the "the the16types.info" crowd to be both extremely ignorant and prejudiced against presenting socionics the way that the founders had originally presented it. You can see some of my socionic credentials below:

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Reuben_McNew http://www.typelab.ru/en/1.begin/index.html http://www.socioniki.info/index.php/2008-11-05-20-39-51

It is my personal opinion that all socionics articles should be deleted until it is agreed by everyone that it is a good idea to give a neutral presentation of the origin of socionics that discusses its esoteric development and gives mention to the fact that esoteric interpretations of chakras, tattwas, and psychic energy and mysticism in general were the main basis that the founders of socionics based their theory upon, and that from this socionics was formulated and later "framed to appear to be something like Jung or MBTI" and that "mystical interpretations of socionics type theory have descended directly from the founders and exist to this day" and that "there is a split between those of the opinion that socionics is something empirical and that socionics is something mystical." The multitude of sources that have been presented have already shown this. However, taking that there are people who would rather take unneutral views of socionics and present socionics in a way contrary to its origin [meaning in a frame which presents it as a form similar to MBTI or Jung with no mention of its esoteric background] I would be in favor of deleteing all socionics articles. I think that those who are opposed to an esoteric presentation of socionics should either come to terms that it would be correct to allow some information in some form to neutrally portray socionics esoteric background or to be content with the deletion of the whole of all of the information. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete: A7/G11 as non-notable local chapter and suspected (self-)promotional piece. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Jaycees[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:N Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable local chapter of (notable) organization. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NawlinWiki. JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete from a spamusername. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have placed aspeedy delete tag for advertising. The creator of the article has been blocked because of a promotional user name and promotional behavior. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Slam Women's Singles champions (reverse chronological order)[edit]

See this discussion RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 16:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the "hangon" tag in this revision [21] of the article for an explanation of why the duplicate version of the list exists. Basically, the two Australian Opens held in 1977 make the list not sort correctly when the button is pressed to sort it by year (also, the line saying "Open Era" ends up in the wrong place). No one who understood why the second list was created seems to have participated in the discussion for the men's list. I'm not sure if overcomming this sorting issue is enough of a reason to justify having two lists or not. Calathan (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason no one participated in the men's list was vacations and such. This page was created as a compromise (see: Talk:List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions#Chronological order) because sorting does not work on the table and this particular order was best for the viewing public. This was the way the page had been for years...newest first as it looks better and conveys the most relevant information right off the bat. I don't know how many times I quickly flip to this page to see the last 2 or 3 slam winners and rarely do I look to see who won in 1884. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself part of the "viewing public", and I much prefer the chronological order tables, even when I want to know recent information. It just seems odd to me to view the tournaments in reverse order of when they occured. Also, it seems simpler to me to scroll to the bottom of the table than to click on a link to go to a separate article. Calathan (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have talked/worked with members of the press and also writers who actually use this article, and they would disagree with you. I would bet that 99% of the people who look for this article want to know who are the current title holders or when did Graf win her last tournament, or who won in the years Serena didn't. It is much better for the vast majority of users to keep such a long list (120+ years) with contemporary first. Fyunck(click) (talk)

If that's the case, replace the current chronological ordered table with the reversed. I still don't see a reason to keep both tables. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did and I fixed some of the sorting problem but it keeps getting deleted. That's why we need a link to the other table... deletions! Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't keep getting deleted, convention is to list in chronological order, and sort to reverse if one wants. You keep changing from chronological to reverse, and that's what's being deleted. That's a discussion for the talk page of the article, and not a reason to maintain a redundant page. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convention in tennis slams has been the reverse. They didn't always have sorting. The article has always been newest on top UNTIL the redundant page was made when we editors agreed that as long as there were 2 charts we would not contest the less useful chart being on the main page. We felt we worked it out in a manner that these days seems rather foreign to wikipedia.... through compromise without resorting to Mediators. Everyone was happy until unbeknownst to me the Men's 2nd chart was deleted and now the ladies chart is in the same dilemma. This time I happened to notice. This has already been discussed on the talk page and two charts was the solution. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to such problem shouldn't be two tables. It's just useless to have a full article for a list that already appears in another article. In addition, it really isn't hard to scroll down to the end of the table and read its end, and saying some might want to read it in reverse chronological order is just not enough of a reason to keep the table. You want to know who won the last Grand Slam? you can either scroll down to the end of the table and 'waste' two seconds of your life (which is wasted anyway when you click on the link to the other table), or you can go a news site, rather than an encyclopedia. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 19:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing about what or what shouldn't have been the solution... that was the solution. I warned at the time that wiki frowns on extra pages and that in the future when someone starts making a fuss about it we will have to go back to the standard table. And your argument about the order and scrolling works both ways... anyone who really wants to see who won in 1889 can scroll down in 2 seconds, but most won't. It's faster to go to another table than to scroll down since not everyone has a 24" monitor. Newest on top looks better (no blank spots right off the bat) and is more information-friendly because the info most people want is right on top. I read everyone's suggestions to make the main page as sortable as possible so if we can agree it works just fine this way then I could agree the secondary page could go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The table format we chose to use breaks sorting" is not a valid reason to fork an article. Find a better way to present the information. Reso lute 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply remove the rowspan 2 for Year 1977 and include both Aus Open winners in one row. The only problem you'll then have is the Open era arrows will go to the top if you sort, if you really want to fix that, then remove that from a row and add a note at the top of the table. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't work because of 1968. I took your advice though and combined 1977 in one row (thanks) and then did a work around for 1968 so the sorting will work. I don't like the 1968 line as well but it does work with sorting now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Resolute. Chidel (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton Student Engineering Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A recreation of an article deleted twice after a previous AfD. Db-repost declined because "does not qualify for deletion as recreaion of deleted article because this article bears little resemblance to the article previously deleted as a result of AfD". In one respect it does resemble the previous article; the underlying topic is not notable. Abductive (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a pretty decent article. Subject is notable enough. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence of notability of this student club? Abductive (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Needs secondary sources to establish notability which are not present in the article. Only primary sources are present. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Nonprimary references are needed, yes. Still, this article clearly has potential and its writers have clearly put more than a little effort into it; recommend probation for now. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with that as well. However I would add caution that the article was basically dormant in development since august of last year until recently this month.Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student clubs at individual universities are almost never notable. No sources for notability, and no reason why there should be any. I would be extremely surprised if this article on a student club in a single subject in a single university could be shown to be notable. I would consider it a valid G7 in its current version, but we would do better to definitively remove it here. DGG (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If one finds an article on a student club on Wikipedia, the likelihood is that it is notable; it's like natural selection. By hitting random article I find pages that don't show up in Google searches sometimes. Abductive (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - started, not surprisingly, by a Carleton engineering student; unsourced, and, what is more, unsourceable through reliable independent material. Where, after all, might one find references for the "Symbols" section, except in the author's own personal experience, which isn't valid for this encyclopedia? - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-promotional fancruft. No notability asserted by outside sources. Dahn (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Some reasons why this could be notable have been put forward; but despite some apparently comprehensive searching no real coverage has been found in order to demonstrate it. ~ mazca ^talk 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Plot[edit]

Is this really notable? NeW MeN doesn't show up anywhere.

Found this while looking for more information on Secrets that Sell, an HGTV program. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 01:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Proving the notability of porn is always difficult, given the biases of Wikipedia guidelines. This series at least has been licensed in English by Eros Comix, which means there's a halfway chance of finding reviews. We may want to ask the WikiProject Comics to advise as well as WP Manga. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Googling for "Secret Plot" and "hentai" I get 45,000 hits. I'm sure there are notable reviews out there somewhere, it clearly a popular series. Dream Focus 02:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been pointed out to you time and time again, number of Google hits does not confer notability. It would be great if there were independant, non-trivial reviews in those results, but the burden is on you to look for them - and to point them out - since you're !voting keep. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 08:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This and its sequel, Secret Plot Deep, are old pornographic manga that were translated into English years ago before translated manga became commonplace. However, the fact that it lacks third-party sources is a concern. Withhold judgment for now. --Farix (Talk) 18:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After doing an extensive Google search on both the web, news, books, and scholars, I could not find anything that approached being a reliable source. The closest thing I could find to a review was from The Otaku Fridge (formerly Hentai Neko). However, this website is self-published and many of its reviews are user submitted, thus unreliable (see WP:MANGA/RS#Unreliable). So week delete unless someone can come up with reliable third-party sources. --Farix (Talk) 18:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding very little as well. I've seen hints that it and/or the sequel may have been mentioned in one or more print magazines about comics, pre-Web editions, but nothing definitive aside from the review Farix mentions. The age, as an early manga translation, suggests a certain amount of notability, but like Farix, I'm led to a reluctant weak delete pending someone finding something more solid in the way of third-party reviews. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:49, 21 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 16:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty sure this is covered in Jason Thompson's The Manga Guide. Doceirias (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While that would be useful in building a Reception section, that doesn't help demonstrate the series notability, as Manga: The Complete Guide lists every single manga licensed in English as of press time, without discrimination. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Referenced the manga's publishers and deleted redundant "see also" section. Extremepro (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OTOH, the French edition (mentioned in the current article) does seem to have gotten some notice. The one French review site to mention it I know is reliable, currently referenced in the article, didn't actually review it, and the other hits on title/publisher I cannot evaluate -- we need a French reader to assist here. But if enough coverage can be demonstrated, I will change my !vote to keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checked 5 French RS websites and no review. --KrebMarkt 19:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. No change to my recommendation, then. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lets go for Weak delete as it fail to demonstrate notability in licensed country like France.

Disclaimer: I found reviews for hentai manga in French RS websites just that there is no review for this series. --KrebMarkt 15:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's been published in three languages isn't that some indication of notability? ~~Has a Japanese editor been contacted to ask for citations?~~ (I checked with one and they weren't sure if it's notable) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another alternative is to create an article on Tatsumi Publishing (which seems to be notable) and merge it there. Several of their comics already have articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shmay[edit]

Contested prod. Article about a colloquialism, with an example of usage which does not qualify as an assertion of notability. In contesting the prod, the author simply stated that she wrote the entire article by herself. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT, WP:NEO, WP:NAD. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this page gives the user what they need to know about city slang and adds energy also and this will make people laugh and want to read wikipedia for all the right reasons :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemeraldd (talk • contribs) [copied from article talk page to here, where it was probably meant to be. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary - we don't take dictionary definitions. Furthermore I have not been able to find evidence of use that would meet Wiktionary's Criteria for inclusion so a transwiki is not appropriate. Note that Google results tell me that "Shmay" is a surname, and part of the Yiddish(?) set-phrase "Y'hay shmay rabbo m'vorach" which apparently translates as "May God's name be great" but these are nothing to do with the colloquialism defined here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO, WP:NFT......I don;t think even Urban Dictionary would touch this one. I absolutely believe she wrote it all by herself though. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interestingly not the first time for this article either, I deleted it about three years ago.Manning (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2½ years ago to be precise - "04:29, 13 January 2007 Manning Bartlett (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Shmay" ‎ (G1 - haha, I'm smiling as I press delete :))" however in that case the article was about a slang word from New England, rather than Liverpool so it is not a G4 speedy. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Stingl[edit]

This article is about a non-notable academic. Although the article claims two books and 30 journal publications, the books have not been published and none of the journal articles appear in refereed journals. The person in question also does not appear to have ever held an academic position. In fact, there is currently no online evidence for his existence other than his personal web pages. The article is also full of material about his theories that is difficult to make sense of. Looie496 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC) For convenience, I am also listing here Bio-civics, an article about Stingl's theory in which most of the text is taken from the Alexander Stingl article, and for which no published sources exist. I hope that listing both of these together doesn't violate any procedures. Looie496 (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NOTABLE as far as I can determine. Only citations are personal websites.Wik-e-wik (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one on Stingl. Based on his CV, [22] no actual major publications. As for the theory, that really needs to be considered separately. DGG (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It tells: "His scholarly work includes some 30 scholarly articles, two books, and several conference papers." Fine, but how about his citation index?Biophys (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Stingl is a recent Ph.D. without any evidence presented of the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1. The article goes on at length about his academic work, normally a good thing compared to manyy of our academic biographies which only recite the bare facts about someone's career, but the length together with the lack of third-party references makes me think most of this discussion is likely original research. As for the bio-civics article, there's too little on that phrase in Google scholar (only two uncited papers by Hindmarsh) to convince me that it rises above WP:NEO. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Subject passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Articles (both) created too early.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources.Sancho 06:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Entree[edit]

This is a non-notable piece of software, with no significant coverage that I can find. The article was created by a single-purpose account whose edits have been exclusively promoting this software and its parent company, H3 Solutions Incorporated. -- Atama ^chat 16:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article because it suffers from the same issues, and is the company that makes the software in question:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —- Atama ^chat 16:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the Wikipedia administrator comments have been reviewed by me and I respect all of the observations. I have already begun rewriting the articles in order to meet or exceed Wikipedia guidelines. I am not a spammer or a marketer. I am a writer by trade and started my Wikipedia postings with a company that is familiar to me. It is clear to me now how my articles may have been perceived and I am working to correct them. Please accept and pass along my apologies and understand that my errors were not intentional.--Jason! (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mobile Entree article has been rewritten to remove any promotional content. References by reliable, independent, secondary sources have been provided as references to establish notability. Additionally, the article has been rewritten is from a third party perspective and contains verifiable references that would be useful to a software developer. Please also note that, ...smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.^[1] Respectfully, --Jason! (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If you aren't attempting to promote, I apologize, but you should understand how it can look when all of a person's edits act to promote a single entity. In any event, you should see WP:RS to get a feel for what a reliable source is that can help verify the notability of this product. Note that the sole reference that you've provided so far looks to be a blog, not a legitimate news source.[23] This is the problem I ran into when trying to find reliable sources to show notability, there just doesn't seem to be any out there. If this software is new then don't worry, if it is successful it may become notable in time and when that occurs an article can be created then. Keep in mind I don't find fault with the way you've created the article, you've done a good job, it's the subject itself that I object to. -- Atama ^chat

Reply - I have retooled the H3 Solutions and Mobile Entree articles in hopes of achieving the Wikipedia standards as well as your guidelines. It is very clear to me the perception of edits towards a single entity and I have done my best to correct the appearance of promoting edits for the articles. For those mistakes I apologize as it was not my intent. It is my hope that the new revisions meet with your expectations so that I can move on to other articles within Wikipedia - these two are giving me a headache - but I need to protect my journalistic integrity. Respectfully --Jason! (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both articles (H3 Solutions and Mobile Entree) have been augmented with reference sources that validate notability per Wikipedia administrator recommendations. Additionally, any(all) promotional references have been removed. Thank you for the opportunity to update.--Jason! (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I'm actually familiar with the references you provided on the H3 page, and considered them before I even proposed the initial deletion. I'll address each one. The first reference is a press release, which isn't a reliable source. The second is just a listing on the German Microsoft site. The last four are blogs, which aren't reliable sources unless part of a major news organization (a blog at the New York Times for example could be a reliable source). I'm sorry if this seems like such a pain, I've had many articles deleted that I spent a lot of time on and it took me awhile to understand the criteria for inclusion. In this case, WP:RS states that an article must have significant coverage in reliable sources. That means more than one source (generally news sources/magazines are best for software) has to cover it in-depth, and the policy gives examples of what are considered reliable sources. If you can find something better than what we have now then I'd change my mind, and keep in mind I'm just a regular editor like you. This deletion discussion has just begun and other people haven't put in their opinion yet. Someone might disagree with me. -- Atama ^chat 19:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for nonnotability, but without prejudice. If product become notable and industry-referenced, would support a keep.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was asked to write this article on behalf of the company and performed quite a bit of research before publishing which is why I am defending it so strongly. All of the administrator and user notes I am taking to heart and doing my best to satisfy. This morning I reached out to a colleague at the NY Times for comment that I am hopeful will help in the defense of this entry. Additionally, I have been told by the company (H3 Solutions) that Microsoft Press will be releasing some news regarding Mobile Entree next month. Both of those sources should, I hope, be notable enough to keep the entry. Finally, I have informed the management of H3 Solutions regarding the Wikipedia administrator thoughts and they are reaching out to their customer and software developer community to weigh in on this discussion. Respectfully --Jason! (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7 - the author blanked the page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuda haa[edit]

Contested prod. Dive site with no assertion of notability. The article sounds more like a review intended solely for divers. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep as per consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fisherwife of Palermo[edit]

Another single sourced (from a Swedish book) article about a minor alleged witch trial case created by the same editor who made Hans the Werewolf, also up for deletion. This level of detail is way too much to be based upon a single source of unknown reliability (a lot of the claims made seem quite controversial and would probably be argued differently if other sources paid any attention to it), and Wikipedia articles require multiple independent reliable sources with nontrivial coverage, etc. A search on Google for more information found a ton of Wikipedia mirrors and sites skimming text from the article (as well as some strange search result pages showing no hits on various sites), but no reliable sources at websites and no books at Google books mentioning the case, which is why we should delete it. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because the only reference is in a Swedish book does not mean that the article should be deleted. We have countless articles that are completely unsourced, but that alone doesn't mean that they should be deleted. I also hardly consider it to be of little importance, given that the subject of the trial appears to have had connections with paganism. Foreign language references are considered perfectly valid for Wikipedia. Furthermore, User:Aciram has made many excellent contributions and his/her work has been consistently of good quality. S/he is clearly an intelligent and thoughtful editor and I'm quite sure that s/he is capable of determining whether or not the book s/he used is reliable or not. Asarelah (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It doesn't surprise me that there are no English sources, given that it took place in Sweden huh? are we talking about the same article? Palermo is in Sicily, not Sweden. Not that this in any way invalidates your point about the suitability of non-english sources. Dlabtot (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was tired when I wrote that. Its fixed now. Asarelah (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We have countless articles that are completely unsourced, but that alone doesn't mean that they should be deleted." Yes, it does. Plese try reading our rules for notability. DreamGuy (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do we have special tags for articles that are completely unsourced? Why do we mark them out for improvement and request that sources be added rather than automatically deleting them? Asarelah (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think I can answer this; these are added because it points out a problem with the article and can be done quickly by an editor. It takes seconds to do. If, however, an editor feels that there just probably aren't any sources (which is an indicator that the subject isn't notable) that editor would be best-served to make a good-faith effort themself to find those sources, and if they can't find them, at that point they can nominate the article for deletion. I've done both myself many times; I've added requests for references with tags, and other times I've taken the time to go out and try to find those sources and ended up asking for the page to be deleted when I failed. It just depends on how much time I have and how much effort I'm willing to make at that point. The advice I've given to numerous editors trying to create an article is to first find sources. Work on the article in your own user space in a subpage and get those sources added before creating it, nobody will touch it then. Stubs are often in danger of deletion, and many (if not most) deserve deletion because the subject wasn't notable to begin with. If you can have those sources from the start it's very unlikely that someone will delete your work later. I've learned this the hard way by having dozens of articles deleted after I put a lot of time and effort into improving them, and now if I take interest in an article the first thing I try to do is improve the references before I bother to do anything else. Remember that verifiability is one of the most core policies of Wikipedia, and without a variety of reliable sources you can't have that in an article. -- Atama ^chat 23:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asareleh's point was a rhetorical one, meaning: There is a clear alternative to deletion, and that is to tag the article as needing references. Your practical advice is still relevant, and well taken by myself, at least. Anarchangel (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - That is not true. If references can't be readily found then a request for references is useless. You don't tag an article asking for more references when you know they aren't out there. And I don't know if you have participated in other AfDs before, but an AfD is never closed with a request for finding references. If those references can't be found in the course of the AfD, the article is deleted. -- Atama ^chat 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue with a single source is pronounced when the matter is controversial per WP:AD. Is this controversial? The account seems believable and scholarly; it's certainly not WP:FRINGE.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our standards for having a Wikipedia article demand multiple, independent, reliable nontrivial coverage. The rules for mentioning something in some other article that already has notability established are slightly less strict, but a large portion of the content in this article would be controversial, yes... which is irrelevant at this point because it shouldn't even have an article at all. DreamGuy (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:N, 'multiple' is not specified. The article has two. Independent has no place in this discussion at all, everyone in the history has been dead for almost half a millenium. Reliable, there is some small evidence for, and none at all against; it certainly falls under the benefit of reasonable belief that they are. Nontrivial? The sources -are- the material, the sources are the antithesis of a passing reference. Now, you may well say, I was just outlining what the WP standards are. But I ask you, why were you mentioning them, or notability at all, when they are all quite obviously irrelevant, meaning the article is by default notable? And finally, what on earth can you possibly mean by controversial? Anarchangel (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are not the standards for having an article on Wikipedia. Those are the standards for having an article assessed as meeting a certain class (featured, B-class, etc.) Please see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. If you would delete this on the basis that it does not meet those standards, I'm a bit curious as to whether or not you intend to scour the wiki and nominate all the stubs, start-class, and c-class articles for deletion as well. Asarelah (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Aseralah, I'm sorry, but you're very much wrong. Please read WP:N which outlines the notability requirements for all articles. As to the suggestion that DreamGuy delete "stub, start-class, and c-class articles", the WP:N guideline does not require that articles currently have such sources, merely that such sources exist. If someone challenges that assertion then it is the burden of those wanting to keep the article to show that such sources are out there. In time those sources can be added to the article, there is no time limit, but if those sources aren't there then the article does not merit being in Wikipedia. There are a number of stub-class articles that I have rescued from proposed deletions after finding reliable sources, I've often put those sources on the talk page for a future editor to add as a reference later. -- Atama ^chat 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that WP:N includes most of DG's requirements. However, in WP:N, 'multiple' is not specified. And none of the requirements have a bearing on this article. Independent has no place in this discussion at all, everyone in the history has been dead for almost half a millenium. Reliability, there is some small evidence for, and none at all against, it certainly can be given the benefit of reasonable belief that they are. Nontrivial? The sources -are- the material, the sources are the antithesis of a passing reference. I will assume that you only meant to point out the congruence of DG's list and WP:N, but as you failed to point out the fact that WP:N is irrelevant here, it appears that you have in some way endorsed DG's erroneous citing of WP:N. Anarchangel (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Let me quote WP:N; "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." It is very specific in stating that there should be multiple sources. Please tell me where in WP:N it states that there are any circumstances where WP:N is "irrelevant". Your argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of notability in Wikipedia. -- Atama ^chat 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although as the creator, It is perhaps not my place to say. It is hard to look for it on the net, as the woman is not mentioned by name. This case is presented as a representative example to describe the special form of witch trials taking place on Sicily were fairies were involved; a form of fairy with trials. Her confession is described as one of the most detalied of this phenomena. This was, as I have understood it, a phenomena unique for Sicily, putting 65 people on trial in the period of 1579-1651. This should be relevant. Witch trials involving mythological fairies in such a way, the combination of folklore and witch trials, was unique. The importance of this case in this context is pointed out in the text. Dreamguy removed the text describing the context of the case, and the importance of the case in this context. I have reintroduced it. The article should not lack context. However, I have considered to alter the name of the article: perhaps the article should describe the phenomena in itself rather than to concentrate on a specific case. My intention with this article was to present a representative example, as it was presented in the reference, for a historical phenomena unique for Sicily. This case is described as a case used to exemplify this special phenomena. --Aciram (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a quick google on this one this morning and wasn’t able to come up with anything specific to this case. However, it was clear that trials for witchcraft in this period of Sicilian history were distinctly significant. If you have the sources to broaden the scope of the article somewhat (and, as you say, perhaps rename it) that would be very good. But, if you don’t have access to those sources, I still think that the article should stay. Someone else will work on it in due course, which is the way that Wikipedia works. Ian Spackman (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if keeping the article as-is; I don't believe it has the sources necessary to show notability. Keep if the article can describe the phonomena and have additional sources. Also, not that it should affect the outcome of this deletion discussion, but I strongly suggest having inline sources so that individual claims within the article can be shown to be referenced; that also helps show that the article is not written with original research but is instead verified by the reliable sources provided. -- Atama ^chat 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been on the Swedish Wikipedia since August 2007 with the Eva Kärfve book cite, suggesting that it may be a legitimate ref. I'll add it to the Swedish discussion, just to get input from people who may know who Kärfve is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my suggestion above to a straight Keep, I have confidence that with the expanded scope it won't be difficult to show notability. Thanks! -- Atama ^chat 16:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Place References Tag and Keep Atama has shown us how to proceed, although I disagree with the notion that it is the page creator's responsibility to ensure that the page is not deleted. It is the responsibility of those discussing the article on its talk page, RFCs, and AfDs. The nominator has shown us how not to proceed; WP:N has almost entirely nothing to do with this article, let alone infringements of WP:N. There is however one issue to be resolved, it is not necessarily for this AfD to resolve it: According to DreamGuy, and I agree with his words, if not his meaning: The article's sources are of 'unknown' value. This brings up four possibilities: The sources are good, yet the article is deleted. The first glimmer of information about an area of history largely unknown to the English speaking world is cut down by a Justice that is not blind to prejudice, but blind to legal procedure. This is to be avoided at all costs. The sources are bad, and the article is deleted. This is a good thing, apart from an entertaining fairy story being removed from WP. The sources are good, and the article remains. What can I say that I haven't already in the first possibility? WP working as intended. The sources are bad, and the article remains. Is anyone going to take the fairy tale without a grain of salt? I can't see a downside to letting the article remain, with the References tag that is not only a call for action but a caveat to readers. Anarchangel (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Anarchangel. Whatever problems it may have, its value is such that it should be kept regardless. Asarelah (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - No offense, but that is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WP:N has everything to do with this article, and asking for it to be kept because you like it isn't going to be effective. I've tried to help by giving a compromise, and the only reason why I asked Aciram to find sources is because he seems to be the only one capable of it. Do you expect me to go learn a foreign language and do it? I'm not going to be able to do that. I don't care if Aciram does it or someone else, but more sources are needed. I suggested expanding the scope of the article, in fact I didn't even suggest it originally, Aciram did. If we expand the scope of the article past a single incident, then it should be easier to find references. But you are required by policy to justify what is in the article with sources if challenged, which is what has happened. I'm not out to get this article deleted, I want this article to meet the inclusion requirements, and I'm willing to help do that, but if it can't be done then this article can't stay, I'm sorry. -- Atama ^chat 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further Reply - Nobody has answered my original question, does anyone object to an expansion of the article? What if it is expanded past this single incident of The Fisherwife of Palermo? If we can then find more sources for other, similiar incidents, that should certainly satisfy WP:N. -- Atama ^chat 00:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI do not object renaming the article to make it be about the phenomena with examples of it, if is necessary to do so. I suppose, that there will be easier for everyone to find sources, if the article is about the phenomena in itself. There are more than one source about it, and the reference by Kärfve is considered very reliable. But be in mind, that I wrote this article a long time ago, and therefore I do not feel that I can do this before consulting the sources again and double-check them. The problems is that I have so little time, and it would be a shame that they are deleted because of that. But I will truly do my best to take the time this week! --Aciram (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don’t see any clear reason to delete this. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge any relevant and cited information to Dryad, as gathered consensus deems appropriate. ÷seresin 23:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dryads in popular culture[edit]

It has been proposed that this article be (re)merged with Dryads, but there is no valuable content to merge. Furthermore the article's subject does not seem to be independantly notable, as there are no relevant results with searches for Dryads in fiction or Dryads in popular culture. I enjoy salvaging information, but there is no information here to salvage, and as a topic there is nothing notable to be said. Nick Penguin_(contribs) 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if well enough can't be left alone. Mintrick (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unreferenced list of original research. The topic itself is not notable per WP:NOTE and the content is so worthless as to not deserve further comment. Drawn Some (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate mish-mash of genuine (though hardly notable) appearances, mere mentions, metaphorical uses, and cases in which dryads aren't even explicitly referred to. Moreover, as the opinions above indicate, the topic itself fails WP:N for want of significant treatment in reliable sources. Deor (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree material is in bad shape, but many of those books are notable and some of those books have independent sources which talk about the characters in them. Agree the subject is not independently notable of dryad which is why I support a merge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a section on the cultural depictions of dryads, with more examples like the picture found in the existing dryad article, maybe something like that would be good, but I see no content in this article that would be suitable for including in a section like that. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete un-notable, unreferenced, indiscriminate list of random trivia. (As are a huge proportion of similar 'articles'.) Dlabtot (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There is certainly enough literary allusions for a short pop-culture section, but far too little for a whole piece. Cites surely could be found with a bit of sleuthing. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge I had no difficulty adding some content with a citation. The contention that the topic cannot be improved is thus disproved. There is a merge discussion relating to the parent article and that is the proper forum for this matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "in popular culture" articles as inherently inappropriate to a formal and serious encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the consensus here has been that such articles are valuable. The use of a notable topic in notable works of fiction is an encyclopedic subject. Contrary to Stifle, the study of popular culture is a serious academic subject, with dozens of academic books a year and hundreds or thousands of articles. And even if it weren't WP is in any case not aiming at a scholarly encyclopedia but a general one. As for WP coverage of them, we need to increase the amount of careful attention that is paid to these articles, for they are not all of high quality. This one, like most Wikipedia articles on most subjects, needs some work. I think a dozen examples are sufficient. The discussion of them now needs to be exapanded beyond the present. DGG (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a deliberate misstatement of fact. You know that these articles get regularly deleted (though not all the time, it's true). There is no broad consensus in either direction, as you are well aware. Mintrick (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep as per consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans the Werewolf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Renominating for deletion, since problems discussed at last AFD (closed with no consensus, with some blatant WP:ILIKEIT votes, etc.) have not been fixed. Article only has two sources: the Swedish one which is being used for most of the info, including a number of claims that sound controversial based upon my knowledge of werewolf folklore and witch trial history that are presented as facts just because this Swedish author claimed them; and an English one, which only discusses this case in the most trivial of ways (based upon a person at the previous AFD looking into it, it's just a page or page and a half or so of text in a 477 page book specifically devoted to just Estonian werewolf and poisoning cases!). This case is not notable as far as werewolf cases go, but even as far as Estonian incidents go it's apparently just a footnote. It's not mentioned in our article of Werewolf or any other article here on related topics, so no independent person thought it was notable enough to discuss on those topics. The bottom line is this is just essentially a single-sourced incident (source being in Swedish who knows how much it even takes up in that book), while we need multiple, independent, reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage of the topic in a way that would indicate notability enough for an encyclopedia article in order for us to have a page devoted to it at Wikipedia. This fails those standards quite dramatically. Proving that the event happened is not the same as demonstrating that it is notable, This should be deleted, and there's nothing there of any value to merge or any reason to redirect. DreamGuy (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I will make the same points here that I made regarding the other article by User:Aciram that you nominated for deletion. Just because one of the references is in a Swedish book does not mean that the article should be deleted. Foreign language references are considered perfectly valid for Wikipedia. We have countless articles that are completely unsourced, but that alone doesn't mean that they should be deleted. Furthermore, it doesn't surprise me that there are no English sources, given that it took place in Estonia, a country whose history is not as well studied in the English-speaking world as others are. Furthermore, User:Aciram has made many excellent contributions and his/her work has been consistently of good quality. S/he is clearly an intelligent and thoughtful editor and I'm quite sure that s/he is capable of determining whether or not the book s/he used is reliable or not. Asarelah (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didnt take place in Sweden, it took place in Estonia. Although this in no way invalidates your point, such inaccuracies in discussions bug me. Dlabtot (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. I'll fix that. I actually copied and pasted my argument from a different AfD discussion about another article by User:Aciram. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Asarelah (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The fact that it's Swedish isn't an issue, it's that it's the only (allegedly -- as it's unconfirmed) source that covers it in a nontrivial way. Wikipedia articles need multiple nontrivial accounts. You're whole comment is completely irrelevant to this discussion. If you think it should be kept, give reasons why the topic meets our standards. DreamGuy (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not, in fact, single sourced - (I find the assertion that a page and a half in Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries constitutes a trivial mention to be fairly ludicrous), and arguments against using foreign-language sources carry no weight. see WP:NONENG. Dlabtot (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's ludicrous to you? You clearly have a bizarre idea of what count as nontrivial then. And there were no arguments about foreign language sources, just noting that it cannot be confirmed what that book actually says. DreamGuy (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about assuming good faith? We have no reason to believe that User:Aciram would put false material up. Also, how exactly do you define trivial vs. nontrivial? Asarelah (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that simply isn't true. It can be confirmed by anyone who can read Swedish. You may not be able to confirm it, but the fact that you can't read Swedish is irrelevant to this discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What simply isn't true? For my first point, the WP:GNG demands that the source cover it in detail: i.e. non-trivially. A page and a half in a book -- if it is even that long, all we know is that it crosses one page break, so it may be only one sentence for all we know -- is nondetailed coverage. And of course if I can read Swedish is irrelevant, but even if we accept that that book covers it nontrivially, which we simply do not know (which was a side point), that would still only be ONE source, and we need multiple sources. So it fails and needs to be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with prejudice against renomination. A foreign source might be an issue if the matter or translation is controversial per WP:AD. Is this controversial? The account seems believable and scholarly; it's certainly not WP:FRINGE.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, the fact that it's Swedish isn't an issue, WP:AD is for inclusion in another article (in which case it's still controversial anyway, as it makes some bizarre claims against what known experts have said), not for having a full article unto itself. If that's your argument for Keep, you don't have an argument. DreamGuy (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although as the creator, I am unsure wether it is my place to comment. This case is presented as a representative example in the descripition in how witch trials in present-day Estonia was combined with werewoolf-trials. That should be quite relevant. The fact that this is not mentioned in the article of werewolves, would mean nothing more but that no one have been interested in writing about the combined witch-and werewolf-trials in Estonia. I have often wondered, if the article should perhaps change name to "The witch-werewolf trials" (some one else could perhaps think of a more elegant title than that I imagine!) or something similar to handle this special subject, rather than to base it on a representative case. To describe the unique, as I have understood it, mix of werewoolf- and witch trials in Estonia with a representative example, as this case is presented to be, was my intention with this article. --Aciram (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - This article fails WP:N. Nobody has even seriously contested this fact. Aserelah, you are taking this matter far too personally, nobody is indicting Aciram or their contributions, and just because the article an editor created is deleted, that doesn't mean the editor is bad. Also, Wikipedia's policy is verifiability, not truth, so when someone asks for more references please do not accuse them of calling someone else a liar or asking them to assume good faith, that is not constructive. Dlabtrot, the article is single-sourced; the second reference for the article is for a totally different werewolf legend. This article isn't "Werewolves in Estonia", it's an article about a specific werewolf trial, and there is only one reference for that trial. If there are more sources, English or not, please reference them; it doesn't matter if they are Swedish, English, or ancient Sumerian as long as we know what those sources say, as long as the sources are reliable, and as long as the sources cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. AuthorityTam, it is not enough for an article to "seem" scholarly, without proper references the article fails. Frankly, I like the article as much as you people do (werewolves are certainly cool, historical ones are even cooler) but an AfD should be about unbiased, reasoned discussion, not opinions and accusations of bad faith. -- Atama ^chat 22:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal - I have an idea that might please everyone. Aciram, you said you wondered about a name change for the article, and I think that if you could expand the scope of the article to include werewolf and witch trials in Estonia in general that the article could have potential. You're the expert, are there other sources you could provide for other trials, or for trials in general? If you could find them, and provide them, then perhaps the article can be expanded. DreamGuy, would you agree that if the article's scope was expanded and that if more references could be provided that the article would satisfy WP:N? Of course it would depend on the references, but I would think another one or two along the lines of the "Early Modern European Witchcraft" source would suffice. Does anyone object to this? -- Atama ^chat 22:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm changing my suggestion because I believe that expanding the scope to involve multiple werewoolf-witch trials rather than one will allow for more references to show notability. In fact one of the two references for this article is regarding a different werewoolf incident than Hans, and helps provide evidence of notability toward the phenomenon in general. -- Atama ^chat 16:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI do not object renaming the article to make it be about the phenomena with examples of it, if is necessary to do so. I suppose, that there will be easier for everyone to find sources, if the article is about the phenomena in itself. Be in mind, that I wrote this article a long time ago, and therefore I do not feel that I can do this before consulting the sources again and double-check them. I seem to remember more sources, especially about the werewoolf-witch trials in general. The problem is that I have so little time, and it would be a shame if they are deleted because of that. But I will truly do my best to take the time this week. --Aciram (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Chesney Arrest[edit]

Fork. Should be in Kenny Chesney article. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced BLP violation. It can be added to Kenny Chesney if sources can be found. Wperdue (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Delete. An obvious POV fork that is unnecessary as there's enough space on the Kenny Chesney page and the title shouldn't even be a redirect, so I'm not going to say merge. If anyone wants to add sourced content to the main page, they can. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. It can be easily sourced, but this ain't the way to do it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP-POV forks are bad. Reso lute 18:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork. The incident is true: [24]. But this is more suited to a paragraph in the Chesney bio. A seperate BLP issue is the last sentence claiming Toby Keith and Troy Gentry were also arrested. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formula Builder for Microsoft Word[edit]

Non-notable software product. Also WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:COI since the article was created by software author. ((Prod)) removed by article author with no explanation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotional. Self-published sources including a press release. Non-notable. Wperdue (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Delete. No non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 15:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete I am the author. I made changes to address the concerns noted. I removed the Self-published sources including the press release. I added a reference to a reliable third party source (WebCPA, an independent source of information for CPAs). I removed references to Brad Smith, CPA, LLC in the aticle. I took care to write the article sticking to the facts. The product is known primarily in the CPA community. There are users of the product all over the world. I wrote the article because I know the product the best. My primary aim is not self-promotion but to extend the discussion of Microsoft Word citing an add-in that extends the capabilities of the Microsoft Word program. There are a lot of people who are interested in the formula-writing aspect of Microsoft Word. My contribution is just as much about informing people that want to know more about Microsoft Word's formula functions and appreciate Wikipedia as a source of information. Because it is not a Microsoft product it should have its own wiki page. --Bradsmithcpa (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete into either Microsoft Word or Microsoft Word 2007. MacMed^talk _stalk 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the added references are reliable and independent Rirunmot (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references relate to features of Microsoft Word, and do not bolster the notability of this product at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article without references available to establish notability. Rnb (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update from Author I added another reference to a reliable third party source - SmartPros (smartpros.com) , a well known and respected source of training and information for professionals in accounting and financial management. I think Formula Builder for MS Word passes the Google test for notability. I got 220,000 hits googling the product name and 18,900 hits if the product name is placed in quotation marks (searched as exact phrase). I think the added reference and the google information gives it notability--Bradsmithcpa (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two relevant source cited in the article ([25] and [26]) amount to little more than product announcements. They do not constitute substantial, independent reviews of the product. The rest of the references in the article are pages from the Microsoft online help pages documenting shortcomings in the existing Word features, with no reference to this product at all. The gHits that the author mentions result from the fact that the software is heavily advertised and available for download at MANY sites. This does not make the product notable, only easily accessible. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update from the Author I added an independent review of the product [27]. The other independent references for Microsoft Word are to support the comments in the article which is a wiki best practice. They are not included to decieve others into thinking the product has notability - just provide support for the article. --Bradsmithcpa (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how this meets WP:N at all. The reviews aren't from reliable sources. And frankly, Brad Smith, since you clearly have a conflict of interest you really shouldn't be directly working on this article at all. That's considered very inappropriate on Wikipedia, regardless of any conscious intentions to avoid bias. This article's existence is essentially a promotion of your product. I do commend you for disclosing your relationship to the article subject, however. -- Atama ^chat 16:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Flowerparty^☀ 23:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World UFO day[edit]

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable holiday, possibly made up one day. No significant coverage in reliable sources provided, none found outside of blog mentions. It should be noted that the sourced listed as "Yahoo news" does not go to Yahoo. TN X Man 14:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep ~~Completely non-notable and no sources relevant to the article.~~ Relevant citations from reliable sources have now been added to the article. Sorry for judging prematurely!

ReformatMe (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has been around since at least 2004, plenty of Ghits including respectable The Scotsman newspaper - though some doubt over date! PamD (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And my apologies if anyone is upset by my having moved the page after it had been AfD'd - the previous title just looked ridiculous, and I forgot you're not supposed to move an article during an AfD. I only dropped by to stub-sort it anyway, then got more involved. PamD (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I think all of the links should be updated. TN X Man 14:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are a lot of hits for this holiday on web searches. The websites indicate that this holiday is known and celebrated in many different countries. There are also three links/references so far to news articles from diverse sources, (The Scotsman, The Sun, and Yahoo News). Note: The link to the Yahoo News now actually goes to a Yahoo News story. - Nortonew (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it survives AfD, should probably be renamed to "World UFO Day" (ie capital D) - sorry about my carelessness in previous move (from "World ufo day" to "World UFO day")! PamD (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulstate[edit]

fails WP:MUSIC, whilst a google search verifies its existence mainly through directory listings, appears to have had no third party coverage [28] LibStar (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article suggests that either the general or subject-specific notability guidelines are met here. Google, Google News, and Bing searches failed to turn up any significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable 17 year old Irish kid. Maybe when he grows up, if he meets notability standard some years in the future, but NOT now. OfficeGirl (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Anarchists (Tõnu Trubetsky book)[edit]

Promotional stub about non-notable book; all external links are to online bookshops. Very probably the article is created by the author of the book. -- Sander Säde 13:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem like a notable work. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the author is notable, which makes the article a keep per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. PasswordUsername (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I think you might want to consult this older thread on this 'notable author' misusing wiki for promoting his creations, or a more recent one. --Miacek (t) 12:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know, if you check that thread link, the vast majority of the people voted keep or strong keep, many saying that Trubetsky was very notable, and they seemed to have a pretty good hang of the situation. I'm not Estonian, so I wouldn't know. But those people haven't been blocked as socks of Bloomfield, so it looks like this author is indeed notable (I don't really know if we can say the same of the other Trubetskys). So I'm leaning towards keep on category criterion 6. of Wikipedia:Notability (books), this makes this article notable. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe I am blind (slept 5 hours in last 48), but I don't see criterion 6. He is not sufficiently notable for criterion 5 (which I would assume you refer) - e.g. he is not a subject of classroom study. Renata (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I meant criterion 5, sorry. He could be sufficiently notable per 5 (espcially as Estonia only has 39 years of history as an independent nation), but I'm not certain. Still, I don't see why deleting this book's very bare article is so imperative. It easily satisfies the NPOV criterion, so more couldn't damage our project, and I don't think deletionism is helpful in cases like this. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a creation of the banned User:Bloomfield aka Tõnu Trubetsky, i.e. the article is purely promotional. Also note that the PROD tag added by Digwuren was removed by an anon, mostly likely one of the many Bloomfield's socks ;-). --Miacek (t) 11:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Staberinde (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per spam. Renata (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Martintg (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woome[edit]

Non-notable website/company. Insufficient reliable sources to support notability per WP:CORP and/or WP:WEB. All but 2 of the refs are self references, blogs, Twitter or directory type sources and those 2 are of uncertain reliability. ukexpat (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Product-launch announcements aren't enough to build an article on. --Calton | Talk 05:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources seem to be either trivial or not independent. Sam Barsoom 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I disagree that the article be deleted as per the guidleines - it should be merged. NY Times Web cam dating is a reliable reference to be added that a competitor SpeedDate.com com uses. As well do a search on Google News woome search and there are more reputable sources (as well as a few PR invalid references). IF woome is to be deleted then SpeedDate.com should be deleted as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.39.190 (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: merged with what? And please read WP:OSE. – ukexpat (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Walking in the Kingdom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Renfro[edit]

fails WP:BIO, almost all the third party mentions are of a different Tom Renfro [29] LibStar (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be promotional, and fails notability per WP:BIO. (Incidentally, no relation to the more famous Brad Renfro). Orderinchaos 16:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - very little, if any, third party coverage. No evidence of notability provided or found. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is a better option per WP:PRESERVE. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Walking in the Kingdom, assuming that his TV show is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Walking in the Kingdom, although there is some question of the notability of the show as well. Subject does not appear to be independently notable from the show. While being a guest on other Christian TV shows is useful information, I have yet to see any clear consensus that such is in any way evidence of "notability" as per WP:NOTABILITY. John Carter (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Réunionnais[edit]

People from Réunion are French, because Réunion is France. Furthermore, it has always been French, except for five years in 1810-1815, when it was seized by the British. And there were no indigenous tribes before the French settlement. This is why talking about Franco-Réunionnais does not make any sense at all. Of course, there are people from non-French origin on the island, and the term franco-réunionnais may be found on Google. But it has never been used for an ethnic group. Maurice45, who created the page and is of Mauritian descent, probably thought that the ethnic division was the same as in neighbouring Mauritius, where Franco-Mauritian is indeed in use, which appears normal as Mauritius is no more French for two centuries. Many contributors told him about the problem on Talk:Franco-Réunionnais, Talk:Indo-Réunionnais and Talk:Réunion. Yet, he continues to maintain he is right. The fact is none of his references documents the use of Franco-Réunionnais. And ethnic statistics being illegal in France, the references saying Réunionnais from French descent form about one quarter of the population are necessarily mistaken. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying American-Pennsylvanian. Delete. Neologism and original research. Drawn Some (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MergeKeep No more add than having a US-Guam article, or a US-Puerta Rico article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison with Puerto Rico and Guam is not relevant, since Réunion does not belong to France. Réunion is France, as French as Paris is. Thus, you should only compare with Hawaii. And there would still be a difference, since Réunion was desert when the French settled, making it impossible to think about Réunion without thinking about France. By the way, I still wait to the references that will prove that the term Franco-Réunionnais is used to call an ethnic group there. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom - article is as non-sensical as Franco-Montpellian, or Anglo-Bristolian. The article is essentially unsourced, as none of the references cited mention 'Franco-Reunionnaise', so fails WP:V, and looks like an effort at WP:OR to create it --Saalstin (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unlike Réunion, Guam and Puerto Rico were not first settled by or always controlled by the country that controls them now. Better American comparisons would be something such as Americo-Bostonian or Drawn Some's idea. No evidence that this is a significant group. Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article's confusing title notwithstanding (misnomers due to analogy are hardly a deletion reason), it's quite clear User:Maurice45 intended to focus on ethnicity rather than citizenship, so the proper analogy seems to be to Haole (i.e. whites in Hawaii), rather than "Americo-Bostonian". The white portion of Réunion's population has been the subject of quite a bit of scholarly attention, e.g.

Bourquin, Alexandre (2005), Histoire des Petits-Blancs de la Réunion, XIXe-début XXe siècle, Karthala Editions, ISBN 9782845866461

On the other hand it may be more straightforward to simply start a new article than try to rewrite this one from scratch to untangle the flawed assumptions it's based on. cab (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Haole isn't a good analogy because there were native Hawaiians. The term Franco-Réunionnais makes no sense whatsoever. All the people are French regardless of their origins, which are diverse. The island was uninhabited when the French arrived. The native people of Hawaii were conquered by the Americans and their Queen deposed. That book Histoire de Petits-Blancs is not about all the people of French origin, the term means more "poor whites" and it is about a social group of creoles, maybe like the Melungeons or just hillbillies. There is little in the article that makes any sense. I agree with cab that if the intent is to write an article about ethnicity in Réunion a fresh start would be better. This is a false start. Drawn Some (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"All the people are French regardless of their origins, which are diverse" ... It's reasonably clear to me that User:Maurice45 means to address the topic of the ethnic group called "French", in contrast to Chinese, South Asians, etc. rather than citizens of France. So if we're trying to figure out how to write this article properly, it's rather unproductive to try to frame this discussion as if the intent were to write something equivalent to "American citizens in Pennsylvania". And I'm quite aware of the history of Hawaii, but whether or not an island had a native ethnic group has nothing to do with the main thrust of both Haole and the topic that Maurice45 is trying to address here: the social position of the ethnic group (not the citizens) who are the historical "titular nationality" and majority ethnic group in the rest of their country's territory, in this one corner of the country's territory where's they're a numerical minority but also partially a social elite. cab (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the main point I'm trying to make in my excessively verbose way is: a poor choice of title is not a deletion reason when the topic of an article is clear and that topic has been studied by scholars. Titles can be changed --- that's what the move button is for. cab (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really interesting debate. Newcomers from Metropolitan France are called Zoreilles. This is not exactly an ethnic group, since these newcomers might be from different descents and still be called Zoreilles. Yet, they are often classified as such among other ethnic groups. But the article is really not only about them, but about French or Whites as a whole - which is a very complicated choice. This is why I agree with Drawn Some, that it should be restarted from scratch. This is not the case for Indo-Réunionnais, which I think could be renamed to Malbars and then corrected to delete the reference to Islam - rare among Malbars. I tried to do so, but Maurice45 answered that he wanted to do an article that would stand for all those from Indian descent - Zarabes included. The result is, again, a very strange title. Thierry Caro (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The Petits Blancs, as strange as it may seem, are as much a social class as an ethnic group, some - like Dominique Aupiais - saying that even Blacks founded this group of impoverished people. They do live in the mountains, and Drawn Some astonished me by guessing that. By the way, we are getting far from the deletion debate.

The result was redirect to Call of Duty (series). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty Seven[edit]

The article does not cite sources, and is basically just a collection of rumors. Gosox5555 (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. Peridon (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add Call of duty 7 to this AfD. It's essentially a copy of the article and I have tagged it. —Ost (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Call of Duty (series) (which should be the main page for Call of Duty in my opinion). Content should be added there until there's enough to establish the new game's notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fighting in the Cuban Missile Crisis? DurinsBane87 (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per ChildofMidnight. SharkD (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; no need to redirect as the title hasn't yet been confirmed to exist, let alone the game. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crystal ball- a collection of 'rumors' should not be merged into an article about the actual series of games. Tarheel95 (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per ChildofMidnight.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Call of Duty (series)--SkyWalker (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Shereth 20:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Donahew Band[edit]

Article is unreferenced apart from links to two self promotional websites. Band fails to meet notability guidelines as per WP:BAND. Article appears to consist only of promotional material. Deconstructhis (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy prod delete' - The prod had been on the article for the required length of time for deletion, but it was deprodded by a sockpuppet of a banned editor shortly before the prod would have expired and right before the sockpuppet investigation caught up with him. If this hadn't been listed for AFD the deprod would have been reverted (edits of block evasion banned editors are not valid) and the article would already be gone right about now anyway. Not sure if that's a speedy delete, or revert the AFD and go through with the prod delete or what, but the AFD should never have been necessary. DreamGuy (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - I do not agree with the proposed deletion of this page. When I first found this page it only contained text directly copied from the band's bio on it's website. I started by rewriting the article so it would not just be a plagiarized bio, and made it my mission to improve the article. Seeing as how I am a college student with 2 jobs, and nobody else has edited the page, you can't expect the page to be completely overworked immediately. I have recently continued my work on this page adding more information as well as several non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician.Dtrain75

You must have a keen interest in this band, you appear to have created your account today in order to edit this article. With all due respect, the text that you have added appears to consist only of additional 'puff' promotional material from local and regional entertainment sources that fail to meet notability requirements for policy purposes here in the encyclopedia, some of which appear to be sourced from a commercial website selling footwear, which I'm going to remove as spam. Indicating that someone holds an honest belief that one day this band will be "famous", supported by information from a regional tabloid entertainment source is not considered reliable, nor does it meet the requirements of WP:BAND. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would call myself a fan of this band, as I wouldn't attempt to edit something I didn't already have knowledge about. Saying that I created my account today shows your lack of interest as in this entire topic. If you actually looked at the history of the page you would see that I first edited it on June 16th, and furthermore according to my preferences page joined at 05:26, January 5, 2008 . Future more why don't you look at UCTV (University of Connecticut) another article that I have spent much time on. Take a look at what it was before I started to edit it, because I know it didn't appear meet notability guidelines at that time despite not being grabbed. Instead of marking for deletion I actually worked to improve the article similar to what I am doing with this one. You attempts to delete this page could also be seen as an attempt to delete the entire genres of Texas Country and Red Dirt seeing as how they have fast become one of the most prominent bands in those genres. If your going to delete this article you'll need to wipe many of these bands since they are not nearly as notable as this one, that is something I would know as a fan of this music. I also find your argument that the media covering this genre is trivial. As these Genre's are recently starting to emerge as a force in the larger genre of Country Music they are mostly covered by new media, and these are legitimate and well recognized venues of coverage by both the artists of these genre's and their fans.--Dtrain75 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't personalize the debate or assume bad faith on my part, it's totally unnecessary for what we're working on here and in this case unjustified. I sincerely apologize for the erroneous statement I made earlier regarding when your account was created, all I have to offer in my defence is a pre-coffee "haze" this morning. However, in my opinion the situation still remains the same in terms of what I regard as a lack of reliable sourcing and notability of subject for this particular article. I understand that emotions can quickly arise when the subject of an article under discussion is one we've worked on and especially so, when we're fans of a specific band or genre. In my opinion, the real question to ask here is whether or not the article we're talking about is actually capable of meeting what WP:BAND says, when you look down that list of policy requirements; does the Casey Donahew Band article really meet the criteria for inclusion? My opinion is obviously no; but I'm quite prepared to abide by a consensus of editors, or a failure to arrive at one for that matter. The current discussion isn't about whether or not the Casey Donahew Band are talented musicians or about Red Dirt as a genre, or about the Texas music scene in general, it's directed specifically at this article and whether or not it contains material that is properly referenced and notable. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Firstly, I want to commend Dtrain75 on some good editing done on this article. I'm not endorsing a deletion because the article is in poor shape. Unfortunately, we do have guidelines for entertainers and bands at WP:MUSIC. You'll see a dozen different criteria, any one of which would show that this article merits inclusion in Wikipedia. I don't see the group matching any of the criteria listed there. Now, I did do a Gnews search and found many hits, some of them in very reputable news sources. However, every single one of them was a brief mention along the lines of "Casey Donahew Band will be playing on Sunday". An announcement does not equal significant coverage. If you can show conclusively that any of the Wikipedia requirements for bands is met, then the article should stay, but I don't see that any of them are. -- Atama ^chat 16:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Frontiers with Sohaib[edit]

Contested PROD. No reliable sources provided, none found in a search. Not a notable program. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although with a tiny bit of reluctance, since the show has received tons of coverage in independent sources but none I've uncovered so far qualify as reliable sources, for the purposes of determining notability. It's tough for any radio show to meet the standards, especially one that airs in a single market for an hour on a Sunday morning, and while I may find myself seeking out their podcasts in the future (thanks, AfD!) this article lacks the required sources to remain on Wikipedia. (Perhaps a few sentences can be salvaged to the host radio station article?) - Dravecky (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Dravecky, but with even more reluctance. This show sounds quite interesting and original, the guest lists are rather impressive, and as Dravecky mentions it is getting attention in other folks' blogs and websites (more than 2,000 Google hits). But like the other commenters here, I also have been unable to find mentions of the show in reliable sources , even on comic book industry websites like Newsarama. If the show continues, I suspect such coverage may show up eventually, but not so far. Also, it seems that WNJC is a "brokered programming" station, meaning that this show is apparently a radio version of a self-published work, broadcasting on a single local station, so any special notability considerations that a radio show might get under WP:Notability_(media)#Programming probably don't apply. I would very pleased to change my vote here, if someone can come up with some decent coverage of the show in reliable sources, but I just haven't been able to find it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources demonstrating its notability.--RadioFan (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Net Song Contest[edit]

Completely non-notable spinoff of Eurovision. No reliable sources cited, a quick search throws up nothing like one. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pick any guideline and this probably fails it. (It fails at least Wp:N, Wp:NFT and possibly Wp:OR.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources; can we throw in Net Country Song Contest too? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and agree with Biruitorul that Net Country Song Contest should be deleted for the same reasons. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That single inline citation appears to be a primary source. Also I agree that it fails many guidelines.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor H.C. Martin[edit]

Unreferenced bio/obituary. References aside, there is no notability and it's not even clear the text is to be taken seriously. Redir to Crystal Palace Dinosaurs was contested. I42 (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A source exists for the statement that a Victor H.C. Martin has indeed been involved in restoration of the Dinosaur sculptures. But it only mentions his name and I have not been able to come up with anything else on his biography. The contents of this article is unreferenced, and even if it were, I can't see how Martin would pass WP:BIO - association with a notable topic does not make a person automatically notable. Enki H. (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the original designer of the monsters is notable, but not the restorer.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per consensus that there exists insufficient reliable sources. Shereth 20:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Elmansoury[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO notability criteria. Nearly all sources of notability are from a student newspaper. The New York Times article simply quotes the individual on a particular issue. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concern here is understandable, and the notability criteria was reviewed repeatedly prior to posting this article. This individual has had a strong, lasting, and continuing impact on his community, and on the State of New Jersey. He has worked heavily on political affairs throughout the State, has aided the Obama for America campaign, and is currently working on the Jon Corzine 2009 campaign. These items are not listed in this biography BECAUSE they are not verifiable through media coverage. The individual in question has in fact met and spoken with Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, several Senators in Congress, Jon Corzine, and many other notable political figures. The use of a student newspaper here should not be belittled, as this paper publication reaches over 40,000 students, thousands more Deans, Professors, etc., and even more people via its online publication, around the tristate area. The use of the New York Times article is to partially prove this individual's status as a community leader, as he was contacted directly for his perspective on a national issue. It is not justifiable to delete an article simply because that individual is not particularly "famous" and perhaps not as well-known to date as Bill Gates or Barack Obama. But there are several articles on Wikipedia that are about individuals who are not particularly well-known and far less so than the individual in question, yet have had some impact on their communities. Some of these articles, unlike the one in question, lack citations and have not been flagged for deletion. Some are about figures who have had no impact on the community but who may be particularly wealthy. If this is the criteria that Wikipedia is using to delete important articles, then it is not a reference for the people and those who have worked in notable ways to better their communities. The individual here is well-known, notable, and continues to work hard on behalf of immigrant communities and Americans who have or are facing anti-Semitism and discrimination. It is urged that you do not delete this page. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikise (talk • contribs) — Wikise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. Meetings famous people and being briefly quoted by a newspaper are not among the WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you. But this is not about the chance happening of meeting "famous people." It is about working alongside their efforts and linking them to the wider communities, particularly in the State of New Jersey. It is also about the individual being a prominent speaker, with a staff, who has traveled and spoken at several conferences across the country. Even so, media attention is absolutely important, but not the only standard for notability. By your own definition and criteria, the actions of the individual are very important. In reading the other reasons for other articles that have been flagged, it was made clear that many are relatives of notable people, or are self-promoters for business reasons, etc. This is an encyclopedic article about an individual who is by himself notable. It is not about a link to someone else, nor is it self-promotion for profit. It is simply an article about a well-known individual in the State of New Jersey. Go to Yahoo.com, begin typing in the name, and it will auto-complete. That is how often the person in question has been searched online. It is also highly notable in New Jersey and the surrounding areas that the individual in question was the first-ever recipient of an award granted by a major educational institute, for religious tolerance and actions in that regard. This is stated, and verified, in the article via a government-funded university website.

The individual in question will be speaking at a major conference this July in Washington, D.C., hence the creation of the article for biographical purposes. Once again, his participation in the said conference is verified in the references section of the article.

In addition, the Wikipedia page on verifiability is introduced as follows:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

Regardless of the use of a major student newspaper, or the New York Times, or a conference site, or a television network, everything in this biographical article is not only truth, but is verified as per the policy and unlike many, many pages on Wikipedia that once again have not been flagged for deletion.

It is once again urged that this article not be deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikise (talk • contribs)

Delete, I don't see the sustained coverage by multiple reliable sources that is required by WP:BIO. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Based largely upon his deeply-rooted belief in the value of American diversity, Elmansoury has indulged himself in the study of politics"? No. That's for an election address or other self-promotional material. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not for promotional material. (In case anyone is thinking of saying, "But Fred Bloggs's article is promotional", that's not an excuse for this one. If Fred is promotional, do us all a favour and nominate it here at AfD.) While I am hopeful that we will hear more of him, this article as it stands is not suitable. It needs more solid info. Being interviewed is not much. Why was he interviewed? Where are the independent references? (Student publications can be used, but more solid and reliable stuff is needed as well.) Get rid of the adulation and get down to facts. I'm not saying keep or delete yet. Waiting to see... Peridon (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC) (Please sign posts with four ~ things to get a proper sig. Ta.)[reply]

Comment The phrase mentioned above is not by any means promotional. It is simply the culmination of the individual's studies and efforts. If the wording is somewhat "graceful," that is simply because the author took the time to make the article as professional as the Wikipedia editors expect. The content is biographical and was specifically written to keep the expected neutrality in mind. If you can suggest specific ways to improve this article, that would certainly be taken very well by the editor. As for the use of multiple, reliable sources, there are several different sources that contribute to this individual's background in leadership. The references listed are in no way questionable, nor are they small-time sources. This seems both clear and certain. Deletion of an article is based upon what has been mentioned - lack of verifiability, lack of notability, self-promotion, etc. This article not only verifies itself, but it is about a notable New Jersey figure. And it is a far stretch away from self-promotion, as the individual himself would not accept self-promotional websites or anything that goes beyond biography on this site. Your thoughts are appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikise (talk • contribs)

Keep the provided references are reliable and verifiable Rirunmot (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the basic criteria of WP:BIO: If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. The references provided (other than a student newspaper) do not include non-trivial coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With great respect, in greater detail, the "non-triviality clause" states the following: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion."

Not one reference included in this article is trivial, as per the description of triviality above. Beyond The Daily Targum, links included in the references section are from highly credible organizations and websites, and include biographies, conference publications, seminar information, etc. Regardless, the "student newspaper" references are in the minority, NOT in the majority. Nor are any of the included references "in passing" mentions of the subject. They are thus far from trivial, by our own standards at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.202.218 (talk)

Delete At first glance the article appears to have the feel of a curriculum vitae. For being an outspoken activist, writer, and orator he seems to not be well known. The article was primarily written by a single author who has also been the one commenting here without signing. rmosler (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Puff piece that doesn't meet WP:BIO. The sources given don't meet standards at WP:RS. I suspect that this article is just another part of the "activism" that the subject endorses, whether or not he is directly involved in it. -- Atama ^chat 16:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been proven, several times, that this piece meets the biographical standards outlined by Wikipedia. So this should bear no effect on the decision of whether to delete it or to keep it. I don't know about it being signed or unsigned, but my user name does show up every time I post. I have not intentionally left the posts unsigned. The subject is indeed an outspoken activist and everything that the article indicates. He is a close friend to our community and does not seek fame, but rather action. If you have not heard of him, that is likely due to your distance from the area, or for other reasons. Frankly, in looking over the list of "living persons" on Wikipedia, there are THOUSANDS of legitimate entries that few have "heard of", yet they meet Wikipedia's standards and they are and should be kept on Wikipedia. Thanks.

Comment It is absurd to see the urgency to delete this entry. It is not offensive to anyone, it certainly meets Wikipedia's standards, and it presents the positive impact that a certain active and prominent individual has had on the larger community. It has the ability to inspire many young people who can have a similar impact of their own. In the comments above, not once has there been made a productive suggestion on how to simply IMPROVE this article. If one can take the time and make the effort to say "delete", it is very likely that one can utilize the same effort to say "improve." That is how Wikipedia operates. It is not a "quick to delete" forum, it is about informing each other about different people, history, science, the arts, and the like. If every entry that is based upon a "less famous" individual is deleted, then Wikipedia would become no different than celebrity websites and "mainstream" tabloid journalism. What a shame.

Reply - The article isn't being proposed for deletion because it needs improvement. It is being proposed for deletion because the subject fails Wikipedia's notability standards. This is an objective evaluation based on the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Basically, you need more than one reliable source to cover him at length. Lengthy coverage from a student newspaper, or a brief blurb in the New York Times don't qualify; the former is not a reliable source and the latter is not significant coverage. I also have a real problem when you said above, "The individual in question will be speaking at a major conference this July in Washington, D.C., hence the creation of the article for biographical purposes." If you are creating this article to promote this individual in advance of the conference, please rethink your strategy. -- Atama ^chat 18:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your name may appear to you, but you need to use the four ~ s at the end of a post here so we can see it. There are a lot of people with articles on Wikipedia that I haven't heard of. That doesn't make me think they are not notable - it just makes me look at the reference, and if there isn't much it makes me search to see if there is anything in some cases. It's not about degrees of fame. I've not decided yet whether to say Keep, Delete, or Toss a Coin. I think there might be notability - if you can establish it to Wikipedia's standards. If you don't like Wikipedia's standards, then feel free to start your own encyclopaedia. I've not had much time to investigate fully (48 hours work in 4 days...). However, most of what I've just flicked through on a Gsearch (oh, these Wikipedia buzzwords...) seems to be not what we are looking for. http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/031606/njJewishMuslim.html has a mention of him as a founder of HDP - but it's only a mention. You've got more time - DIG for victory! And tone down the puffy tone of the wording as exemplified in my post way above. Here, we're sales resistant. We seek facts - and reliably (by our standards) backed up facts. I'm trying to encourage you, not damn you. I'd rather see an article turned round than deleted. When I have time, I'll dig for an article whose subject I consider worthy. Sometimes I lose. At the moment, you have more time. Get going! Peridon (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC) (signed with four Peridon (talk) thingies)[reply]

The result was ~~delete~~ Keep after receiving sources that LoI is indeed a fully professional league. Black Kite 19:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Séamus Coleman[edit]

Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:FOOTYN. Dancarney (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article on this player was deleted by AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Coleman soon after his move to Everton. He has not played for Everton since his move there. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Irish U-21 and U-23 Irish international and played in and was captain of a full professional team for over 50 games as well as European competition.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing changes since its last nomination, the subject's presumed amount of notability hasn't increased at all, and therefore my opinion stands. In my opinion , it is also eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G4 ("A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted."). --Angelo (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment, I think you will find that there is percident to keep articles on the top players in the big clubs of the League of Ireland.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the facts have not substantially changed since the last AfD. His profile on the Everton website explicitly states that he is a reserve team player, which supports the contention that he fails WP:ATHLETE. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, what about his playing career prior to joining Everton when he was at fully professional Sligo Rovers?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sligo play in a league which is not fully professiona, and thus he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which team isnt fully professional?--Vintagekits (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, Dundalk don't seem to be, for one, as the player profiles on their official website list the players' "day jobs" eg this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So the a newly promoted team have a couple of players that may not be fully professional. As you saying that some players in some teams in the English top four divisions do not also have semi-pro players? Are you saying that if even one player in any of the divisions has a job outside football then the whole league is deemed as being non professional?--Vintagekits (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Angelo. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material, WP:CSD#G4. GiantSnowman 12:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a repost; I wrote the bulk of this entry and none of the former. Please read the criteria carefully. Skomorokh 14:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD G4, recreation of previously deleted material. Whether the words are different, the same topic fails the criteria it was previously deleted under. --Jimbo^[online] 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no more notable than last time--AssegaiAli (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per me on his last AfD. Fails WP:ATHLETE as never having played in a fully-professional league, and fails WP:GNG as sources never progress beyond the trivial level typical of media coverage of non-notable footballers. Recreate when and if he plays for Everton. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Struway2. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO with several articles explicitly about him in newspapers such as [30], [31] Nfitz (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Those articles are standard football gossip in context of his possible transfer. As I said at the previous AfD, "the BBC covers transfers in similar detail at much lower levels of English football, e.g. this report of Eastbourne Borough, a semi-pro team playing in the fifth tier, signing a player whose only competitive experience was at even lower levels." The only fact addressed in those articles is that Mr Coleman is a footballer who fancies playing in the Football League and whom Everton are considering signing. I can't see how that constitutes non-trivial coverage as required by WP:BIO. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Non trivial coverage?
Life so sweet at the 'Toffees' for Seamus
Seamus Coleman makes his Everton debut
Everton & Celtic battle it out for Sligo's Coleman
Everton to sign Seamus Coleman
Everton land Sligo starlet--Vintagekits (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that only the first one of those is non-trivial. Dancarney (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I would say that it is the least trivial! Anyone so you accept that the remainder are non trivial?--Vintagekits (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other links are to articles that say is likely to sign for, and then has signed for Everton, and then played a game, which seems pretty trivial to me as I've adequately summed up 4 links in a single sentence. Dancarney (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my French but that is a load of bollocks! You obviously havent even looked at the links then!
If this was some player who played five minutes for a 4th division team in England then he would be considered notable.
How about these then?
Seamus Coleman talks about his “dream move “to Everton
Birmingham will keep tabs on Coleman and Hughes
Coleman likely to swap Sligo for Birmingham
Sligo star Coleman relishing the prospect of cross-channel switch
Blues monitoring Irish defender
Ireland U-23 Squad
Ireland U-21 Squad
Happy? Want more?--Vintagekits (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Struway2 points out above, this is all standard transfer sports section filler, with the exception of the links regarding Ireland U21/U23s, which mention his name in passing. Yes, I did read all of the links you posted, thank you. Please be civil. Dancarney (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is "standard sports section filled!? I think you need a sit down my son because you are embarassing yourself.

Do I have to go on, and on, and on, and on...............?

and I will just leave you with this wee piece from Ireland highest selling national newspaper.

5 Players worth admission fee! End of story!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read above, you will see I had already stated that the sligochampion piece was non-trivial. I stand by my comments about transfer talk. Why didn't you include the last link from the beginning? That counts as non-trivial coverage. I still suggest that you read Wikipedia's civility policy. Dancarney (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the civility policy! Its just that your comments are idiotic and deserve some scorn! Anyway, I have provided multiple non trivial sources. He has played for Ireland at U-21 and U-23 and captained a full professional team in a predominantly if not full professional league.

Additionally if you look at the precident for this type of play is to keep - see AfD for Tony Moore, Frank Andoh, Felino Jardim or Egland Haxho - obviously it nots the glorious 4th division of English football or a subsitute appearance with a "sleep giant" but maybe this Irish international might be deemed worthy if only he'd beg!--Vintagekits (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I am well aware of the civility policy! Its just that your comments are idiotic and deserve some scorn!" Yes, you clearly are, as proven there. I'm staying out of this. Dancarney (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best news I've heard all day. x

Comment I don't consider football newspaper articles as indications of notability. They are notoriously mixtures of POV and gossip. I would require something more about his actual achievements - not anticipated triumphs. I felt the same about the players quoted before eg. Egland Haxho etc.....--AssegaiAli (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. There's a clear consensus that this and Death of Neda Agha-Soltan should be merged. However, as the death article is not included within the scope of this AfD, discussion regarding where/how to merge should take place at the article's talk page, preferably. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neda Agha-Soltan[edit]

Neda (Iranian protester)

Simple case of WP:BIO1E. Her death is obviously notable (I'm not challenging that point whatsoever) for symbolic and memetic reasons, but that is already covered in Death of Neda Agha-Soltan; there is no indication of biographical notability preceding that event. Furthermore, Death of Neda Agha-Soltan already contains sufficient biographical context, so there isn't really anything that can be merged from Neda Agha-Soltan without bloating Death of Neda Agha-Soltan or allowing it to digress away from its genuinely notable features. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back all valuable content (i.e. Persian name, year of birth, ...) to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. Then redirect. Mushroom (Talk) 08:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan, just as we have articles on other highly significant BIO1E's such as Emmett Till, Rodney King and Rosa Parks. Abecedare (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Like Soltan, Till did not survive his one event. There does not appear to be a separate article devoted to the event (the word "murdered" is linked in Till's article, but it is a rather patronizing, direct link to the murder article itself), so Emmett Till should probably just be renamed to Murder of Emmett Till or, as with Soltan, Death of Emmett Till. In very sharp contrast, Parks survived her most famous event, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, by almost precisely half a century--long enough to make plenty of additional headlines. I think it is safe to say that, by the time she started taking on the hip hop industry, she had outlived WP:BIO1E by a reasonable margin. King, finally, is more ambiguous. The fact that he is still alive means both A) that he has had additional occasions to make the news, and B) that WP:BLP applies, and WP:BLP1E is worded even more strongly than WP:BIO1E, so there may be a case at least to deemphasize less prominent aspects of his life. So, out of the examples you provided, Till would seem to be the best comparison to Soltan; and, just as it could make sense to rename Till's ostensible biography to something like Death of Emmett Till, given that such an article does not separately exist, it seems reasonable to delete Soltan's ostensible biography, given that Death of Neda Agha-Soltan not only exists, but also cannot (for obvious reasons) be updated with biographical information postdating the event. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with you on Rosa Parks, but by your argument shouldn't Rodney King and Howard Brennan be renamed since a "biographical" article ends up emphasizing one aspect of their life ? Note that both of them are specifically mentioned in the BIO1E guideline.

According to the guideline, a "biographical" article is justified when (1) the event is significant (i.e., not merely notable) and (2) the person's involvement in the event in significant. In fact the guideline even says that if the event is very significant, (2) does not matter; however in Neda's case (unlike the Rodney King and Brennan examples) both conditions are easily met.

Leaving the wording of the current guideline aside, the spirit of the rule is that we should not create biographical articles on non-notable persons just because they are part of a few news stories, and hence end up placing them in the public life and defining them by a single event. There is no such risk in Neda's case, given that she has been on the front page of newspapers and at the head of newscasts on at least three continents that I have checked. I would argue that her teacher, Hamid Panahi, on the other hand should remain a redlink, because of the spirit of the rule, even though he may be as notable as Howard Brennan, by the wording of the guideline itself. Abecedare (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not really sure about the Brennan article, although it seems short enough that it could be merged, at least in large part, into John F. Kennedy assassination. My initial inclination on the King article would be to rename as per WP:BLP1E; I'd have to think about it some more. As for Soltan, even though her involvement was (or was made to be) significant, it was also minimal: She was there, and then she was...well, not. In fact, the whole theme of this event is just how non-biographical (i.e., how random) it is: She wasn't very political, she wasn't an activist, she didn't (if I recall correctly) support a particular candidate, she didn't provoke anybody to do anything. She just happened to feel like going to the protest, and that happened to be a bad idea. I can understand the psychological need to personify impersonal events or to put disorganized phenomena into narrative contexts. But all of this is being done without her knowledge, without her approval, without her input, and--because her death was so utterly unconnected to her life--without indications of what her knowledge, her input, or her approval might have looked like. I hope I'm not going too far out on a limb by suggesting that we say what needs to be said about the event, while otherwise letting the poor gal rest in peace. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two articles, as per Abecedare's comment above (update: and put that article under the name Neda Agha-Soltan). Even though she is certainly a case of a person who meets the BIO1E criteria, she has clearly already become an iconic figure, and as such merits a single article in the same way as Rosa Parks or Rodney King. -- The Anome (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She has indeed become an iconic figure--for sociological, political, and psychological reasons. Biographically, however, she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Apparently, she was not even very political; "she was never an activist" ([32])--although she was "stubborn" and musical, and decided to accompany her music teacher to the protest. Not only does her biography fail to shed much light on her iconic status, but it could even undermine that status. Her age, her gender, and other circumstances played a role, but these circumstances are nothing that Death of Neda Agha-Soltan does not or cannot cover on its own. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to Comment: One can argue that Rodney King became an iconic figure for the exact same reason - he was at the wrong place at the wrong time; he did not set out to be beaten up. And his article is under his name. I agree with The Anome: Merge under Neda Agha-Soltan. It will also be easier for users to search. --Sneems (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles, as per Abecedare's comment above. It makes little sense to have an article about the death. The Anome is totally right. -- Fgiusfredi 11:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC+2)
- Comment: I have responded to both of the editors whom you mention. Please consider these responses and see if my invocation of WP:BIO1E makes more sense in light of them. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not certain why this was ever created, all the info here can be fit into the Biography section of the article on her death. Something needs to be done about the constant bickering over a proper title for the article. It's either just her name, as is the case with many articles about people who are notable due to their deaths during conflict, or it's "Death of...", which there are also cases of. -- AniRaptor2001 09:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Abecedare, keep the name Neda Agha-Soltan and delete the other article. csloat (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A point of order (of which I'm sure most of you are aware):
(1) vaguely worded Merge !votes quite naturally equate to "Keeps."
(2) Therefore, if participants wish to make "Delete" !votes, they must specify Merge to "Death of...," which, of course, do convincingly equate to "Deletes." (Whereas !votes of Merge from "Death of...," of course, equate to "Keeps.") ↜Just M E here , now 09:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I subsequently re-edited the above, which formula I'd somehow written in reverse of the way I'd thought I'd done. ↜Just M E here , now 12:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting interpretation- I see it as the other way around. If this is merged to the death of... article, it will no longer be an article in its own right. That sounds more like a delete to a keep than me. If the content is merged from the death of... article, this one will remain, meaning it is more of a keep vote. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, J Milburn, I f*kt up my formulation. Thanks, I changed it. ↜Just M E here , now 12:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're both wrong. Merger, of any sort, is not a delete outcome, as the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion has explained for several years. The use of the administrator deletion tool is not a part of any stage of the article merger process. Merger, of any form, and to any target, and of any extent (even down to no content being transferred at all when it is wholly a duplication), is a variant of keeping. The rest is a use of the ordinary editing tool, that every editor, even those without accounts, posesses. Articles for deletion is, as the name says, about deletion. It's the exercise of the deletion tool by an administrator who has that tool, and the applicability of Wikipedia:Deletion policy, that is the focus here. Uncle G (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any content back, then redirect. (There is no such thing as "merge and delete"). However, do not merge the images, as they are not required. J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many of you probably know this, but as a couple people have pointed out here (and as I have had a surprisingly difficult time explaining in previous AfDs), "merge and delete" is not an option (because deletion would disrupt the "paper trail" that needs to be kept intact following a merge). If by "merge and delete" someome means, in effect, "merge X into Y, and then clear X of its contents and replace those contents with a an automatic redirect to Y", then one is not indicating WP:DELETION at all, but rather a standard WP:MERGE. I worded my nomination so as to suggest why I feel that deletion is preferable to merging. Of course, anyone is welcome to disagree, and to suggest that merging (or something else) is preferable to deletion; but those who are inclined to use the words "merge" and "delete" in the same !vote are advised to avoid making the erroneous implication that WP:MERGE and WP:DELETE can be applied simultaneously to a given article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per discussion. I am agnostic about which article should be the main one. (Edit: If it helps the closing admin, I can go with keep per discussion instead, although merging this article into the Death article is also fine by me.) Also, unless the histories of the articles are merged, a merge and delete is legally impossible -- when we merge any content, we must also ensure that the history of the content is maintained. ("Merge to" and "merge from" are indistinguishable, really -- they're two sides of the same coin.) Johnleemk | Talk 10:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I see no reason why Neda Agha-Soltan can't just be a redirect -- there's no need for an AfD it seems, since we seem agreed that content in both articles is worth preserving. We're really just debating whether the two articles should exist separately, or if one should redirect to the other. I don't see any case for deleting the page itself -- it would function perfectly fine as a redirect, surely? Johnleemk | Talk 10:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: A merge-redirect (through which Neda Agha-Soltan is incorporated into Death of Neda Agha-Soltan--not vice versa) does not strike me as entirely unreasonable, but it does come across as unnecessary, insofar as Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan#Biography already puts the event into sufficient context. I worry that a merge could be a slippery slope to bloating that section out of proportion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, we should be careful to not merge anything that isn't needed, and remove anything that is merged when not required. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. The woman was notable for her death, not for her earlier life. Clear case of WP:ONEVENT. WWGB (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan I do not see a precedence for entitling it anything other than her name. The Kent State protesters shot by US national guardsmen are just under their names (not death of). For example Jeffrey_Miller. Rabourn (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect under Neda Agha-Soltan is the obvious course of action. Jack1956 (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles (Death of Neda Agha-Soltan and Neda Agha-Soltan) to one article entitled Neda Agha-Soltan, then redirect the other. ExRat (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect under Neda Agha-Soltan. Ac1201 (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge (the relevant info) - Bio can't stand by itself, since she's notable just for her death. --Damiens.rf 13:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everyone becomes notable for something. This is a very reasonable separation of the person when they were alive and the events surrounding their death. There are hundreds of martyrs who have articles both about themselves and separate articles about their death. Neda is clearly one who deserves both articles. 2ndAmendment (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and merge the other article into this one. This obviously deserves an article, and it is only by arcane Wikipedia formality that the article would be entitled "death of..." rather than simply her name. Although there are indeed valid reasons for BIO1E, it is standing on formality in this case to suggest that we focus an article on her death rather than her (as a person, a symbol, a personality who galvanized events). We are building an encyclopedia, not a rule book, and casting this as a "death of article" makes us look kind of kooky. And keep the fair use images too. Again, we are becoming so rule bound it ceases to be encyclopedic and becomes kind of nuts. Wikidemon (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in those unsourced quotes, too. Who needs references? They just get in the way of writing what we know is true. And I'm sick of this "NPOV" stuff- why can't we just say what's obviously right? J Milburn (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WWGB above. Fin©™ 14:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I'm an anonymous IP editor I don't feel I have the right to indicate a preference as a "vote", however I have a few comments. First, I am in agreement with both 2ndAmendment and Wikidemon that there's no reason for this to be called "death of." People are using the ONEEVENT rule to suggest a biographical article isn't justfied. Well Lee Harvey Oswald is known for one event, too, as is Jack Ruby. Second, no one is going to use "Death of XYZ" as a search parameter. They'll look for the name and it's a needless redirect or click-path. Thirdly, the woman's life story is now receiving worldwide media coverage, and last I looked people who receive worldwide coverage of this nature are eligible for biographical articles, whether they are known for one event or events over the course of many years. Someone cites Rodney King as an example, and it's a good one, because on the surface his main notoriety was the video of his beating, however this event sparked many later events, most notably the LA Riots. Time will tell with regards to Agha-Soltan's death in terms of long-term impact. But in the short-term it's having a huge impact and one of the reasons for Wikipedia even existing is to provide documentation of events in a shorter time frame than you might expect to see Brittanica accomplish. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with anonymous. I think Agha-Soltan's life and death have been sufficiently covered by the international media that the article (as I voted above) should be merged into one article entitled Neda Agha-Soltan. She may have initially been simply a WP:ONEVENT individual, but when the international media started to scrutinize every tidbit and detail of her life and when the oppositional leaders, United States President and other notable international individuals begin invoking her name (for good or bad), she has become more than just a "Death of...", or "One event" individual. When Iranian government authorities directed Agha-Soltan's family to remove the black mourning banners that were hanging outside their residence to prevent the home from becoming a place of pilgrimage, when Mehdi Karroubi and Mir-Hossein Mousavi called upon Iranian citizens to commemorate Agha-Soltan in protest - then she has already become someone who is notable for more than just "one event". She may have become notable in death, but her death has already left a legacy that is worthy of a page simply titled Neda Agha-Soltan. ExRat (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neda Agha-Soltan and Merge Death of Neda Agha-Soltan to Neda Agha-Soltan per User:Wikidemon. Salih (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- This is the sort of information that should not under any circumstances be lost on wikipedia. Her death is still resonating, and, while already notable, the full extent of the notability has yet to make itself known, and likely won't for some time to come. Personally, I think the article should be listed under her death, making the focus the event, not the woman. However I'm willing to bow to consensus if it is to keep the article titled after her. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan - The name will be a lasting piece of history referred to more (and for more) than the single event of her death. It is the death that caused her fame but her fame will easily outlive her death and become a focus for a generation. - Tεx τ urε 16:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles. Wjfox2005 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, and redirect namespace to 'Death of ...' article. There appears to be nothing worth keeping in the article which is not already in the 'Death' article. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a BRDP1E. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge now! Details of Neda's life are of interest due to her shooting death in the context of Iranian unrest after a stolen election. These are the essentials about Neda and they all belong together in *one* article. juandresh 18:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep and merge. The resulting redirect from Neda Agha-Soltan will be a reader service. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles—she's a notable person, her death is particularly notable, and there is enough content and available information for two separate articles. Everyking (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge the "Death of..." article into this one. Priyanath ^talk 16:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need for an encyclopedic entry for Soltani specifically. She would fail BLP1E. However, her death is/was an important event. And, nothing in this article which is needed isn't already in the Death of... article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You mean like her age and name translated into Persian? ExRat (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, someone copy/paste the translation and her birth/death information to the Death of Article, and let's be done with it. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have many articles for people known for nothing other than the circumstances of their deaths. One might think of Kitty Genovese, but Crispus Attucks is probably the closest analogue, and the Boston Massacre would correspond to the current protest movement. From that example, the Death of ___ article should probably be merged into an article covering the killings of election protesters, and/or its Neda-specific content brought here. The Monster (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article about the notable event (her death.) I am not impressed by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. There are undoubtedly numerous other memorial articles or articles about someone known only for stopping a bullet or otherwise being a victim of circumstances which should be moved to "Death of..." titles. Her death has been chosen and promoted as a symbol of the popular uprising. She was apparently just standing in the wrong place at the wrong time and caught a random bullet. Per WP:BLP1E and per WP:NOT a biography or memorial article is not appropriate. Her life was cut short, before she had any opportunity to have a career or otherwise do something to satisfy WP:BIO. She is notable only for unintentionally stopping a bullet and someone being around with a camera phone to record the aftermath. Edison (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
Step one: Is Neda's life story notable, yes? or no? If yes, then move on to step two.
[...T]here is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. [...] Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles.---WP:FAN
Step two: Would breaking the biography and the event into separate articles serve Wikipedia's purposes in this instance, yes or no? If yes, then keep.
The key to avoiding information overload is to break an article down into more than one page[...]. These can start out as section headings and be broken out into separate pages as the main article becomes too long. [...]Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base of any and all information, full of railroad timetables and comprehensive lists. But any encyclopedic subject of interest should be covered, in whatever depth is possible.---META:WIKI IS NOT PAPER#ORGANIZATION
That is, to make sure our readers' eyes don't glaze over with coverage of peripheral detail extraneous to the precise topic being covered within an article, we break out extensive coverage being given some related matter or issue into separate articles, being sure to include only the pertinent details therefrom into that article's parent.

Conclusion: Since I believe Neda is herself notable, along with the event of her shooting, and since I further believe that too exensive of details about her shooting wouldn't optimally fit in her specific Wikipedia biography and that too extensive of details about her biography wouldn't optimally fit in an article about her shooting, I therefore believe that this article should be saved. ↜Just M E here , now 19:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per, Wikidemon, "we are becoming so rule bound it ceases to be encyclopedic and becomes kind of nuts" couldn't agree more, seem like in many instances that this is place getting overly bureaucratic. Also it does not matter that she became unintentionally famous or a victim, her death has made her notable. People will want to know about her life, thoughts. Contrast this with say Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination, how famous was/is he. People will know of Neda for years to come and want to know about her. Pahari Sahib 19:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Death of Neda Agha-Soltan, per WWGB. --Ragib (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notability is clear and growing. BLP1E doesn't apply since she isn't living. Moreover, the extreme amount of coverage makes her an excepetion to BLP1E even if she were still alive (as say Rosa Parks). Finally, removing, merging or redirecting would increase already serious problems of systemic bias in coverage. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean the systematic bias in favour of content that is important- the details surrounding her death? Also note that the guidelines for people notable for one event are not linked to living people only. J Milburn (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is clear. Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan. --Kaaveh (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is now the face of the 2009 Iranian election protests. Dems on the move (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Merge to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. No need for two separate articles, and unfortunately she is more notable for her death than for her life. Dems on the move (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge Death of Neda Agha-Soltan into this article
Keep. Notability is clear. Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan. We have several articles like this. For example, Kimveer Gill, he is notable only for one incident which is Dawson College shooting in Montreal, Canada.--Where is my vote? (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan. The article Death of Neda Agha-Soltan should have remained in its original spot instead of being moved. I don't see the point of creating overly long Wikipedia article names and then justifying the names by saying that's the only importance. Also, I don't believe that there is so much information associated with Neda that two articles are needed. billebrooks (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge Death of Neda Agha-Soltan into Neda Agha-Soltan. Retaining separate articles is not an issue of notability (or respect or anything of that sort), it is one of length. When the main article gets overly long a new article will need to be branched off of it. At present Neda, the circumstances surrounding her death, and the national and international response to that death are all intertwined. Any of these could be later separated into a distinct article if they become large enough. I submit Rosa Parks as an example of where the famous action is a subheading of an individual. Refusing to give up her seat is covered in more detail at Rosa Parks than at Montgomery Bus Boycott. Likewise with Tank Man - there is not article called "Tank Man's refusal to give way to tanks". The famous action is better subsumed under the article on the notable actor. --Aranae (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (merge death into her bio) - "Neda Agha-Soltan ... has become an international symbol of courage in defense of human rights but is less-well known [in Iran]." - The Washington Times; an "international symbol" of anything sounds pretty notable... Strikehold (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment further to my !vote above. The !votes in this debate are all over the place. There is only one apparent consensus, is that there should only be one article, but editors cannot seem to agree amongst themselves which will be the article and which the redirect. However, it appears abundantly clear to me that she has had little to offer (because her life has been tragically cut short) except on her death, which was filmed and which has now made her an icon. My contention, therefore, is that he death was the notable event, and not her personally. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney King, Rosa Parks, Emmett Till, JonBenét Ramsey, Tank Man, Laci Peterson, etc. are all examples where the events are subsumed into the articles about the individuals. Rosa Parks had a considerably encyclopedic life outside of her most noteworthy event, but the rest of these individuals are renown primarily for a single event. I can't find examples of the reverse being true. Merging to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan will be setting a precedent from what I can see. In addition to that, the entire merged article will be about Neda Agha-Soltan. "Death of Neda Agha-Soltan", does not adequately describe the merged article because some of the article will be about her life. I think the attempt to move to "Death of Neda Agha-Soltan" may represent overcompensating for the need to be objective in light of an emotional situation. (In contrast, I think use of her surname in the article is an appropriate attempt at objectivity). --Aranae (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the "The Death of..." article to this one. For point of reference, here are other similar articles on Wikipedia; some have been mentioned here before, but except for the first one I've mostly tried to keep to ones that I discovered independently to avoid bias:

Rodney King -- very long article, basically entirely about the beatings and aftermath; there doesn't seem to be a separate page for the incident proper
Emmett Till -- long article about his murder; there doesn't seem to be a separate page for the incident proper
Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, William Knox Schroeder, Sandra Lee Scheuer -- in addition to the article about the Kent State shootings, all four deaths have their own bio page
I see no individual pages for the Columbine massacre victims; at least one name (Daniel Mauser) redirects to the Columbine High School massacre page
The victims of Lizzie Borden's alleged crimes do not have individual pages, but redirect to hers; her page is devoted almost entirely to the murders of which she was accused
Brian Douglas Wells -- (the pizza delivery neck bomb guy) has his bio page devoted to the bombing incident; there doesn't seem to be a page for the incident apart from that
Abigail Taylor -- has her bio page devoted to the incident that got her in the news (poor girl)
Sharon Lopatka -- has her bio page devoted to the incident that got her in the news

Okay, at this point I'm just looking through the List of unusual deaths. If you keep looking you'll see that the events listed that (1) have a single victim (as opposed to, e.g., the Boston Molasses Disaster), (2) have an article devoted to it (e.g. the person falls under BIO1E and so there isn't really anything else on their bio page), and (3) have subjects that would fit the BIO1E guideline (at least by the other stuff in the wikipedia article) almost always have the description of those events under the person's name, not an article about the event. Looking at events after 1980 say (earlier ones tend to be about more famous people who don't fit BIO1E), all the entries that fit my criteria and follow this IMO are: Carl McCunn, Kenji Urada, Sergei Chalibashvili, Garry Hoy, Gloria Ramirez, Brittanie Cecil, Kenneth Pinyan, Kevin Whitrick, Surinder Singh Bajwa, and Abagail Taylor

The two exceptions are:

C.B. Lansing (killed on Aloha Airlines Flight 243 -- but this barely meets my conditions)
Gregory Biggs -- the description of the incident is in his killer's article, Chante Jawan Mallard, which seems to have the same problem

So it looks to me like there's rather more precedent on Wikipedia already for merging the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan article into Neda Agha-Soltan, even if the BIO1E guideline would suggest it should go the other way.

EvanED (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you concede, these "biographies" actually focus on the incidents far more than the biographies. This shows they should be merged back to/turned into articles about the incident. This just seems to be a classic other crap exists argument. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a definite shade of "other crap exists" to what I said, but I would say that this goes beyond a classic instance of that argument, in that I'm not just pointing out a couple examples, but have gone to some effort to establish a general Wikipedia trend. (In the examples I gave I would say that there are three or even four somewhat independent entry points, so I'd say it's not like I found a particular corner of Wikipedia where this is the case.) So if the BIO1E policy should exclude the article on Neda herself, I would say that Wikipedia doesn't just violate that policy on occasion, but systematically violates it to the point of it being the norm. (And keep in mind that "other stuff exists" arguments are not necessarily invalid.)

If it's decided that Neda's article should be merged into "The Death of Neda" that's fine with me; I don't really have a stake in the argument. But if it turns out to be so on account of BIO1E, then you might see a bunch of requests from me on the articles linked in my first post. (I don't intend this to sound like a threat or anything like that, because I don't want it to. I just value consistency.) EvanED (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good thing. Sadly, at any AfD or discussion, like this one, there are people arguing to put it at the biography title for all the wrong reasons, and so getting this issue sorted is going to take a while. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Per nom, ingore POV pushers. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Holder (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The !votes are confusing, but if you look at those who are explicit in where the merge should end up, it's at about 2-1 to 3-1 in favor of merging into Neda Agha-Soltan. Also, looking at martyrs in Category:Lists_of_Christian_martyrs, it is common practice to have their article under their name, not "Death of...", even for the most obscure ones who are notable only for their death. Priyanath ^talk 17:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Neda Agha-Soltan. Passes Notability test clearly and much more appropriate title. --Marianian (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think in this case WP:NOTNEWS can be ignored per WP:IAR, at least, that's what I think, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ONEEVENT. Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both articles into the emerging consensus at Talk:Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan#Requested_move per (1) The one event guideline (2) The separate biography has barely more detail than the biography in the shooting/death article, so there is no content justification for a specialty article either. gidonb (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge and WP:SNOW ffs. -- samj _in^out 03:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan --SkyWalker (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Neda Agha-Soltan. She is notable for one event, but its a historically significant event, and one that clearly establishes her overall notability. Peter G Werner (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan, per Priyanath. Alefbe (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge the two articles under Neda Agha-Soltan, per several users above. Pasquale (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:Consider that there are no such articles as Death of Emmett Till, Death of Jan Palach, Death of Anna Politkovskaya, etc., but only Emmett Till, Jan Palach, Anna Politkovskaya, etc. Pasquale (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is not simply a symbol she is also a person. Most users will know her as the symbol but want to know the real life of the person.Dejvid (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your second sentence pretty much sums up what I see as the main problem. An encyclopedia does not aim to tell people whatever they might like to know--nor does it avoid telling them what they may not like to hear. As a tertiary source, an encyclopedia tries to keep a relatively safe distance from the sentiment du jour, and to summarize the existing summaries of what is known. So the question is not really, "Do people want to know about Neda's life?" but rather, "Do people already know enough (i.e., are there enough primary sources) about Neda's life that other people have taken enough notice of this knowledge (i.e., have published enough secondary sources) that we may take notice of all this noticing and knowing (i.e., that a tertiary overview is warranted)? No one is denying that Neda was a person. However, as someone pointed out earlier (albeit in a defense of the biographical approach), "any encyclopedic subject of interest should be covered, in whatever depth is possible" (new emphasis mine). Some good (i.e., in-depth) invesitgations of her life might very well turn up. But at this point, a biographical article looks like the product of a tertiary source trying to preempt primary and secondary efforts to expand knowledge; and such an article seems liable to broaden the scope of accessible information and to lengthen the list of retrievable data, but will struggle to make the conceptual and historical connections through which it can deepen such awareness into encyclopedic understanding. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well referenced using reliable sources. If your point is that there is not enough secondary stuff on her life to make the article much longer you may be right. However, that is only a problem because we have started to set ourselves a standard of what a good biographical article should be that is more appropriate to the President of the US. It is a good and useful summery of what is known about her. It is a topic that users will want to read about - that is what Wikipedia is for. To reframe my point to suggest that I'm saying that we should tell people what they want to hear is something quite different and to read that into what I wrote is, to my mind, a somewhat strange interpretation.Dejvid (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Neda Agha-Soltan. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Neda Agha-Soltan. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Too large to merge and too notable to delete. Rgood erm ote 16:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For reasons submitted by Peter G Werner, among others. The fact that she gained notoriety through her murder is not dispositve. pjpark (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Neda Agha-Soltan. There should only be a "Death of ...." article, if an independent article exists on that person as well. - Epson291 (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BLP1E. MickMacNee (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the death, without it there is little content. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge+Redirect per WP:ONEEVENT. Most of the people commenting here are not addressing policy, but rather are commenting based on their views towards this person. She did not do anything notable before being killed and it's yet to be known if her death will have any long term notability. Corpx (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, and it's ridiculous to have a page called Death of Neda Agha-Soltan without having a page on Neda Agha-Soltan. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anything the article on her death should be merged into this article. She has become a symbol for the protests in Iran and as such is as worthy of her own article as Tank Man. Her life will be analyzed in depth by media for years to come because of her death. We can't include all those details in the article on her death.--User:The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - she 'is notable, but only for her death. Therefore having two articles is not needed. Giant Snowman 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. There is not even marginal notability to justify a page of her own. Unlike the case with most articles concerning deaths quoted above as examples that use a bio page, in this instance Neda's identity (at this time) is irrelevant to notability. Wayne (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to traffic stats, after the creation of the pair of articles, the viewership of the bio stub "Neda Agha-Soltan" (see graph here) and the viewership of the article on the event the "Death of Neda Agha-Soltan" (see graph here) remain almost exactly identical. Hence, if we subsume the biographical material completely into the event article (or vice-versa), all we'd accomplish is a net saving to readers of one mouse click, each. But what we'd be losing is the fact that the coverage of the event in time would become more and more bogged down in the details of her biography (or vice-versa). ↜Just M E here , now 17:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, Neda's bio's ~~best-and~~-ongoing traffic equals that of "Sonia Sotomayor," too (see graph here); while the traffic for the WP article about Neda's fatal shooting/iconization simply d w a r f s the traffic for the article "Sonia Sotomeyer Supreme Court nomination" (see graph here)! ↜Just M E here , now 06:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but you're not connecting those stats with any reasoning as to their relevance to this debate.
— Ω (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The page hits have absolutely no relevance to this discussion and I think that the above statements should be removed from this page. Corpx (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... that wasn't my intent in mentioning the problem at all. Have a political axe of some sort to grind in this discussion? Regardless, I disagree, the statements definitely do not need to be removed from the discussion. That's just silly. All I was attempting to say was that some additional commentary would be helpful in order to put the raw statistics into perspective for this discussion.
— Ω (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To me, in light of his earlier post, Justmeherenow's stats suggest 1) that readers are oriented equally to Neda-as-person and to Neda-as-event; 2) that readers (being drawn, for example, more to Sotomayor-as-person than to Sotomayor-as-event) do not always demonstrate such equilibrium; and, therefore, 3) that readers' intuitions are best suited, in this case, by the existence of two separate articles. Having already made my case, I don't wish to evaluate this line of reasoning; but I hope I've properly distilled and adequately stated it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I agree with your evaluation. Over the years though I've learned that the stark reality which statistics present cause political opinions to sharply polarize, as can be exemplified by the comment from "Corpx" above. Therefore, simply presenting statistics is often more divisive and ultimately less informative then not presenting them is.

Anyway... I think that this discussion has somewhat lost it's bearings. I've been following it from th start, both here and on the associated talk pages, and there are some issues to address. First, structurally, this proposal is somewhat malformed. As has been pointed out earlier, the Neda Agha-Soltan article can't actually be deleted as a matter of policy. More importantly though, the discussion is just generally confused and does not appear to be accomplishing anything. A large part of that very likely comes from the sensationalism and raw emotion which the story evoked, but that is starting to subside slightly now. The point being, I propose that this nomination be closed (as keep, basically by default). We can begin a new conversation about it either on the talk page(s) or... in centralized discussion?
— Ω (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Got carried away and wrote what's, I guess, an "essay" ( --> here.) ↜Just M E here , now 21:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm assuming that the first "a" in your essay's title is just a typo and wasn't meant to create a sort of double entendre... Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge death-of article back into this article. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never comment but I suggest deleting both articles all together and just include the info the "2009 Iranian election protest" article. Red link her until at least there is a discernable outcome to this whole thing. Then maybe revisit creating a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.180.145 (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This article and the related Death article, into the Iranina protests article. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. She is known for her death, so that should be with her bio and main article, not seperate. She is not known for anything other than getting killed, sadly. It should all be in one article. R32GTR (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As this AfD enters its seventh day, I (the nominator) would have no reason to complain if it were closed as "keep" and continued on article talk as a merge discussion. I'm not formally requesting a nomination withdrawal (which actually could be in bad taste at this point), but I'm willing to concede that it's had its moment in the AfD sun. Or, to invoke another toasty image, I don't want to keep a discussion at AfD if it's not actually an AfD discussion and doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of becoming one. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the merge debate should limp along any longer. It's very clear that editors want only one article. It's a matter for an admin to read the arguments and decide which article stays, and which article becomes a redirect. There is a clear consensus now for only one article. WWGB (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the one article editors want is this one, by about a 2-1 margin (based on those who are specific about where they want the merge to go). Having another merge discussion would disregard all of the editors here who have already made their point. Priyanath ^talk 05:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also more logical to have this article remain since inserting all of her biographical information wouldn't be appropriate in the other article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: For anyone who might not know, it does not have to be an admin who makes the final call or takes the final action on a merge/redirect. Anyone with sufficient WP:CLUE and enough respect for consensus can do that. It does not even have to be an admin who closes this AfD. An impartial non-admin could do a WP:NAC on this one. What I had in mind with my last comment was that as soon as an AfD discussion has answered, "To be, or not to be?" about an article, it has ceased to be an AfD discussion. It looks like the resounding consensus here is "to be", which is why I suggested that the discussion be resumed on article talk. I don't mean that the debate should be able to drag on for an eternity or that it even has to consist of anything more than acknowledgement of the AfD consensus--just that it might best be settled over yonder. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing that is crystal clear is that this AfD should be closed. I take issue with the stance that "It's very clear that editors want only one article.", but that's not an issue which should be discussed at length here. Anyway, I would close this myself, but the guideline clearly states that participants should not do so.
— Ω (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Neda Agha-Soltan. Having an article on the person is better than having an article just on the person's death. Captain panda 13:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Too large to merge and too notable to delete.Christophe Neff (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Shereth 20:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen plasticity[edit]

This "hypothesis" is highly theoretical (polite way of saying that it was proposed in a highly obscure journal full of biological crackpottery and no one knows about it). A lit search brings up nothing, and "frozen plasticity" gets a grand total of 82 real Google hits. (Far less than my own obscure personal name.) Completely non-notable and unknown to the scientific community. Reads like an article for someone shamelessly plugging their own forgotten hypothesis. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I came here expecting an article on novel phases of materials, like some type of "liquid-metal" and was disappoiunted to find an evolution article as I would like to think many of these features could be replaced with equations and systems theory. In any case, these are the scirus hits, and there are a few that seem materials related but most seem to be to dictionaries or author's own work, but check for yourself as I can't form an opinion yet,
- http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=%22frozen+plasticity%22+evolution&t=all&drill=yes&sort=1&p=0
Obscure, out of favor, or speculative alone shouldn't invalidate inclusion based on notability but obviously you'd like to see some peer recognition, even if out right rebuttal.
Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the given references are verifiable and reliable. The notion of highly obscure journal or unknown to the scientific community when formulated so, are nonsense when reliable and verifiable sources are referred Rirunmot (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a member of the scientific community relevant to this article, I can assure you that this "hypothesis" is absolutely unknown, as the Google image hits suggest. 82 Google hits does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. The references given (e.g. Flegr 1998) have been cited only twice in the literature since the "hypothesis" was introduced 11 years ago, once by the author himself. Both of those citations were in the same journal as the original article ("Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum"), which regularly publishes cook/beyond-the-fringe material that the rest of the scientific community has rejected (such as telepathy and creationism). No one bothers to read that journal, because most scientists don't even know it exists. (It has the lowest eigenfactor of any biology journal—by a very wide margin—and the second lowest Impact Factor after you remove self-citations.) An idea should not be excluded from Wikipedia merely because it's pseudoscientific or because it was published in an obscure journal, and that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm saying is, these are further evidence that no scientists know this hypothesis exists, and that this hypothesis is non-notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : I would take issue with your comment regarding the sources cited in the article. For example, if the only known reference appears in Nature, that may seem highly regarded but yet it could appear as an advertisement or, more realistically, as a self-promotional opinion piece ( say it was a citation to the wall street journal but the page cited was opinion or blog). This requires a closer look. Obscure is fine but it needs consideration from peers, even if passing. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is content that is verifiable, not sources. The concept of verifiability does not apply to sources. It applies to the content that is based upon them. Sources must be reliable, and part of that is being peer reviewed and published. M. Flegr's own book is not the best of peer-reviewed sources for a scientific hypothesis. For that, we need to look at articles published in academic journals. As such M. Flegr's article in Rivista di Biologia, a peer-reviewed journal, is better in terms of reliability.
  Reliability of the sources supports our requirement that content be properly verifiable from good sources. There is still a slight hurdle of the point that this might be a novel hypothesis that has simply failed to far to gain any traction in the world at large outside of its author, our Wikipedia:No original research requirement.
  As was not properly clear from the original article, but as Nerdseeksblonde points out above, all of the sources are M. Flegr xyrself, and it's difficult to find sources by other people where Flegr's ideas are acknowledged. However, this is an identifiable credentialed expert, a professor in the Faculty of Science at Charles University in Prague, publishing (in one case, at least) in a peer-reviewed journal. It is not an uncredentialed unidentifiable person publishing under a pseudonym on Usenet. So the problems of general acknowledgement and acceptance of the concept and its incorporation into the corpus of human knowledge are not as clear cut in this instance as they are in other cases. Uncle G (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the wiki criteria, notability doesn't allow exceptions for author's credentials and indeed that would be advocating that wiki become a soapbox for established approved authors prior to getting a hearing in secondary sources. I am not advocating acceptance on those criteria, just confessing I haven't bothered to look for positive evidence. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At present, I cannot begin to judge the suitability of the subject, but I would observe that the citations make it appear to be one man's theory. I'd flag this for expert attention and ask for help at the biology project. The title does appear to be less than satisfactory, given that the hypothesis is not well known, and I also expected this to be about plastic materials. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. This single-author-sourced POV fork is a fringe theory. It may warrant inclusion in an article such as evolution, but it may even there be WP:UNDUE. Bongo matic 15:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in evolution, that deals with mainstream science, this hypothesis is so obscure that it has not a hope of qualifying for a mention in the main article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and redirect to the article on Jaroslav Flegr, the theory may not be notable, but I think the author might be. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Merge could be okay, but the article needs to be trimmed down very substantially before that can happen. (Otherwise Flagr's own notability in his article will be overwhelmed with the non-notability of frozen plasticity.) Really, the "hypothesis" shouldn't take up more than one or two sentences outlining the basic idea, with links to further reading. It's quite clear that it's a pet theory of his own, and not one that the scientific community knows or cares about. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this needs to be summarised for a general audience. I'd remove the section on "Microevolution and Macroevolution" entirely, as it adds very little to explaining the idea. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Tim put that bio together in 1 day... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any theory presented in the quack- and kook-filled Rivista di Biologia is certainly not worthy of an encyclopedia article. What next, Medical Hypotheses being treated as a reliable source? Seriously though, this got barely any attention or cites, only a book review[33] and a magazine article as a broken link. Fences&Windows 22:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not anything worth merging. A trivial interpretation of well known processes. Not that it's wrong exactly, but that it isn't substantial. Nobody is likely to cite it (and nobody outside that journal ever has cited that Rivista paper in 10 years now), because there is almost nothing to comment on. Nobody is likely to attack it, not because its hopelessly wrong, but because there's nothing substantial enough to be worth attacking. I'm not even sure about the redirect, because this is less notable than he rest of his work. ( His parasitological work has gotten serious attention, as has his work on the mathematical construction of evolutionary trees--some of these are in good journals, and his most cited paper has over 100 cites in Scopus.) Personally, after a quick reading of the relevant papers, on a subject I think I am fairly well acquainted with, I see it simply as an example of unwarranted speculation, best characterised as "there's nothing new here".) As Uncle G says, he is not a quack, or a fringe scientist--it's just that this work is of no importance whatsoever. It's not unknown that good scientists also publish uninteresting speculations. DGG (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did get a feeling of "so what" when reading this theory. Fences&Windows 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Someone's been adding to the article. A lot. It's a royal mess of uncited nonsense now. Still without any indication of this theory ever being used in the scientific literature. There's a single extremely unprofessionally written book review and that's it. Obvious self-promotion, and the "theory" is still non-notable. The summary of the book and the theory on Jaroslav Flegr's own page is more than adequate for dealing with this "theory":
His book Frozen Evolution deals with the idea of frozen plasticity, a hypothesis that describes a new mechanism for the origin of adaptive traits. He claims that natural selection can only explain the evolution of such adaptations under very special situation, e.g. in genetically homogeneous population of asexual organisms. He describes the idea of "frozen plasticity" as being more general, and contends that it can better explain the origin and evolution of adaptive traits in genetically heterogeneous population of sexual organisms.
Bueller 007 (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sajmir Çelhaka[edit]

Previously bundled nom here - renominated to get clearer consensus on single article. The article is regarding a footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as there is no evidence to prove the Albanian Superliga is fully-professional, failing WP:V. Also fails WP:N due to any references asserting notability. --Jimbo^[online] 08:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable footballer. No evidence Albanian Superliga is fully professional, no enough evidence the subject may meet WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails WP:N in its current state, and I was unable to find multiple, reliable sources covering this individual. Jogurney (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable soccer player. --Carioca (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sokol Çikalleshi[edit]

Delete non-notable footballer. No evidence Albanian Superliga is fully professional, no enough evidence the subject may meet WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails WP:N in its current state, and I was unable to find multiple, reliable sources covering this individual. Jogurney (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sokol Ishka[edit]

Previously bundled nom here - renominated to get clearer consensus on single article. The article is regarding a footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as there is no evidence to prove the Albanian Superliga is fully-professional. Also fails WP:N due to any references asserting notability. --Jimbo^[online] 08:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable footballer. No evidence Albanian Superliga is fully professional, no enough evidence the subject may meet WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is shown to have played a number of games in the top-level over the last few seasons and he has probably made a large number of Superliga appearances in total except the older stats are apparently not available online (perhaps someone has a Euro yearbook and could fill some gaps in). He has also played some Intertoto games and again I have expanded the article. Eldumpo (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment playing "top-level" doesn't make someone notable, as it has to be fully-pro by the criteria set. By your standards people who play top level in Montserrat or Bhutan say would be notable. --Jimbo^[online] 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also playing in the Intertoto against other semi-pro teams doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 08:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eldumpo. Nfitz (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. The two comments directly above seem to ignore the fact that he actually fails the guidelines. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WP:ATHLETE clearly defines "fully professional," which is not the same as "top-level" (rather vague). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meglid Mihani[edit]

Previously bundled nom here - renominated to get clearer consensus on single article. The article is regarding a footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as there is no evidence to prove the Albanian Superliga is fully-professional. Also fails WP:N due to any references asserting notability. --Jimbo^[online] 08:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable footballer. No evidence Albanian Superliga is fully professional, no enough evidence the subject may meet WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the player has played a significant number of games in the last 2 seasons for Besa in the Albanian top-level, and he has also played in the Intertoto Cup. I have added some text and a reference to the article. Eldumpo (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plays in top level of football; and also in international competitions. Nfitz (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment playing "top-level" doesn't make someone notable, as it has to be fully-pro by the criteria set. What international competition has he competed in because there's no note of it in the article? --Jimbo^[online] 08:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also playing in the Intertoto against other semi-pro teams doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 08:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE failure, which the two previous !votes somehow seem to ignore. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the Athlete wording is so strict that I guess no players would survive a vigorous application of it! (it does therefore seem pointless) Eldumpo (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, actually, no it's not. Thousands of people meet it because they have played in fully professional leagues. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'played in fully professional league' is not the definition given at ...Fully professional leagues; the definition there is 'a sports league where all first team players, in all teams composing the league, are known to be contracted in a full-time basis'. However, can anyone confirm whether that definition is regarded as Wikipedia guidance i.e. how does Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues tie with the overall Wikipedia pages on Athlete, given that the ATH page says 'competed at the fully professional level of a sport'. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your point. "Fully professional level" and "Fully professional league" are exactly the same thing. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the 'known to be contracted' quote. However I'm aware my question is a wider point (and this AfD will expire soon!) so please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Thanks Eldumpo (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every time a player signs for a professional club, a newspaper will report that he has signed an x-year contract. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all professional player moves will be confirmed in papers (or online), some will just say that they've moved. But the current wording is that all players in the league must be fully professional so you need to have sources from all of those to prove the definition! Eldumpo (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is very pointy, not really valid at all. Wikipedia:Wikilawyering also comes to mind. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Albanian football is not fully professional and nor is competing in the Intertoto Cup. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Roy Frank[edit]

Another anti-psychiatry article disguised as a BLP. Total of 17 hits on Google news about this person since 1975. Ridernyc (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man is a published writer, a longtime human rights activist, and a recognized authority on the actual effects of ECT who has testified before various legislative bodies. Google news is no arbiter of notability in this case.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's a prolific writer, subject of books himself, cited in numerous reliable sources and is one of the foremost members of the mental patients' movement since the 70s. Ridernyc, just because an article is opposed to psychiatry, that doesn't mean it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. -- Atama ^chat 16:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GScholar [34] and GBooks [35] give plenty of indications of notability and reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Andre[edit]

Another non-notable BLP that is really a coat rack for anti-psychiatry. Only a handful of hits on google news. On of the most popular year for hits would be 1994 [36] a total of 6 hits and not all about this person. Article is not covering the person, it's covering the persons comments about ECT. Ridernyc (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Linda Andre is best known for her comments about ECT. Her new book (2009) covers the hidden history of this particular medical procedure. How exactly are you doing your google news search? I got millions of hits when I googled her name.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you don't put quotes around the name you will gets hits for every time time the name Linda and Andre are used in the same article. The proper full name in quotes gets you this on Google [37] 10,700 hits mostly social networking sites for various people with same name. A search of Google News returns this a total of 92 hits over the past 20 years not all of them about subject of the article. A search of Google books returns this [38] 107 hits most of them about photography, some about the subject of the article, a few of these are simply thank you mentioning her name. It's easy to get millions of hits without using proper search syntax. For example "Linda Andre" +ECT cuts the hits down to 29 on Google books [39], as opposed to using no syntax and just Searching on Linda Andre which returns 2760 hits [40]. Ridernyc (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wow, a "handful" of hits on Gnews? I have a little bit of trouble assuming good faith with this nomination. To meet notability guidelines, generally an article subject only needs a couple of in-depth pieces covering them in reliable sources. I see well over a dozen sources from AP, the New York Times, and other sources where she has been quoted and covered, usually as director of "The Committee for Truth in Psychiatry". It's very difficult to claim that she isn't notable. I totally agree with the criticism of S. M. Sullivan's search techniques, but Ridernyc even you admit that there are quite a few hits that are about her. -- Atama ^chat 16:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tame One[edit]

AfDs for this article:

DELETE. Sorry but this dude is just not notable, and notability is not inherited from affiliations, either. Its pretty black and white; either sources exist (as required under WP:BLP) or they don't. And I'm not seeing them and outstanding issues have not been addressed from the two prior deletion noms. Hopefully third times a charm. JBsupreme (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a bio at Allmusic, which is usually an indicator of notability. I don't have time to search for further sources right now, but I think this might just be a keeper (that isn't my !vote, by the way). I notice there's a page at Tame One (rapper) too - that should definitely go. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good grief. [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] for him solo and he was/is a member of Artifacts, The Weathermen and Leak Bros. 86.44.18.234 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Contrary to the nom, sources do exist, indicating notability, as pointed out by TexasAndroid and 86.44.18.234. Rlendog (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSIC#1 as described above. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Famous closed restaurants[edit]

POV biased original research, only source is a dead link. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. - 2 ... says you, says me 04:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, no brainer.Fuzbaby (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All other arguments aside, such a list is useless and defining what would be on the list is impossible. Kurt (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but Rename as List of closed restaurants; should be Wiki'ed from Category:Lists_of_restaurants. While one hates using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, it's hard to see how this is so different from List of casual dining restaurant chains, List of restaurant chains, List of restaurant chains in the United States, List of fast food restaurants, or List of revolving restaurants. Furthermore, simply because something is in the past doesn't make it nonnotable, as can be readily seen by the range of Wikipedia articles which begin "List of former..." or "List of closed..." (see here). The article needs work, but the problems it has are surmountable.--AuthorityTam (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a huge difference, if this were a list of closed or defunct restaurant chains or notable restaurants, then I would have no problem with it. As a list telling me about the chicken shack in waco texas, that is a different story. Most restaurants go out of business during their first two years... that's literally thousands per year. I think the only criteria on this list was that they are in Southern Texas.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources or references, no definition of what constitutes a "famous" restaurant. Wikipedia is not a directory or a memorial site. JIP | Talk 07:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing defines what "famous" is. Of those on the list, the notability for the ones I looked at would be questionable/non-existant anyway so I don't support the rename. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but Rename per AuthorityTam and WP:NETPOSITIVE. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs)
- Comment What would criteria for inclusion on this list be? There are probably more closed restaurants then there are towns in the world. Could such a list ever be complete? Also, if there is going to be a notability requirement for the list, why rename as opposed to delete and start fresh? I doubt any of the current list would make it to a list with a notability requirement of any strength. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, The current article is just an opinion piece of what a famous restaraunt is. Except for one, there is no references that any of these restaraunt's existed, were "famous" or are currently closed. The one entry that has a reference is not completely closed. Half of the Bennigan's restaraunts closed when the company went backrupt but the other half are still operating. In its current form, I do not think the article belongs. I could see a list of restaraunts/chains that are notable (my meaning, have an article or are eligible for an article) and are now closed/out of business. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I first saw this, I thought, no problem... that idea is worth keeping, but looking at the actual contents? No, it probably lists the restaurants where the author lived (southern Texas.) A famous restaurant would be one opened by a celebrity/famous chef and then closed. If this were actually a list of notable restaurants that closed their doors, I would support, but the Tacorama around the corner just doesn't cut it. Delete, and since we are citing RfA essays, per WP:Notnow---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as classic indiscriminate list. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list. Reso lute 18:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article isn't even named correctly since it's actually a list of closed restaurants in Texas. 70.4.101.50 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more pointless lists... Dvmedis (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First contribution from a new editor. Welcome to Wikipedia, Speed, and try not to take any of the comments personally, and don't let it discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. Just to explain some of things they're talking about, "indiscriminate list" means that you can't just list the names of a bunch of items without any further information; "original research" means that this isn't from a published source, but rather from the memories of the people contributing to the article (in other words, they researched this on their own); "POV", as you might have guessed, means that this is a contributor's "Point of View", usually applied when an opinion is expressed (as in "famous"). Finally, "WP:N" is a link to the rules about "notability" -- there are some subjects that are exempt from the rule that something has to have had widespread (i.e. beyond local recognition) coverage. Anyway, we've all had articles deleted. It takes time to learn what goes and what doesn't. Mandsford (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete classic WP:LISTCRUFT; fails WP:IINFO. Tavix | Talk 16:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE as junior level competitions aren't the highest level of amateur competition. Sancho 06:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Mikhaylova[edit]

No notability according to WP:BIO, no sources confirming article statements, violation of WP:AB. RedAndr (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg pardon. From difficulties with translating into the English language, in the article the hidden text is written down sporting achievements. Both status and date, and place of conducting of competitions, is there indicated. The All-russian competitions are important only from them. For confirmation of information gave reference to the images of prize deeds. They are notarized official seals. For example, scan of civil passport — is it an authoritative source? I do not know as in enwiki, and in the ruwiki the winners of general national sporting competitions pass on the criteria of meaningfulness. Thank you for attention. —Участница Udacha (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Images of prizes and deeds do not constitute evidence of notability, either that of the competitor or that of the prizes themselves. As references, they should be replaced with links to newspaper articles. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About all-Russian competitions, let's see, for example, one of them, the highest as it follows from the article: "she won gold in giant slalom in Monchegorsk (2000)". It sounds pretty impressive, but then look at the "source", which is just image of deed. It says: "Elena Mikhaylova is awarded for 3rd place in slalom all-Russia competition among girls of 1985-1986 years of birth." Hmm... Somewhat different, isn't it? 3rd place instead 1st, and only girls of particulate age. And the same situation with all other achievements. These images cannot be proofs, as it is already said above. In addition, the lack of notability follows from fact, that you are just a Candidate for the Master of Sports of Russian Federation. BTW, even this statement does not have source, in the link there is no mention of Elena Mikhaylova. --RedAndr (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are confusing slalom and giant slalom. These are different things. The article has a table of her awards which you can examine before accusing the author in deception. Slalom and giant slalom awards are listed there. Just read carefully. Additionally, I think the document says "young women ("девушки" as opposed to "девочки-girls") 1985-1988 year of birth", not "1985-1986 year of birth", in other words junior championship. I do not see much of deception here either. SA ru (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here is the giant slalom certificate. It says first place. SA ru (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Even if her record is legit, the "All-Russian" championship isn't the "highest amateur level of a sport" that is the standard. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Judging from the links in the article (in Russian), all or almost all competitions mentioned were junior ones. Therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. --Blacklake (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person is a silver medalist of 2002 Russian Championship in slalom. Even if this is a medal in junior category, this is still a National title. Junior champions are covered by Wikipedia, for example: Adam Rippon, so a definite keep. SA ru (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be mentioned, that besides winning national titles in junior category Adam Rippon has participated in several top level competitions and is currently ranked 11th here. --Blacklake (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not conduct a careful search for junior medalists in Wikipedia. Adam Rippon was the first I found, and he is described as a junior champion. So, junior champions are considered notable in Wikipedia. Elena Mikhailova's top achievement appears to be the silver at 2002 Russion National Championship. The number of people with such achievement is limited, so I do not see any problem in making a record of Mikhailova in Wikipedia. She may or may not demonstrate better achievements, but national title is a national title. SA ru (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here are some other similar junior achievers: Alexis Thompson, Cameron Peck, Philip Francis (golfer), Kevin Tway, Brian Harman and so on. SA ru (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - For example, Thompson have played in U.S. Women's Open (LPGA Tour competition), Brian Harman have played in Walker Cup and Palmer Cup (notable golf competitions), and so on. — Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, some of these fellows (not all) participated in professional competiotions, but did they do well? Not at all. Sorry. These are identical cases: junior champions without marked achievements in professional sports (yet, of course). SA ru (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If you have any doubt about smb.'s notability - AFD is at you service. — Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        AFD serves to determine notability based on accepted standards, not to destroy Wikipedia's content. Here we have a clear case of a junior champion. A brief research showed that articles about such people are quite common. The main criterion is an achievement in a junior competition of a national or international level. The criterion that you are trying to introduce (participation in international events) simply does not work for this category. It is irrelevant. SA ru (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE, only junior competitions. — Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sa_ru. --Stoljaroff1987 (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Гы-гы-гы. Флешмоб оппозиции начинается? — Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Не-а, /оскорбление удалено/, не флешмоб :) Просто самому изложить аргументы мне было бы трудновато, т.к. я плохо владею английским (точнее, читать могу, а вот писать/говорить не очень), а Смартасс ещё до меня всё вполне хорошо сформулировал. Мне ничего и не остаётся, как присоединиться к его мнению. --Stoljaroff1987 (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Посмотрим, сколько ещё народу из числа оппозиционеров ру-вики прибежит сюда по призыву вождей :))) — Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are trolling. Please stop. (This fellow was blocked in ru_wiki for /deception deleted, see my comment/.) SA ru (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/offtopic/ Not for vandalism, but for disclosure of the personal info, as it is written in my block log. And you know very well that the situation was very ambiguous, see ru:ВП:ИСК424. And my blocks in ru-wiki or anywhere do not matter in this AFD discussion. — Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
/offtopic/ OK, not for vandalism, but for disruptive behavior having nothing to do with Wikipedia goals. A few lines above you wrote in Russian: "Let's see who of ru-wiki oppositioners runs here at the order of their leaders". This is called trolling. Disruptive activities before, trolling now. Let's not get engaged in that. SA ru (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Как сказал наш премьер-министр, учите лучше свою жену щи варить. — Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This quotation from your prime minister is trolling, as well.SA ru (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was said by the person banned in ru-wiki for massive trolling. Sorry, my cher ami ;-) — Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is not the best description of the situation, I take it that you admit that I know what trolling is. Your thread starting from the comment about the "opposition leaders" and ending with the cabbage soup quote from prime minister Putin is trolling. SA ru (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let us stop this enchanting discussion. :) — Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I was suggesting! We can continue discussing this junior champion's notability of course, but no "opposition leaders" or irrelevant quotes from Putin, please. SA ru (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Medal in U-12 junior national competition is definitely not enough, there is only one award at adult level — "Kerosin games", but that doesn't look like a professional competition. All the other achievments are presented by commitees of education of the local council or by a local sport school, those are junior amateur awards — NickK (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious how you got this U12 category. She was 16 in 2002, so that's a junior national championship, not U12. SA ru (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I see at least three awards at the adult, professional level: 2008 Kerosin games - gold, 2007 Diana Sport Cup - silver, 2006 Competition of professional instructors - bronze. You should also take into account the fact that Russia has never been particularly famous for its alpine skiing results (with a few exceptions), so for the national level this is all quite impressive. SA ru (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is doubtful that these three competitions at the adult are notable. — Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that you want to delete the article about this junior champion, but why deny notability of the competitions? I just checked Kerosin Games (there are many publications about them), and this is a very peculiar competition, definitely notable. SA ru (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What publications? — Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Internet publications. SA ru (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give me any links, please! — Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's U12, because she had a medal only in 1998, and 1998-1986=12. However, it's neither professional nor top-level amateur competition. Kerosin Games? Let's read the announcement: everyone may take part, he has just to pay 300 roubles and swear, and one will be able to take par and get a glass of mulled wine. Have you ever seen something at profesional competitions? Definitely not. Diana Sport Cup can't be found in any sources. Competition of professional instructors is an amateur competition judging from the name, it's not a competition of professional skiers but a competition of professional instructors. None of these events are notable — NickK (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She is a silver medalist of 2002 Russian National Championship in slalom. This is a junior level. Of course, you are right, she had U12 medals, as well. But admit, that U12 was not the only achievement. As far as Kerosin Games, I agree with you. This is a peculiar competition held at night, but not a professional one. Mikhailova's notability can be claimed mostly for junior championships. SA ru (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is modified. Fair remarks are considered. The link to site FIS is added. Data on local competitions now are removed. Data on victories on official All-Russia competitions are left. These are victories over competitions among juniors the high rank of all Russia. These competitions have been included in annual Calendars of the Moscow sports committee. Thanks. — Участница Udacha (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Your 2002 Russian national title is missing from the table. Additionally, change "All-Russia" to "Russian national" SA ru (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks. Has corrected. There 2002 — is a typing error. Участница Udacha (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. There is information on the site FIS. The numerous prize-winner of the Russian national competitions. Competitions between juniors have not less meaningfulness, what competitions between invalids. Doubt in authenticity of images — it is not cause for the delete of all article. Because a table can be made invisible until additional information will not specify. —Участница Udacha (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The Moscow committee of sport makes the official calendar of the All-russian competitions annually. All-russian competitions are conducted on groups. Not only men, women. Also juniors (15—17 years), youths, girls (11—14 years) [46]. Agree, that from the article it is necessary to hide results on local competitions. It is necessary to leave victory on Cups of Russia, on Championships of Russia, on Sports and athletics meeting of Russia. That on competitions which are plugged in Calendar. Thank you. —Участница Udacha (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two quick points: 1) National Junior anything, regardless of the sport or country, is not the highest level of competition. 2) Will someone please WP:Trout the troll. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about Brian Harman then? SA ru (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Walker Cup in which he have played is notable international competition. — Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Walker Cup is a notable amateur competition, but my understanding is that it is a team competition; so it only marginally applies to individual achievements. Mikhailova, on the other hand performed very well individually in an international competition in Finland. SA ru (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator Air Conditioning[edit]

All original research, no citations, and not significant Kurt (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also User:Elevator Air Conditioning. --Calton | Talk 16:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. South Bay (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neat concept, but has no N or V. Wikipedia is not the place to post your invention idea. - 2 ... says you, says me 04:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research...looks like someone posted their university assignment up here. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. JIP | Talk 07:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to being an essay of original research, this reads like a sales brochure: Elevator air conditioning has fast becoming a popular concept around the world. The primary reason for installing an elevator air conditioner is the comfort that it provides while travelling in the elevator.... One of the many benefits of installing an elevator air con is the clean air that it provides.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's an interesting article that, unfortunately, is not sourced. The heating and cooling of an elevator car is, of necessity, different than one would find in a room that does not move. Perhaps some of this could be merged to the article about elevators or about air conditioners. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her Shortest Death[edit]

The prod on this article was removed by a serial deprodder. This film contains no references for verification and I am unable to find any through my searches. By virtue of that fact, the film also fails our notability guidelines as it hasn't been discussed significantly in reliable, third-party sources. Them From Space 03:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notibility, budget makes it suspect. Kurt (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable - Note that deprodder was not a valid editor - sock of banned editor doing block evasion, all actions are invalid and would have been reverted, meaning this would likely have been deleted without need for an AFD. DreamGuy (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the 4-1/2 minute film actually exists, the article seems to be a copyvio of this, and a search for "Ihr Tod Kürzeste" finds nothing to show notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grommetik[edit]

This article's prod was removed by a serial deprodder. The content appears to be nothing but plot summary of a minute detail of a novel which hasn't been covered enough by reliable, third-party sources to meet WP:N. As there is no real encyclopedic coverage to be merged anywhere (and no referenced material at all), this content should be deleted. Them From Space 02:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. This appears to be a fairly trivial character from the book, and is covered on that page. Wicked, however, is undeniably notable. At the very least it was a best selling book made into a Broadway play. eaolson (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Follow the pattern of minor characters in novels/movies. Kurt (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- and note that the serial deprodder has now officially been proven to have been a sock of banned serial deprodding/sock-using deletion disrupting editor WP:AZviz. PRobably would have been deleted from the prod if not for the invalid edit. DreamGuy (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis ambrose[edit]

No substantive sources are available. No sources appear to exist online to backup the claim that he represented New Zealand at an under-18 match in a World Cup in Israel. The sources I have found are [47], which lists him as a high jumper on page 91, and [48] which lists him in several sports in a Wellington regional competition. These are insufficient to establish notability. I could find none of the news articles claimed in the article in Google News. gadfium 02:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can find more Google hits under the name "Ambrose Curtis", but still nothing to indicate notability or substantiate the claims in the article.-gadfium 02:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 02:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone having a laugh. Not even a good hoax. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. (The high jump performance certainly doesn't indicate otherwise!). DerbyCountyinNZ 03:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete Someone just wants their own wikifacebook page. Fuzbaby (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I LOL'D(elete). JBsupreme (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious hoax that wasn't even a good one. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deleted. Flowerparty^☀ 08:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Advertising Guide[edit]

Article about a non-notable website created by a WP:SPA. Basically WP:ADVERTISING, but it does make unsubstantiated claims of notability. Author deleted WP:PROD notice with no explanation or attempts to improve the article. Pburka (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. There's no serious content here, other than claiming the author is an 'internet phenomenon". eaolson (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as db-spam per "internet phenomenon" and other puffery. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G11 blatant spam. - 2 ... says you, says me 04:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cranbrook (song)[edit]

Non-notable school song. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Off-key in regard to WP:NSONG. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. - 2 ... says you, says me 04:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Doon Shopping Centre[edit]

Prod removed by a serial deprodder. This shopping mall cannot be shown to be notable as significant coverage of it likely does not exist in reliable, third-party sources. Them From Space 02:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable shopping mall. - 2 ... says you, says me 04:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue I think it is more of a stub right now and depending on the actual size might be somewhat notable. Kurt (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except it isn't covered in non-trivial secondary sources. - 2 ... says you, says me 05:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This mall is notable and there are reliable third-party sources, even if they aren't readily Googleable. Over time, the article will improve and additional references will come; there's no deadline.--AuthorityTam (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, there is no deadline for an article to improve, but articles that do not meet the requirement of referencing non-trivial, third-party sources now are deleted until such sources can be added. Let's see what happens, if reliable coverage can be found before the end of the AfD discussion, I'm sure the article will survive. - 2 ... says you, says me 05:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If no sources can be found the article should be deleted per WP:V. We have no deadline but that isn't an excuse to leave material that goes against our core policies sit for another few years until someone else decides tackle the issue. We can't just leave unverified articles sitting around, especially when sources have been looked for. Even if the article was properly verified, it would still need to show what makes this particular shopping center notable, as Wikipedia isn't a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. I invite you to try and demonstrate its notability, and I will change my opinion if you do that, but until notability is shown through reliable sources I won't feel comfortable doing so. Them From Space 05:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat Keep. This was the first mall in Edmonton, and it still has over 100 stores. Are those facts awaiting verification? Notable just with that, with additional notable references likely to come. This is not some corner deli or new box store, but has impacted traffic patterns, environmental issues, taxation, and elections for decades. It seems that most of the argument for deletion is based on Googling and misconceptions about importance needed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess....you shop there. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, my reasoning is more along the lines of WP:Give an article a chance.
I've never been to Edmonton, and rarely set foot in any mall (ugh). I've no sentimental attachment to the subject of the article or the article's authorship. However... I've no doubt that five years from now, this article will exist despite what may happen in the meantime. Are you sure it won't exist? Wikipedia:NODEADLINE#View_two. --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having over 100 stores does not equal notability, notability is being referenced in non-trivial sources. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mere mentions don't make for notability. There is nothing significant about any coverage I saw. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but mere mentions, no non-trivial coverage at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely nonnotable - malls like this have to have something special about them to justify an article, and seeing nothing about this that isn't true of a metric quigillion of other malls also DreamGuy (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources, regretfully. I scoured a pretty good database for news articles and found nothing non-trivial. Is there another name this mall might be known as? --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no way at all this didn't have significant coverage when it first opened (50s?). A 100+ store mall, come on. The trivial references make it clear it isn't a hoax and WP:V is met. That the news articles aren't published on the web is no reason to delete. There is a bit [49], [50] and off-line in the Edmonton Journal August 19, 1959. Hobit (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources given are one line mentions, which still do not qualify as non-trivial coverage. - 2 ... says you, says me 01:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. One does point to the Edmonton Journal article and shows that there was coverage in the 50s. Sadly that paper only has a 10 year old archive (for a fee). Do you seriously harbor any doubt that the first mall in the area got significant coverage in the papers? Hobit (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying about print sources not being online - referencing a book, magazine, or newspaper article with no web based copy is quite normal, and if there's any doubt, the community typically assumes good faith. That assumption, however, only applies in cases where the print source is known to actually have been published, not when sources are speculated. I don't doubt at all that the shopping center in question might have been covered in a newspaper when it opened, the fact remains however, that an actual article or other acceptable non-trivial source needs referenced in order for the inclusion criteria to be met. Whether that source happens to be online, on a microfilm, or in a brick and mortar library archive is notwithstanding. - 2 ... says you, says me 03:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll disagree. Let me ask again, do you have any doubt there would have been significant coverage of the opening of a 100+ store mall in the 50s? If so, I can understand asking for deletion. But this is a case where it is darn obvious (to me) that significant coverage must have existed. As we can meet WP:V, I don't see a reason to delete what is (again to me) a topic that clear meets WP:N, we just can't find those detailed references. Hobit (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. Predicting what newspapers wrote about 50 years ago is pretty haphazard. I know in doing archival research I've sometimes sat down thinking I'd find piles of sources on a topic only to find a 2-sentence reference at best. Newspapers throughout history haven't always run articles about what they'd run nowadays. For example, we assume nowadays that the demolition of a 100-year-old building in an American city, that had been its tallest building for over two decades, would generate lots of newspaper coverage. But in the 1970s, people just didn't see such a move as particularly controversial, and in the case I'm talking about it only warranted a 2-sentence mention in a "business updates" section. And also, I know through experience that when a mall opened in the 1950s and 1960s, the builders would often buy pages of the local newspaper on opening day and run stories about all the technological marvels they'd put into the mall's construction. Clearly promotional in nature, these would be problematic as sources. So it's really best to see what sources we're actually working with before we assume they exist. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that there would have been some news coverage of its opening. I strongly disagree, however, with the claim that this somehow meets the standards for notability. The existence of articles mentioning the existence of a subject does not convey any sort of notability on to it. That's just trivia of only local concern, and, worse, outdated local concern. There needs to be something about the coverage that would indicate that the topic is noteworthy in some way. The standards Hobit is trying to use make no sense for an encyclopedia and specifically are not Wikipedia' standards. This is just wikilawyering. If you think it's notable, PROVE it via our standards, don't just assert that it must be and expect that to fly. DreamGuy (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The burden of proof for notability is for those who want to add or keep information in Wikipedia. You can't speculate that there "must have been" coverage at the time of its opening. WP:V doesn't work that way. -- Atama ^chat 16:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the links on the rescue tag do indeed provide some sites that can be considered reliable sources that would establish notability, including information relating to the mall's origin. I did find at least several of them, and one who is familiar with this place can add them. Sebwite (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see the significant coverage, the one line mentions found in Google Books do not count. WP:N and WP:V establish that Wikipedia has articles on subjects that are notable through non-trivial secondary sources, not subjects that might be notable based on speculated sources. Some of the discussion at this AfD has shown a misunderstanding of the referencing and notability policies. - 2 ... says you, says me 23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not show any cause for notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: per WP:MANYLINKS, 8 articles that are not lists link to this page within the article's text itself and not via a template or hatnote: King Edward Park, Edmonton, Bonnie Doon, Edmonton, Idylwylde, Edmonton, Strathearn, Edmonton, Holyrood, Edmonton, Southgate Centre, Kenilworth, Edmonton, Strathcona County Transit. Deleting this article would create red links in all these articles. Sebwite (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Menudo (homebrew)[edit]

Contested PROD. Non-notable future product. No reliable sources. Wperdue (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. WuhWuz Dat 02:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree this page is entirely pointles, it should just be deleted. I Feel Tired (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N.. South Bay (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Wikipedia is not a free webpage or Google foothold.
Delete yet again. JBsupreme (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to show notability bar a few forum and YouTube links. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. I note that this has been twice relisted by the nominator, but WP:RELIST discourages relisting in these circumstances. I cannot see that another week will bring any different arguments to the table. As always, a discussion on merging or redirecting can be opened on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Indymedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

In March, user:Thegroove nominated this article for deletion, see [51], observing that it "[f]ails our notability and reliable source [requirements], as almost all of the sources provided are self-published, and the ones that aren't don't say anything that indicates notability. Google News turns up nothing except a minor incident involving the seizure of a server." On the face of the article, that editor concluded, the subject organization evidently "has no claim to have done anything significant or noteworthy."

The nomination was well-taken, as I explained in comments supporting it, but consensus was not reached (a decision, good wikiquette obliges me to disclose, that I disputed, see [52]). The passage of time has only strengthened the case for deletion. Despite a college try by user:jezhotwells, see [53]), nothing added to the article since March has patched the holes in the article's hull that were discussed in the first nomination; if anything, more bulkheads have given way (one of the few independent sources cited has been flagged as a dead link, see [54]). I think it's time to reconsider.

Bristol Indymedia is not notable, and should be deleted. WP:ORG instructs that an organization "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject ... Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The article cites nothing reliable that, individually or in sum, shoulders that burden (indeed, it cites very little except Indymedia articles, the very antithesis of "independent of the subject"). A google search hardly suggests that underinclusive editing is to blame, which takes WP:SOFIXIT off the table as a remedy. See also WP:ATD.

A last-gasp alternative theory of notability argues that the authorities' 2005 seizure of the organization's server saves the article. As I explained in March, however, that dog won't hunt. Even assuming that the seizure itself is notable under WP:EVENT, the nominated article isn't about the seizure -- it's about the organization whose server was seized. WP:ORG is crystal clear on this point: an organization "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage" (emphases added). That isn't the case here. Bristol Indymedia isn't the "subject" of the Register's coverage of the seizure, for instance, see [55] - the seizure is. Participation or involvement in a notable event does not by itself bootstrap an organization into notability. (Even if it did, premising this article's survival on the notability of the seizure event gives rise to serious problems with WP:UNDUE.)

Finally, to the extent that there is anything salvageable in the article--i.e. notable and backed by reliable sources--the article should still be deleted, and that content merged into Independent Media Center, Bristol Indymedia's parent organization. That article already has a section on the server seizures. There is simply no need for local subsidiary, which is not notable in its own right, to have its own entry. That's why, for example, Scotland Indymedia and Portland Indymedia are redlinks. (But, I realize, see WP:WAX.)

It's high time we dropped the curtain on this article. I propose its deletion - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. all users who participated in the previous nomination have been notified of the relisting. Ordinarily, I would also notify the article creator and significant contributors, but in this instance, the only significant contributions to the article by a registered user are from user:jezhotwells who has been notified qua a participant in the previous AfD. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an improvement since the last AFD; one of the references (this page on the World Association for Christian Communication website) has some coverage. Other sources already existed in the article; the BBC reference has Bristol Indymedia as the main subject, although it is not on the main BBC News site and there isn't much content, and there is also the coverage of the server seizure controversy, which is mentioned in the main Indymedia article and was why I suggested a merge/redirect. Although it may just about meet the guidelines, much of the content doesn't appear to be notable and can be removed, and without secondary coverage, it is unclear whether the selection of incidents in the "Bristol Indymedia Ongoing" section accurately represents the organisation so it should probably be removed. The rest is either non-notable or similar enough to the main Indymedia article, so in my opinion a redirect, and possibly merge some of the content, would still be the most appropriate decision. snigbrook (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit to being dubious of the "WACC" article. Would a press release from Bristol Indymedia, posted on an independent website, even if stamped with the independent website's imprimatur, satisfy WP:ORG's requirement that sources establishing notability "must be ... independent of the subject"? (See also WP:Independent sources.) Doubtful. And for the following reasons, I think that's what we have here. The overall tone of the "article" posted at WACC seems much like a press release, and unlike every other contemporaneous "article" in WACC's archive, see [56], this one lacks a byline.

Where those points are merely suggestive, what really gives the game away is a telltale locution in paragraph 2. Having noted that the site tries to emphasize local voices, the article/press release anticipates an objection: "[a] critic might say that this would leave us as nothing more than an online version of a local paper; but we believe we are far from it." (Emphases added). "Us"? "We"? Something doesn't smell right here: Why would an article written by WACC about Bristol Indymedia refer to its subject in the first person? A source that was genuinely "independent of the subject" would refer to the subject in the third person - "[a] critic might say that this would leave them as nothing more than an online version of a local paper; but they believe that they are far from it." Yet this article obstinately (and, unless one rejects a priori the possibility that this article/press release was written by Bristol Indymedia, inexplicably) refers to its subject in the first person.

With all this in mind -- the tone, the aberrational absence of a byline, the otherwise inexplicable use of the first person to refer to the subject -- I find it highly unlikely that this article/press release is truly "independent of" Bristol Indymedia, regardless of where and under whose auspices it is posted. It seems to be a press release, or similar subject-generated material. It does not, therefore, at least in my view, substantially bolster the case for notability under WP:ORG- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it may have been copied from [57] although some changes have been made - so it was written by someone associated with Bristol Indymedia (the absence of byline may be because the writer doesn't want to use their real name). It appears to have been published as an article, not a press release, and it appears to be WACC's decision to publish it (probably they wanted something written from an Indymedia volunteer's perspective), so in some ways it is independent coverage and in others it is not. snigbrook (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good detective work. :) The changes appear to be trivial (the paragraph breaking is a little different, and the WACC version has a parenthetical to describe where Bristol is in the world), with one exception relevant here. WACC's reprint omits the first paragraph from the original, which frankly admits that the text was written--as a blog entry, no less! See WP:SPS--by "an Indymedia volunteer, a reader of the site and a writer on the site" in order to offer readers "a perspective from inside...." Given WP:ORG's requirement of the intellectual independence of material used to establish notability, this discovery seems seems to throw out the WACC source, unless the bare fact of WACC's decision to reprint adds some weight? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard that suggests sources such as this may be acceptable, although the discussion was in 2007 and the situation may have changed since then. The fact that the author is not named in the WACC version (and only uses a pseudonym on the blog) may be a problem. Whether it's an acceptable source for notability or not, I support a merge/redirect to Indymedia unless more sources are found for significant coverage. snigbrook (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (if there is anything left to merge) to Indymedia. Regretfully. (1) I agree with the outcome of the discussion above: that the WACC source is very borderline for the purposes of establishing notability, if at all. This is probably just an example of what can happen when the same person is active in two similar projects. (2) Another independent source would be the Venue (magazine) article, but that's just as bad, only in a different way. Since this kind of magazine tries to report everything interesting that is going on locally it's not really very suitable for establishing notability. And if you read the article you will see that it discusses Indymedia-like projects in general, followed by a brief history of Indymedia itself, with one small section each for London, Seattle, Washington and Bristol. If even the local events magazine frames Indymedia Bristol in this way, I don't think it can be used to establish independent notability of Indymedia Bristol. (3) The server seizure was notable, but not as widely reported as it should have been. It was just one event, and I think it makes most sense to see it as an attack on Indymedia in general, not specifically on Indymedia Bristol. So it makes most sense to discuss it at Indymedia, as is done already, where it can be put in the wider context including the similar event in the US. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BIMC is considered notable enough to be cited by author and journalist George Monbiot, Bristol communications company Montage Communications in its PR Blog, the BBC as a local news provider, the City Council as as useful forum for those who wish to recycle goods (citations added to article in new sub-section Media Comment). The local established corporate press does not cite Bristol Indymedia, even though often sourcing stories and copy from this and other open publishing and copyleft publications. Ironic really, as Wikimedia itself is often in the same position. So the only notable local media in Bristol are all owned by Northcliffe and subject to the dictats of a highly POV conglomerate. If the result is to delete, then the artcile should be merged into Indymedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cite by Monbiot doesn't have any information about Bristol Indymedia, so isn't useful as a source, what is needed is coverage (which can be a problem even with articles about local newspapers that are published by major companies). You mention about the Northcliffe publications, of the four in the Bristol media category two don't adequately assert notability and may be deleted if they are nominated. The comment that they are "subject to the dictats of a highly POV conglomerate" isn't relevant to this discussion, although if this is something that has been mentioned by reliable sources it may be appropriate to include it in the relevant article(s) - I don't think it's typical of newspaper publishers, as other newspaper companies (such as Johnston Press) don't appear to have any consistent POV. A merge of the Bristol Indymedia article into Indymedia is what I currently support, although it would effectively be a redirect as most of the information is already there. snigbrook (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Monbiot piece cites a post at Bristol Indymedia ("BI") in a footnote - and to support a non-essential example, at that. It's a trivial mention at best (see WP:ORG ("[t]rivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability")), and, even assuming that WP:SPS doesn't apply (Monbiot's site says it was published in the Grauniad, and we can assume that's truthful for present purposes), user:snigbrook is quite right: Monbiot's piece isn't about BI. It is completely irrelevant to the notability analysis.

Your claim that Bristol City Council's link to BI supports the latter's notability is, with all due respect, ludicrous. Reviewing the content of the page you ask us to believe supports notability, [58], the sum total of its coverage of BI is a link to Bristol Indymedia's site, without comment, and as one of five links for recycling in the city. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that that link makes BI "the subject of significant coverage"?

The red herrings having been duly swept off the table, what's left? A passing mention in [59], a blog post, see [60] and cf. WP:SPS ("self-published media, ... [including] blogs ... are largely not acceptable [sources for Wikipedia]"), a regional BBC item that all-but exemplifies the kind of coverage WP:ORG has in mind in excluding "trivial or incidental coverage," see [61], and a whole lot of self-published material. None of this, individually or collectively, shoulders the burden of demonstrating notability.

Your fondness for BI is apparent, but the bare facts that an organization exists and that "there are those who love it," Daniel Webster, argument in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, reprinted in 15 The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster 11 (1903), do not by themselves make it notable within Wikipedia's guidelines. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest that the blog [62], does suggest notabilty as the blogger(s) are a PR company in Bristol and thus should be considered knowledgeable about neews media in Bristol. The story shows how Bristol Indymedia has broken news stories that are later picked up by the establishment media. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I would rejoin that that argument suffers from two defects, either of which would be fatal. First, it's a blog - and blogs are expressly given as examples of WP:SPS. That policy isn't absolute, of course, and it offers two exceptions to its rule. Blog-sourced material is acceptable if it is (a) a legitimate newspaper that is publishing in the form of a blog, "so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control," or (b) when the author is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (emphases deleted). Might the square peg blog source you cite fit into either of those round holes? No.

Exception (a) doesn't apply because, as their "about" page confirms, the "PR Bristol" blog is not published by a newspaper, but by a PR company. Its writers are not professional journalists, and the blog is not subject to the editorial control of any newspaper.[63] Nor does exception (b) help. The subject of the article is Bristol Indymedia; it is hard to imagine what is involved in becoming "an established expert on" Bristol Indymedia, and there is no suggestion that "PR Bristol"'s authors have been "published by reliable third-party publications" on the subject of Bristol Indymedia or anything else.

So, to get the blog in, you'd have to argue for a new, unenumerated exception to WP:SPS, and/or, as WP:GAME reminds us, explain why the purpose of the policy is thwarted by inapposite wording. (WP:ILIKEIT, the basis of virtually every defense of the article advanced here so far, isn't an exception, either.)

Second, even if the blog is an acceptable source, it doesn't help your case. The girl in the blue shirt on the right is very cute, but that won't suffice. What other help does the post offer? It spends two paragraphs talking about BI. And that's appropriate, because BI is not the subject of the article! The subject of the article is the pollenating function of new media. BI is the given example used to make the point. Recall the purpose of the search: per WP:ORG, we're looking for sources that make the subject of our article "the subject of significant coverage" (emphases added). What is offered up? A source that may or may not be acceptable under WP:SPS and which in any event provides only indirect and limited coverage.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources seem just sufficient to show the site to be notable. In my opinion all of the well-established IMCs are notable as alternative press. We are normally fairly liberal in interpreting whether or not a news site is notable. I suggest that a less expansive article might be received here better. There is a tendency, which I well understand, to look at a very detailed article for something of perhaps questionably borderline notability, and judge it unfavorably, but that's really irrelevant equivalent to judging that an article should be deleted because of poor writing. DGG (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This says nothing to address the criterion of WP:ORG, or even WP:N for that matter. Can you offer any argument or evidence to support BI's notability more substantial than "[your] opinion [that] all of the well-established IMCs are notable"? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is now well-written, footnoted, and demonstrates coverage in multiple independent sources, so that satisfies the general notability guideline. Beyond the general guideline, it is beneficial for WP to have information on media outlets, particularly the more specialized ones, both for our readers wanting to see what's behind the news they read online and for our own internal purposes in determining how to weight sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming for sake of argument that the GNG (i.e. WP:N) is more liberal than WP:ORG, it isn't controlling here, WP:ORG is, and it is not satisfied, as I've explained above. (If the GNG overrode more specific guidelines, having subject-specific guidelines would be nugatory; see my 02:06, 4 February 2009 comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization_(2nd_nomination) (explaining that WP:N is "a safety net, not an escape hatch. That is, it exists to ensure that every article has an applicable notability guideline, not to override more specific and restrictive notability guidelines that might apply")).

It makes no odds, however, whether WP:N or WP:ORG is controlling: this article fails both. Despite your and Jeremy's protestations that the article "demonstrates coverage in multiple independent sources," that simply isn't true. As I noted above in surveying what coverage is cited (comment, 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)), the coverage in the cited sources is trivial or incidental. I've already addressed why it fails WP:ORG, but for sake of completeness, let us note that WP:N requires "Significant coverage," i.e. coverage that "is more than trivial[,] but may be less than exclusive," and that "address the subject directly in detail." This article fails to demonstrate that. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A few comments:

WP:N is controlling. The other notability guidelines are an either/or. It would be counterproductive to require articles about well-defined topics, such as movies, to pass a topic notability guideline in addition to N, while an article about a pencil eraser would be held to the lower standard of N. Besides, a media outlet is much more than just an organization because of its publishing activities; see the WP:NME essay. ORG was written to provide a notability framework for self-contained organizations such as social clubs and is not a good fit here.
Beyond the obvious utility of the article in covering a media outlet and any unanswered questions about the police raid, all that needs to be demonstrated is coverage in more than one independent secondary source. And while the coverage must be non-trivial ( i.e. a listing in the telephone book doesn't count ), it doesn't have to be just shy of exclusive to the article.
An article on a police raid on an organization is of course about the organization; so is an article about its founding or criticism of one of its publications. Otherwise would suggest that a subtopic of an article could be notable without the parent topic being notable.
At any rate, while many of the references in the article are primary sources from either Bristol Indymedia itself or similar organizations, or are brief mentions in secondary sources about some very specific aspect of the organziation, three of them do provide in-depth coverage.
The BBC article on the relaunch, the Register's article on the specifics of the seizure which was widely reported in the media, and the WACC article on the growth of the organization. I also expect there's coverage in Bristol-area newspapers that we haven't visited yet. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that WP:ORG is inapplicable, or that WP:N overrides it if it is. WP:ORG expressly applies to any "company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service." BI can be considered an organization with a product or an organization providing a service, but either way, it doubly fits the bill. On its own terms, it is a subset of a "movement" and a "project," which might even make it triply so if these qualify it as a "team." [64]. And you refute your own position when the linguistic difficulties inherent in denying that this organization is an organization poke embarassingly above the waves. To argue that "[a]n article on a police raid on an organization is of course 'about' the organization" is to twice concede that BI is an organization, which amply suffices to place it within WP:ORG's control.

You don't appear to dispute that if WP:ORG is controlling, this article fails, so I'll set that point aside. And I've already explained above (3:54, 20 June 2009), it actually doesn't matter whether WP:ORG or WP:N controls, since this article fails both: "WP:N requires 'Significant coverage,' i.e. coverage that 'is more than trivial[,] but may be less than exclusive,' and that 'address the subject directly in detail.' This article fails" to carry that burden.

I dispute that it is "obvious" that there is any utility of covering this "media" outfit. Please explain the precise utility of having a separate article for a non-notable minor regional subdivision of the Indymedia group that could not be achieved equally (or better, insofar as it would not require stretching WP's guidelines to include it) by a redirect to Indymedia?

Lastly, setting aside the utterly nonsensical claim that "[a]n article on a police raid on an organization is of course 'about' the organization," you appear troubled by the implication that "a subtopic of an article could be notable without the parent topic being notable." That's leading wording, but one sees the point. And on the point itself: So what? That seems commonplace. There is an article about Bono; there is an article about U2 in which Bono performs; there is not an article about Bono's parents. Indeed, WP:SBST expressly warns that "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability - particularly for individuals known for one event," and both WP:UNDUE and WP:EVENT, individually and cumulatively, make clear that just because you are involved in something that is notable, that does not justify coverage of you. It may justify coverage of the event. If there was no article about Indymedia more generally, perhaps the server seizure would justify an article about the server seizure. As it is, the event should be incorporated into the Indymedia article - to have entire article about an otherwise non-notable subdivision of the organization based purely on the event creates WP:UNDUE problems to the extent that the article says anything not directly related to the event providing the notability hook. And the appropriate level of coverage of the putatively notable event is already provided in Indymedia, making the deletion of this article is the appropriate response.

It would reflect poorly on this encyclopedia were it to be lead by the nose into retaining non-notable content by the gossamer WP:ILIKEIT justifications offered in this AFD.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is just about enough coverage in this discussion to meet the main notability guideline (which imo supersedes the other guidelines). Davewild (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Further citations from USA Today, Business Exchange, a subsidiary of McGraw-Hill, and Venue magazine, a subsidiary of Bristol News and Media added. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously mean to contend that [65], [66], and [67] support notability? Have you even read these links you're citing? What possible theory of WP:N or WP:ORG, or their animating purposes, would recognize this stupidity as a serious argument for notability?! The last one is even more preposterous than the City Council citation: you're going to claim that inclusion in a list of dozens of city links on the "Venue magazine student guide" makes this organization notable?

I'm sorely tempted to think that if someone notable followed them on twitter, you would cite that as evidence of their notability, Jeremy. What I cannot understand is why you think this kind of desperation helps rather than hurts your case. That you have to cobble such nonsense together demonstrates the absence of serious notability-establishing sources. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:19, 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, - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I see 4 keeps and a merge. Why is this thing still open? I'm supposed to read through all this discussion? Yikes. If it needs to be deleted I suggest renomming it in 6 months. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Simon Dodd: I am not sure who you are referring to when you mention "Jeremy"? Are you assuming that Jez refers to Jeremy?

Merge and redirect to Indymedia. I agree with the nominator that this is insufficiently notable to justify a separate article. However, it is verifiable that Bristol Indymedia exists and does exactly what it says on the tin, so WP:PRESERVE should apply.
In such cases, I'm persuaded by Uncle G's reasoning in User:Uncle G/On notability, and would refer you to that essay for very detailed arguments in support of this approach.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capt. George Bryan Houghton[edit]

The subject of this article was a U.S. Air Force pilot who was killed when his airplane crashed during a training mission. The crash is a tragedy, to be certain, but in regards to Wikipedia's notability standards, it doesn't appear the late pilot qualifies for coverage here. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ONEEVENT. Pburka (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tragic but still passed on one event. Also WP is not a memorial. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. - 2 ... says you, says me 04:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would wait for a few days before deleting it, to see if this has any lasting effect. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BIO and WP:NOT. This is a tragic incident, however the subject does not meet the notability quidelines, nor is Wikipedia a memorial or news site. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Dream Team characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Bandele[edit]

The prod of this article was removed by a serial deprodder, but I find the original prodder's concern, which follows, to be valid.

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:
2009 June 24 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability Them From Space 01:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notibility and is written in-universe fan fictionish. I don't think it could be sourced either. Kurt (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable, even if what is said is true and can be proven via reliable sources this wouldn't be notable enough for an article per WP:NOT - Note that deprodder was not a valid editor - sock of banned editor doing block evasion, all actions are invalid and would have been reverted, meaning this would likely have been deleted without need for an AFD. DreamGuy (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to suitable combination articles with about a paragraph each, midway between this over-detailed article, and the bare list at Dream Team characters. There's a compromise solution to this. I gather that this is a major series, and therefore people would reasonably look for information about the significant characters. Such information is appropriate for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. As for whoever deprodded it, I think most reasonable admins would have merged, not deleted, at the end of the relevant period. DGG (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per reasonable WP:ATD comments by DGG. Put suitabe informations where readers would expect to find it. However, the derogatory term "serial deprodder" is not neccessary or helpful to this discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fallouts[edit]

Prod was removed by a serial deprodder. This article fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC as there aren't any reliable sources found to give evidence of the encyclopedic importance of the band. Their two albums barely register within google, which would be the most likely place to find information about small bands. Them From Space 01:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't even an assertion of notability, and I couldn't find significant coverage of them in reliable independent sources, therefore WP:NOTE criteria have not been met. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable, fails WP:MUSIC - Note that deprodder was not a valid editor - sock of banned editor doing block evasion, all actions are invalid and would have been reverted, meaning this would likely have been deleted without need for an AFD. DreamGuy (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria, would technically be eligible for an A7 as well, I'd say. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disc2day[edit]

Non-notable disc replication company. Reads like an advert. Tempshill (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete If phrases like "Disc2day takes pride in being one of the most efficient and effective facilities in the digital media world" don't qualify as blatant spam, I'm not sure what does. Fifty dollars says this is also a copyright violation. - 2 ... says you, says me 04:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've declined the spam speedy, and taken out that line. If you can find the coyvio it's violating (and I suspect yuo're right) re-tag. Thanks. Ged UK 08:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even wthout that line, it's still blatant advertising. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was WP:SNOWBALL Delete --JForget 00:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slag best enemies[edit]

Slag: Best Enemies fails to meet notability under WP:NFF: future film "in production" with no particular notability to details of production. Closeapple (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Film-related deletions and Australia-related deletions.

—Closeapple (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nomination. Old version was WP:CSD#G12; current version's WP:PROD contested. Not only fails notability under WP:NFF, but no evidence it will meet notability under WP:FILM even when finished, so not even an "almost". --Closeapple (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to exist per gsearch and apparently is due out soon, but seems to be a very minor film; would suggest a rd if there was an obvious target since it does seem to be forthcoming. Userfy? JJL (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy delete. G11. Merely being real and coming out doesn't make a film notable. Was revived by an account matching the filmmakers name and has been beefed up by a WP:SPA. Changing my vote to speedy because of self-promotion of the soon to be released film. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G11 covers namespace. It's A7 that covers film, and A7 specifically disallows speedying a film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not even wrong: "G" stands for "General", as in EVERY page, be it article, talk, Wikipedia, Template, or any other page type as yet conceived. To repeat, if a page -- ANY page -- meets CSD "General" criteria, such as being pure spam, it can be speedied. Period/full stop. --Calton | Talk 14:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Wrong. A7 is the applicable speedy. Go to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion if you disagree, but the "A" in A7 stands for "Article" and CSD:A7 specificallay addresses film and media. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check for Michael: spam -- for whatever product or service in whatever media -- applies to every page, regardless of your attempts to carve out special exemptions. Film spam is no different from any other spam. To repeat, if a page -- ANY page -- meets CSD "General" criteria, such as being pure spam, it can be speedied. Period/full stop. So, again, not even wrong. --Calton | Talk 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not properly clear. Yes, G11 would apply if it were blatant SPAM, which this particular article currently is not... which is why A7 instructs it being sent to AfD. Here we determine that it is a poorly sourced article that fails WP:NFF. That's reason enough to allow it to be deleted and perhaps userfied until it can (if ever) meet WP:NF. And thank you for the good faith. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete/Procedural speedy prod delete - The prod had been on the article for the required length of time for deletion, but it was deprodded by a sockpuppet of a banned editor shortly before the prod would have expired and right before the sockpuppet investigation caught up with him. If this hadn't been listed for AFD the deprod would have been reverted (edits of block evasion banned editors are not valid -- I'm doing clean up after the sock right now) and the article would already be deleted by now. DreamGuy (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and allow return once film is completed and if if can meet WP:GNG or WP:NF. Note Film articles are generally not fodder for CSD. That's why we have AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are if they meet CSD criteria, such as being pure spam. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. Take a look at CSD:A7. An article about a film that makes an assertion of notability, even if not sourced, must go to AfD and not be speedied. It is at AfD where the deletion decision is to be made. And while I agree that it should be currently be deleted, an allegation of SPAM is something that could be corrected with proper editing per WP:CLEANUP if sources were available. I have myself un-SPAMMED articles when possible. Just takes a little work. The CSD for SPAM is G11, and G11 is for namespaces, not articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not even wrong: "G" stands for "General", as in EVERY page, be it article, talk, Wikipedia, Template, or any other page type as yet conceived. To repeat, if a page -- ANY page -- meets CSD "General" criteria, such as being pure spam, it can be speedied. Period/full stop. Perhaps you yourself should read the criteria before making claims. --Calton | Talk 14:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Quite wrong. Go to RfC or SpeedyTalk if you disagree, but the "A" in A7 stands for "Article" and CSD:A7 specificallay addresses film and media. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calton is correct. Articles on films or media can be deleted under any of the G* criteria (provided they meet the definition, of course). A7 does not apply (because it does not cover films, although you might be able to spin YouTube films and the like as "web content"), but that doesn't mean it can't be deleted under, say, CSD G12. Any interpretation of the criteria that only the A-series of criteria apply to articles would be a highly unorthodox one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I should add that in this case, none of the speedy criteria apply, so the nominator was indeed correct to bring it here for a further look, rather than slapping a speedy tag on it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, my fault for not being clearer. I did not intend to indicate that "ONLY" A7 applied... just that in the particular case I felt that G11 did not. It certainly fails WP:NFF and I fully agree that a deletion best serves the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your clear implication was that films were somehow exempt from other speedy criteria, and, as I matter of fact, I'd say this particular one falls squarely under G11. --Calton | Talk 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not properly clear. Yes, G11 would apply if it were blatant SPAM, which it currently is not... which is why A7 instructs it being sent to AfD. Here we determine that it is a poorly sourced article that fails WP:NFF. That's reason enough to allow it to be deleted and perhaps userfied until it can (if ever) meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom, per being predictive, and per being advertising. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALL article on Wikipedia "advertise" their subjects and attempt to be as informative as possible. The one in question is not a solicitation, and is now written exactly as all film articles... with a clear lede, a plot section, and a cast section. It is a bit boring actually. I certainly agree it should be currently be deleted, but under the relevent guideline of WP:NFF. Its a pity that a new article contains format and style mistakes. But when possible, these should be addressed through editing, The nom was correct to send it to AfD. The current cleaned-up version might then be userfied to either auther User:Scottherford or major contributor User:Mrpink1988 so that it might be returned once WP:NF can be properly met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redfining "advertise" to rob it of all definitional and distinctive value may be convenient for your argument de jure, but it doesn't help anyone intending to use English as a useful medium of communication. I'd like to see you float that particular eccentric definition at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and see how long it lasts. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In careful reading of WP:SPAM, I see no advert in this article. It is short, encyclopedic, and an attempt by a new editor to write an article on a film by following the format for such as set by MOS. His article is premature and properly fails WP:NFF. It will doubtless be deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails Nff. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not speedy, but per WP:NFF. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UNSW Atheist Society[edit]

a non notable student organisation, failing WP:ORG. no real third party coverage [68]. google search mainly shows mirror sites and directory listings. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The University of New South Wales has 44,581 students; a student organization at that university that claims (by the article's own flattering light) one half of one percent of those students is not notable. The article cites nothing of consequence to establish notability, so should be deleted. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Simon Dodd. Pretty clear case. tedder (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ^^^. JBsupreme (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable student society, no significant third-party coverage that I could find. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The result was merge to Nine Inch Nails. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strobe Light (album)[edit]

Fictional album, meant as an April Fool's Joke by Trent Reznor/Nine Inch Nails. Notability is not transferable. No third-party sources available, only the single fake NIN web page. Even then, coverage of the album was limited to nin.com to only one day (April Fools day). Drewcifer (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the artist's page. Seems to be allowable per WP:NNC, no reason to remove it just because it may not meet independent notability criteria. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though in the 20+ years NIN has been active, being among the most influential acts in the 90s and one of the most influential musical business-models today, does a one-day April Fools prank even deserve a mention? It's barely a blip on the Nine Inch Nails radar. Drewcifer (talk) 02:15, 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 01:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into artist per Jclemens. I think it is definitely not it's own page, isn't there a master online april fool's day page for the year? Merge it into the artist and then let the editors there handle it. I'm not an expert on NiN Kurt (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Dodson[edit]

Possible violation of WP:BLP1E. Dodson appears to be notable solely for his arrest, and for not complying with authorities. (And also for complaining about the conditions of his jail) Aditya ^α _ß 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable protestor who fails WP:BIO Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst I agree that Sam is not noticeable in himself, his actions are, so if deleted, the content of this article should be added to Free State Project#Civil disobedience, or similar. --bjwebb (talk) 15:28, 23 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 01:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not WP:BEBOLD and do it yourself? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a nn protester; the merge suggested by bjwebb appears to have been completed. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has no rationale any longer in the light of above proposed merger--AssegaiAli (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the Love of Ray J (season 2)[edit]

This article about a planned second season of an existing reality television show contains no substantial information beyond links to a casting call. It is basically pure advertisement and should be deleted as such until a verifiable airdate is published by a reliable source, at which point, it could be re-created. Plastikspork (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: See Real Chance of Love (season 2) which is also up for deletion. Plastikspork (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the contestants are announced. JaimeAnnaMoore (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF (while NFF is for films, it applies just as well to TV shows). -- Atama ^chat 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not exist yet, and we are not a crystal ball. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note See The Entertainer of Love which is also up for deletion. Plastikspork (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a page for both seasons for now and when the show will air you'll just have to unredirect.--Whadaheck (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to For the Love of Ray J for now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of mayors of Brampton per WP:BLP. If someone wants to source this article, it can be restored. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Robertson (politician)[edit]

Non-notable person. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 01:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mayor of Brampton, Ontario is enough of a notability assertion to keep the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - WP:POLITICIAN states that Mayors 'are likely to meet this criterion', and Brampton is a city of nearly half a million. That said, a brief google doesn't turn up a huge number of hits for media. So keep, but let's try to find some sources and notable things in his 8 year term. --Saalstin (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I notice that Saalstin omitted the rest of WP:POLITICIAN that states that mayors are likely to meet the criteria but only if there is significant coverage of them. With that said, a Gnews search of "peter robertson"+brampton comes up with so many hits I think he has to meet the criteria. Most of those hits are the Brampton Guardian and Brampton News but there are other sources like the Boston Globe, so I'm tentatively suggesting a keep. -- Atama ^chat 20:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability rules for mayors also state that the article has to be more substantial than just "Person is the current mayor of city. Stub notice, categories." A mayor of a major city is likely to be notable, but doesn't get to claim inherent notability just because they're a mayor — references need to be present to support at least a bit of actual detail about the person and their term as mayor. Accordingly, this is a potential keep if it's improved, but it isn't entitled to stick around in its current state. Keep if expanded, but redirect to List of mayors of Brampton if it's still in its current state at closing. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UC Berkeley-UCSF Joint Medical Program[edit]

Non-notable academic program between two universities; no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources; Wikipedia is not a directory of academic programs and requirements Madcoverboy (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given all the barely noteworthy academic departments, faculties and remote campuses that that have their own entries, I'm surprised to see a medical program from two top US Schools up for deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't inherited. I'd be more than happy to review any of the allegedly non-notable entities you mentioned for AFD. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability isn't inherited" is a slogan which does not apply here. Which school a program is at is irrelevant to its notability? That doesn't make sense. Berkeley and UCSF have medical programs consistently ranked in the top 10 in the US, often in the top 5. Hairhorn (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the one who wrote the original article. Thank you for starting a discussion about my page! It's true that both UCSF's medical school and UC Berkeley's school of public health are consistently ranked in the top 10 (UCSF is currently 5th in both research and primary care rankings by US News and World Report), and given that graduates of the JMP receive an MD from UCSF and an MS from Berkeley, the prestige isn't even really inherited--it's immediate. And anyway, on the Category:Schools of medicine in the United States page there are eight medical schools of varying prestige listed, so it seems that notoriety is a variable standard to hold Wiki pages to. The UC Berkeley-UCSF Joint Medical Program page is indeed specific to a program that has only 16 students per year, but it is more than an academic department--it is a model for medical education using case-based small-group learning that has been integrated as a fundamental part of the curriculum at Harvard, UCSF, Cornell, and many other of the top medical schools in the country. There isn't a lot of material online about the program, although here are a few mentions of the JMP on some random web pages: [69], [70], [71], [72]. Anyway, perhaps I didn't do enough to explain just how influential the JMP has been in setting an example as an alternative model to medical education, so I can go back and edit the page a bit. I appreciate the discussion, and I look forward to hearing back from you. Thanks! MrHatHat (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Merge into one of the parent university's articles, or delete because it is not verifiable with reliable secondary sources, and as such, notability cannot be established. Click23 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See the writer's explanation above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:18, 23 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 00:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, and even if it wasn't it's a reasonable way to handle something that doesn't easily fit at either school's article. JJL (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of those rare cases where, given the unique factor and the notability of the two orgs, you could argue that notability is inherited and also apply IAR. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SpacemanSpiff's argument. It can't be merged into one school or the other, and the content cannot be duplicated into both.

The result was redirect to North American Football League. As there is clearly no substantial coverage of this team, a redirect to the league's article appears to be the consensus. ~ mazca ^talk 08:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cottage Grove Gryphons[edit]

Non-professional, minor league team that plays at a high school stadium Passportguy (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to league article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to be found. Plus, I live in Portland and I've never heard of the team at all. Steven Walling (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I created the article.) Team is new in an established nationwide league. Agreed that sources are scant so far, but other teams in this league do receive independent press coverage once established. (P.S. to Steven: Hey, when did anything in Cottage Grove (besides Animal House) get covered in Portland? ;-) --Esprqii (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "I've heard of it" is a questionable argument, but Esprqii, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. If it gets coverage, recreate the article. If not, let Cottage Grove Gryphons be a redirect to the league. Now might be a good time to save off the content to your userspace! tedder (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on the Cottage Grove clip Esprqii :) Are there any sources, reliable or not, to be found on the team? Steven Walling (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to leagues article for now.--Giants27 (t|c) 01:46, 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 00:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per reason given above. Manning (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to North American Football League. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Raiders[edit]

A "team for students to refine, develop, and showcase their talents and earn a chance to be recognized for college sponsorships or professional teams." (quote from team website) - non-notable Passportguy (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I live in Portland, and I've never heard of this team. A Google News search didn't turn up any reliable source material. Steven Walling (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Teams in an amateur league (the North American Football League) are not inherently notable, and no independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I created the article.) Team is new in an established nationwide league. Agreed that sources are scant so far, but other teams in this league do receive independent press coverage once established. --Esprqii (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Great. if and when they do, you can always re-add the article. However at the moment that is still speculation, and we can't take the fact that they may become notable as an euqivalent to existing notability. Passportguy (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to leagues article for now.--Giants27 (t|c) 01:49, 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 00:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to leagues article per User:Giants27--AuthorityTam (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Giants27. Rlendog (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chore chart[edit]

The article is not in wikipedia format and has no encyclopaedic importance at all. Also it is written like a guide. Irunongames • play 10:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Needs to be rewritten to be more encyclopedic (pragraphs rather than to do lists), but the sources do cover this subject substantially (establishing notability). ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term itself is nothing more than a dictionary definition. The rest is a how-to guide for child raising. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The introduction is a long-winded dictionary definition. The remainder is an unsourced series of opinions about what tasks are suitable to give children of different ages. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article needs nothing more than a more encyclopedic rounding, such as can be sourced from any of several references; it's obvious such references exist. Perhaps two months ago (early spring 2009), Money (magazine) had an article recommending age-appropriate chores. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up per ChildofMidnight. This is a valid topic which only needs references to make the article look good. Yoninah (talk) 20:18, 23 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 00:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or vastly rewrite, it's written like a guide to a form of parenting which is completely subjective. If the topic is to stay, the lists of "chores for children aged 3 to 5" and so forth should go, but I'd give more weight to deleting than keeping. It's the kind of thing that'd fit better into a Wikibook or Wikia project. Esteffect (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An AfD discussion is to judge the merit of the subject of the article, and whether or not it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. It's not a judgement of how well-written an article is, that is a different process. It's clear that there is potential for this article even if there is a lot of work to be done, and the deletion nomination justification has only complained about the current state of the article. -- Atama ^chat 21:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel it is worth noting that I believe, per my delete vote, that both the state of the article and the topic itself should be removed; I do not believe a method of parenting is an encylopedic topic. Esteffect (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Esteffect, the topic is not encyclopaedic. An article discussing research about different parenting styles would be encyclopaedic, but how-tos and advice articles like this never can be, no matter how well written they are. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems a valid and notable subject, just needs a cleanup.Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7 by Closedmouth Thryduulf (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Bataille (wargame)[edit]

Google search doesn't really turn up the reported '34 years of history'. No reliable sources to confirm. Other than that, looks like an advertisement. Wikipedia is not free ad space. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. A CSR award seems like sufficient notability in the boardgame world, since it's equivalent of the Oscars, and no one would dream of deleting an Oscar-winning actor article! Google is not a good research method, most of the games in the series predate the Internet. Just a quick peek in Jon Freeman's The Complete Book of Wargames from 1980 yields a half-page of discussion on the Auerstadt game, and boardgamegeek cites additional print sources for each game in the series. The article could be saying a lot more and saying it better. Stan (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn — Jack Merridew 04:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of Arms[edit]

Hints of notability, but all a google search comes up is with places to buy the game, this wikipedia page, and the page fore the game's official website. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winners of Origins Awards are generally considered notable. I've cited the appropriate pages for the two awards mentioned in the article. Article could easily be expanded with further discussion of their line (which I admit I'm only passingly familiar with). --Rindis (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think the two Origins awards are enough. That said, expanding the article by describing the two games and redirecting them to here would be a good way to add more here. Hobit (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning a notable industry award twice is clear evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Same as said before, withdrawn, based on the fact of notable awards cited.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy May[edit]

Procedural nomination; I personally am neutral on this matter. See User talk:NuclearWarfare#Jason Pierce and Jeremy May Deletion

The creator of this article wishes to see this deleted. The reason he gave me was, "Jeremy May's article should be deleted because he also shows no notability other than being on The Ultimate Fighter. The other thing about May is, he doesn't even compete in mixed martial arts any more. He has not fought for any big promotions and holds no titles." NW (Talk) 00:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He hasn't had a stellar career and seems to lose a lot, but he has fought professionally with notable promotions, so he passes WP:ATHLETE. His appearence on The Ultimate Fighter just adds to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he does appear to be notable, I have added reliable sources to the article. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, How is this guy notable at all? He was on a reality television show and didn't make it far at all. He hasn't fought anyone notable and hasn't even fought for a decent size promotion. His record is 5-6 and he gave up fighting after his last fight which was a loss. 68.188.29.77 (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: The standard isn't that they be good or that they fight only notable fighters. I know the MMA project has some discussion going on about notability standards for the emerging sport, but until then, WP:ATHLETE applies and he makes it under that. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, You throw that around when it is only used for sports such as football, baseball, basketball, tennis and hockey. May is in one way notable and that is from being on a reality show.

Keep per User:Niteshift36--AuthorityTam (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, references added by A new name 2008 are reliable and verifiable. Rirunmot (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, completly non-notable as a mixed martial artist. WP:ATHLETE only works for major sports such as the NFL or MLB, and only partially for boxing. There is no functional amateur status in MMA (most states doesn't even have it, and in the ones that do it's mostly used as an excuse not to pay fighters) so everyone is technically professionals. Going by his record and what I know about the guy he is a complete nobody and that he gets a page because of WP:ATHLETE is idiotic. --aktsu ^(t / c) 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that WP:ATHLETE only works for major sports leagues is either a mistake or evidence that you didn't read the guideline. I'll let you decide which one. 1)"People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis". 2) "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". There is absolute proof that that your assertion that it is only workable for NFL et al. is wrong. Further, just because someone disagrees civilly, I don't think we need to start calling their opinion "idiotic". Niteshift36 (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that the professional/amateur distinction doesn't work in MMA as it does in other sports, and as seen above too many people only looks at ATHLETE and says "Hey! This guy is a professional in his sport, lets keep it" because that's how they think it works. As you point out the actual wording of ATHLETE isn't actually so bad becasue of the "equivalent standing"-line, but the actual application of it when it comes to MMA is amazingly uninformed across the board . There is nothing about the guy which makes him come close to being at the level described by ATHLETE. He is just some dude fighting MMA who happenes to have "professional" on his license because that's how the athletic comissions operate. The other argument of your keep, fighting in notable promotions, is flat out wrong (please name one) so I hope you can see where I get the impression your and other people's stance amount to "professional = notable". --aktsu ^(t / c) 07:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Athlete is a guideline and does not have to be adhered to in every case as if it were a policy. That's assuming May was notable per that guideline. He's fought in a number of matches in regional, non-notable, promotions. There is nothing in his record or in ring actions that differentiate him from the thousands of other fighters in similar local matches and promotions. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has not had any professional fights with a major organization. His entire professional record is the equivalent of playing in a single A baseball league. Not at all notable as a mixed martial artist. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Even if we take WP:ATHLETE as gospel (which I think is done a little too much), he still doesn't qualify. None of the organizations Jeremy May has competed in are of equivalent standing to a fully professional sports league. And I'm pretty sure its been decided that reality show appearances do not notability confer. However, the first source in the article comes awfully close to being a substantive third party reliable source, so the delete is weak. gnfnrf (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally find it very hard to give any weight to some random "Central Florida" news channel reporting on "their guy" getting eliminated on the show while calling the sport "ultimate fighting". --aktsu ^(t / c) 07:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Not seeing anything here that meets our rules. Not seeing how he allegedly meets WP:ATHLETE standards. Would need multiple independent reliable sources in non-trivial mentions explaining why the person should be thought of us notable. One maybe reliable independent source isn't enough. DreamGuy (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: United States vs. United Kingdom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Pierce (fighter)[edit]

Procedural nomination; I personally am neutral on this matter. See User talk:NuclearWarfare#Jason Pierce and Jeremy May Deletion

The creator of this article wishes to see this deleted. The reason he gave me was, "First I'll tell you the Jason Pierce page does get a lot of edits but they are always considered vandalism. Most people will put small things in calling Jason names or creating unknown and/or unneeded info. Jason shows no notability other than being on The Ultimate Fighter where he was pulled from competing because of an illness. TreyGeek and myself both agree that the page be deleted." NW (Talk) 00:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article includes several references and that this fighter regularly appears on a TV show, notability seems to be established. If the article is being vandalised, protect it rather than delete the article. 174.152.208.81 (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being on television does not give you notability. Neither have fought for big promotions, neither got far doing the t.v. show. Jeremy May has a horrible record and actual gave up fighting after his last fight (a loss). Jason has also gave up fighting and is now focusing on his coaching career in soccer. Justastud15 (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NOTAVOTE, could you please express a reason for your statement? If not, your opinion may be discounted by the closing administrator. NW (Talk) 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stating the obvious, but I already understand that my unsubstantiated opinion isn't a vote. I'd have probably substantiated a Keep or a Strong Keep, but a Weak Keep doesn't merit much. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I don't see notability outside of his appearance on the reality show. A stand alone article is probably not needed. However It might not be a bad idea to redirect to the TV show.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cube lurker. Non-notable as a mixed martial artist. --aktsu ^(t / c) 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, basically one event--AssegaiAli (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ustad Ranbir Singh[edit]

The article was previously deleted, is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. Hekerui (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, perhaps not speediable, but still nothing in terms of reliable source coverage or reviews. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:08, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Deleting recreated material actually can be done through CSD, but that's beside the point. I can't find anything substantial on him, he has less than 400 Ghits, nothing in news, nothing in any reliable sources that show notability. -- Atama ^chat 20:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The CDS was requested and denied with "speedy deleted articles are ineligible for G4" Hekerui (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Conway[edit]

Only 2 hits that don't help at Google archives, and nothing asserted that suggests this writer and illustrator will clear the hurdle at WP:AUTHOR. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, and I found nothing that approaches significant coverage in reliable independent sources, so no proof of notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any significant coverage either. Also, when it says she illustrated a "number of other books" that number seems to be 3, as far as I can tell from my searching. -- Atama ^chat 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to copyright infringement. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate music[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable "style" of music. Ridernyc (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following was added to the debate by the article creator who also blanked most of the page when adding this so I now have to try to restore everything.:

""Pirate Music" created by the Sprague Brothers in 1990 and debuted at the Palomino Club in North Hollywood, California in 1990. Also on the bill that night was Strawberry Alarm Clock. The debut concert was heralded by KROQ and received rave reviews. The style is an all-new instrumental style of rock'n'roll and should not be confused with Surf Music. Many new and innovative techniques were developed for the playing of "Pirate Music" by World renowned guitarist Frank Lee Sprague, leader of the Sprague Brothers. The Sprague Brothers also wrote a novel to accompany their new style of rock'n'roll with the same name "Pirate Music". Over 25 full length albums of songs in the "Pirate Music" style exist by the Sprague Brothers and they continue to write and perform this innovative new style of music. They appeared on the TV show "Art Fein's Poker Party" throughout the '90's performing the new rock'n'roll style, and there is a website dedicated to the history of their new style of music: [73] The songs titles are based on actual events in the Golden Age of Piracy, and they are program-music so each piece reflects the story behind each title."

Are you actually going to put out a reason to delete the article, or do you just not like it? Ω (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable would be the reason as stated in the argument presented. Mind explaining why you keep showing up in AFD makeing strange accusations? Ridernyc (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~music piracy~~ Copyright infringement (to avoid a double redirect). I can't find any evidence that this style of music is notable, but the title is a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 23 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, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Thryduulf though it's not a very plausible search term--I could live with a delete just as easily. The "style of music" is entirely non-notable. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Thryduulf. JIP | Talk 07:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Broersma[edit]

This is an autobiography, based on the creator's username. There doesn't appear to be enough independent media coverage of the subject to merit an article. Dominic·t 12:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also note that another user has been removing the AfD tags, once with the comment "Leave my article be and mind your own business" [74] (even though their first edits were to remove the AfD tag so it can't be WP:OWN), which suggests there may sock puppets making disruptive edits and could be worth extra investigation. All that said the Paul Gravett link looks to be a useful one and it might have been in their interest to add more like that. If this does get deleted then it might be possible to recreate this later one when more reliable sources come to light (just let a neutral editor start it). (Emperor (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 02:46, 21 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) 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: subject is not notable. Drmies (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Music Awards[edit]

Non-notable, non-sourced, frivolous article created by a indef-blocked sockpuppet. Article was then given an AfD template by User:Ryosh, but never properly completed. Adding the template was Ryosh's only edit, which is kinda weird, but I happen to agree with it. This is a nonsense article created by a disruptive user with many accounts. Suggest deletion. - eo (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a teen choice awards, but this isn't it. --I dream of horses (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. and this article certainly doesn't state where these all came from. I'm thinking its the puppeteer's "personal" awards. - eo (talk) 17:54, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No actual assertion of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only a list, no references, which doesn't help with notability. Vltava 68 04:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Keep. Plastikspork (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real Chance of Love (season 2)[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: See For the Love of Ray J (season 2) which is also up for deletion. Plastikspork (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the contestants are announced.JaimeAnnaMoore (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF (while NFF is for films, it applies just as well to TV shows). -- Atama ^chat 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note See The Entertainer of Love which is also up for deletion. Plastikspork (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a page for both seasons for now and when the show will air you'll just have to unredirect.--Whadaheck (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cast list was just announced on Vh1 Blog. Jamesbuc (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I say keep too.

Keep, the cast and airdate have been announced on the VH1 Blog. See [75] Nikki♥311 21:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close: Now that a cast list has been released, I am happy to withdraw the AFD and have this closed as keep. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say keep it as well, because there is an air date and verifiable cast list. WikiMaster500 (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Kairos society[edit]

Delete fails WP:ORG, no significant coverage in reliable sources; sourced to its website and youtube. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have read a lot about this non-profit organization in the news and have heard a lot about it on campus. I did some research and filled the article with the appropriate references to credible sources. Please see updated page. Hope this helps!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.16.57 (talk • contribs)

Comment - Deletion? Are you kidding me? Kairos Society is a premier student entrepreneurship organization, they definitely deserve to have an article on wikipedia!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.48.248.18 (talk • contribs)

Comment - There are several credible sources which reference this article - including CNN. If the content is notable enough for CNN, it merits a wikiedia entry.
Delete - This article has an impressive number of unreliable sources in it. Among the few reliable ones (including CNN) coverage was insignificant. A great effort to show notability that has failed. Keep in mind this is a discussion, not a vote, and you have to come up with an explanation as to why it meets WP:N or WP:ORG. Having a representative from the society briefly interviewed on CNN doesn't suffice. -- Atama ^chat 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keep - I don't really understand what the concern is here. The Kairos Society is well known and well respected amongst the business circles as the leading international network of collegiate entrepreneurs. The rules of Wikipedia under Notability for organizations says that the following types of groups can be included:

an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, educational institutions, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, organizations, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc.

The Kairos Society is a non-profit educational organization and therefore fits that criteria.

The rules for notability state that: Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

As referenced in the article and on their website (www.kairossociety.com -- go to videos) there are VIDEOS of highly credible leaders such as President Clinton and Bill Gates Sr (co-chair of the Gates Foundation) talking about the importance of the Kairos Society in the field of global entrepreneurship. Then in the later reference, their are videos and quotes from other highly credible leaders including Ellen Kullman (CEO DuPont) and Admiral William Owens (Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) also noting the importance of the Kairos Society. It would seem to me that credible sources like these discussing the importance of this organization establish notability.

Finally, the rules say for non-commercial orgs are:
1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources.

In this case the Kairos Society is a parent group with chapters in the United States and China as referenced in multiple articles and the videos. The information is verified in news media ranging from Silicon India to CNN to ABC's show "The Rise to the Top" to Nationally Distributed University Newspapers.
Based on all this it seems clear to me that the Kairos Society meets Wiki's criteria and should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.185.41 (talk • contribs)
- Reply - It is obvious that there is a campaign going on, possibly from Kairos itself but possibly not, to have defenders come to Wikipedia to argue for this article to be kept. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encylopedia to share important knowledge, not a place to get the word out about a group. We have policies in place governing article inclusion, which state that an article must be shown to be notable with significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Surely if what you claim is true someone can do that. You cannot argue that Kairos is notable because its web site says so, and bringing in a bunch of people saying "please keep this article" isn't going to be effective, this is not a vote. Other established editors may disagree with me, and that is all well and good, hopefully there will be more who can contribute to the discussion. -- Atama ^chat 17:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Atama, thanks for taking the time to make sure Wikipedia stays true to its principles. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and when I came accross the Kairos Society article being considered for deletion felt it important to add my support, leading to my posting the first comment and adding some sources to the article (Please note that I have no affiliation with this group). I have become familiar with the Kairos Society recently through a series of videos sent to me of CEOs that have talked about Kairos and also through endorsement emails from my university of this international NGO. I've seen quite a few impressive videos where 3rd party, independent leaders are talking about the importance of Kairos, but am unsure how you would recommmend referencing these sources since many of the videos are hosted directly on the Kairos Website. I have posted a few sources below of the videos and various news sources that I have found which I believe shows the notability of this organization. I truly believe that the work this non-profit is doing is important to our world economy and certainly meets Wikipedia's standards. I look forward to your thoughts!
*Article in this month's Silicon India (a highly circulated publication in India and the US): http://www.siliconindia.com/magazine/articledesc.php?articleid=POBF432214427
*CNN Interview with Founder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ5C1ttVZTA
*Feature on ABC's Show "The Rise to the Top": http://www.therisetothetop.com/hot-companies.php?episode_ID=11
*Barron's Magazine (Financial Magazine of the Wall Street Journal): http://online.barrons.com/article/SB123940720563610017.html
*President Clinton Talk about the Kairos Society: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1RLbFaCrrk
*Washington Square News: http://www.nyunews.com/news/university/biz-kids-network-with-pros-at-kairos-1.1643580
*The Daily Trojan: http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/news/kairos-summit-showcased-top-100-student-businesses-1.1646423
*Bill Gates Sr talks about Kairos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xRvXeJo5C4
*Central New York News/The Post Standard: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/su_students_win_top_business_a.html
*Council on Competitiveness Announcement: http://www.compete.org/news/entry/661/council-president-joins-kairos-summit-speakers-to-encourage-collegiate-entrepreneurs/

Thanks again Atama!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.16.57 (talk • contribs)

Reply - I've already addressed most of these before, let me go through them one at a time.

Silicon India - This is a social networking site, that hosts blogs. Not a news organization.

CNN Interview - This is actually not a bad reference. Wikipedia frowns on Youtube links but it is CNN.

The Rise to the Top - Not a show from the ABC network, a show from a local ABC affiliate.

Barron's Magazine - I already covered this, this isn't significant coverage, very brief blurb.

Washington Square News - An NYU student article, not even close to WP:RS.

The Daily Trojan - Yet another student article, this one from the USC.

The Post Standard - A brief blurb, less than the Barron's Magazine blurb.

Council on Competitiveness - Not even a news site, not sure what this is supposed to be.

Bill Gates and Bill Clinton - Not impressed. There was a summit where they spoke to 100 students, a few were from Kairos.

Again, the volume of references doesn't matter. The reliability of the sources and the depth of coverage is what matters. The closest thing that you have that meets that is the CNN interview, and that is arguable, but either way that alone isn't enough. -- Atama ^chat 07:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -Atama, this is Ankur Jain the founder of the Kairos Society. I was quite surprised and dissapointed when my team directed me to this page to find this back and forth argument debating the validity and importance of our organization. While relatively small in size, our organization has attracted the support of many top universities, students, and CEOs. The guidelines in WP:ORG you referenced above state that "smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Like many smaller, but impactful organizations, we have been fortunate to recieve some national press such as our CNN feature and Silicon India (which by the way is in fact an independently written and distributed magazine. I would be happy to send you a copy if you would like). I think it is creating an unfair bias to dismiss independent sources such as university newspapers, our article in Silicon India, the coverage in the ABC affiliate show (which is broadcast to over half a million viewers!), or endorsements from CEOs around the country as unreliable. While certainly smaller in circulation than CNN, each of these are independently verified, third party news organizations and shows that have covered us. If for nothing else, our organization has become highly notable for the annual summit we host which brings together the Kairos students from around the world and many succesful leaders. According to WP:RS, sources must be third party and published. Each of the references mentioned by the person above have followed that criteria. Like many other non-profit organizations listed in Wikipedia, it only seems appropriate to include the Kairos Society as a parent organization. If there were seperate entries for each chapter, I would agree that there is not sufficient notability, but for the parent organization as whole the collection of articles from various locales around the country should warrant significant reliability. In fact, this was also mentioned in WP:ORG under the non-commercial section.

If you have specific recommendations for how to improve the article, we would be honored to have you incorporate them into the page. However, if for some reason you still do not believe in the importance of this organization, I kindly ask that you defer to another moderator for a second opinion. And if you would like references from the CEOs who have supported our mission, I would be more than happy to provide them for you. Thanks! Starnium (talk)— Starnium (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reply - I am sorry if my support for the deletion of the article for your company has offended you, but I do so under the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. I have nothing against your organization personally, I simply don't feel it meets our notability requirements, and there is no "improvement" of the article that you can do to prove otherwise except to find, as I had stated, significant coverage in reliable sources. These are not my requirements, these are the guidelines of WP:N. Let me tell you that this campaign of having numerous people from your organization flooding this discussion is counter-productive, Wikipedia generally discourages such actions. There is no need for me to "defer" to another "moderator", I am just a regular editor offering my opinion and any other editor is welcome to do the same. I'm eager to see what another regular editor of Wikipedia would say to this discussion, so far I see the original nominator of the deletion discussion and myself asking for deletion against a number of members of the Kairos organization wishing to ensure that their article stays on Wikipedia out of a wish to promote the organization, or a sense of personal pride perhaps. I don't fault you for doing so, it speaks well of you that you have such loyalty to your organization, but at the same time that is not what this discussion is about. I do await more opinion from another uninvolved editor. Thank you. -- Atama ^chat 23:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have followed the discussion and believe both parties are committed to doing the right thing; however, as Atama stated (very eloquently I might add) the guidelines do not belong to any one editor, but rather have been developed as a consensus of opinions and are in place to to help insure the quality of Wikipedia articles. I suggest you read the policies in notability. I do not see any bias either against your organization or smaller organizations, nor would I characterize the guidelines as arbitrary. The bottom line is the references just do not seem to provide the support needed. My best to everyone involved in this. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quoting WP:RS, Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. I consider student newspapers to be reliable in relation to the subject of a not-for-profit, college-age entrepreneurs. However, the coverage they provide about the subject is trivial, focussing only on an individual event (the summit). No reliable source provides significant coverage of the subject at hand. Perhaps in the future, there will be more significant coverage of this society, but there doesn't seem to be any right now. Sancho 06:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stumpedia[edit]

Notability not met. COI issues and written like an advert. 50,000th on Alexa. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been modified and rewritten by several different contriubutors. Article does not sound like an advert. but only states facts. Site is currently ranked on Alexa top 50 sites, this is also fact. The alexa.com reference is not meant to advertise, create nobility, or promote the site in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.109.113 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll correct myself. Ranked 34,879th on Alexa. Still not notable, still written by one of the sites admins, still sounds like an advert. Wikipedia is not your web host. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:48, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I don't see any notability for this subject, besides a mention and a half on ABC News and the Christian Science Monitor. Drmies (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet sufficiently notable. No evidence of significant coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. See WP:GNG. — Satori Son 15:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really this comes down to the question, is this notable or not? There are only 3 known references for this article in reliable sources, 2 for Christian Science Monitor and one for ABC News. All 3 references mention the site in passing only, and therefore this article fails Wikipedia's guidelines. -- Atama ^chat 18:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been on Wikipedia for almost one year now. The article is now indexed, referenced, and linked to from other web pages. If the article was not notable, why did it take this long to determine that. Deleting the article now will result in broken links and confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.109.113 (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only seven articles link to this one, and none does so in a meaningful way whatsoever (it's never discussed, only listed as one example among many). I'll remove the links once this one is deleted. — Satori Son 14:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And this article had a speedy delete request 5 minutes after it was created, then again after one day. It was only kept after the editor hitting it with the CSD discussed the article with its creator. It has been given nine months to improve, and hasn't. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about other external sites and search engines that link to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.109.113 (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 06:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Council of South Australia[edit]

NN org - no reliable sources independent of this organization detail it with the depth required by our notability guidelines Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a major conservation body in a major region. They appear to regularly provide the environmental view on matters in South Australia - see Google news for examples - I think that makes an organisation notable - targeted google searches like this one also show many government based links.The-Pope (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable organisation at a state level who are often approached by media for commentary on current environmental issues. Orderinchaos 10:39, 20 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) 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per google news search. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two given references, as well as the three first external links, are neutral and relevant Rirunmot (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:ORG. A very prominent environmental group in Australia. Keep in mind it doesn't matter if the article has sources currently, as long as those sources can be shown to exist they can be added later. -- Atama ^chat 17:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencecenter.com (encyclopedia)[edit]

Non-notable new website without significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources so failing WP:NOTE. Delete. Drawn Some (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has been updated and sourced to show its long standing history and connection to Research and Learn which launched in 1998Swknowles (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) — Swknowles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The current sources are from AOL (the owners) and the website itself. The Cnet source doesn't actually refer to the subject in question. Can you find any specific and independent coverage of the subject in a reliable source? They're the sort of things that prove an article is really worth keeping. Thanks! Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Article has been moved to Reference Center. 'Cos I'm mad like that. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a premature article about non-notable website. Alexius08 (talk) 23:36, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet sufficiently notable. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article has no 3rd-party references that are actually about this site. I searched Gnews for Referencecenter.com and had no hits. There's no indication that this article meets WP:WEB. -- Atama ^chat 16:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Kingturtle (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation once notability can be established. Sam Barsoom 21:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring function[edit]

Contested prod, not by me. This is a dictionary definition, and looks like it always will be; transwiki to Wiktionary Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No consideration seems to have been given to good alternatives to deletion such as merger with Size theory. Per WP:BEFORE, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Make mine Strong and immediate transwiki then. This article seems to have been created to move this definition out of size theory, which (with its related articles) are the only things that link here - or are ever likely to. Wiktionary exists for this purpose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My initial tentative conclusion would be to merge this into size theory and redirect it to that article. Maybe I'll say more tomorrow or the next day..... Michael Hardy (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also appears in natural pseudodistance and size pair, which is why to put this definition in Wiktionary; but perhaps we can consolidate all four. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 2 given references are reliable and verifiable Rirunmot (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important mathematical concept, properly referenced. JIP | Talk 07:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Johansson (KSMB)[edit]

No sources indicating individual notability. Recommend deleting/redirecting to KSMB (band). Aditya ^α _ß 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably not very well-known in the English-speaking world, and could be better referenced, but solo career, prizes and so on provides sufficient material for it to stand on its own rather than being merged. Tomas e (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:36, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I'd like to know more about the "Svenska Vispriset" prize. I can't find any English-language sources for this prize, is it a national competition? This award alone could satisfy requirement 8 in WP:MUSIC. Otherwise I have difficulty seeing how he satisfies Wikipedia's standards, just because of the language barrier. It's clear that he has some coverage[76] but I can't tell the nature of it. -- Atama ^chat 16:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Svenska vispriset is a yearly award of SEK 10,000 (≈USD 1,270 according to a currency calculator) awarded by the Swedish national organisation for the visa (which can be roughly translated as "folk song"), to a person or organisation who/which has done something significant for the art of folk singing. It is a recent prize, having only been awarded twice, but I would argue that it is notable due to a certain amount of press -- though probably only in Swedish. --bonadea contributions talk 10:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep - Thank you for the information, I would say that the award shows that Johan satisfies WP:MUSIC either for having a major music award, or because that award shows that he is a "prominent representative of a notable style", being folk music in this case. -- Atama ^chat 17:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable outside Sweden and failsWP:N--79.78.203.104 (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If he is notable in Sweden, then he is notable. Setwisohi (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atama's reasoning. (As a comment to the previous !vote, notability doesn't stop at country borders -- either there is notability or there isn't. Notability is not the same as notoriety or fame.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo notability as fails WP:BIO. I'm not satisfied that the prize involved counts as a major music award. Perhaps in the future he might qualify but not atm.--AssegaiAli (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Odyssey (album)[edit]

Although the album preformer is relatively notable, I can find little evidence, or sourcing that this particular album is notable. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 22:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Monk Montgomery. As much as I hate to say it, I can't find any reliable independent sources for this album to satisfy WP:GNG. A Google Books search turns up some hits, but none of them contain any in-depth information about the album. General information from the article could be merged into Monk Montgomery, and the Allmusic link can be used as a source. This article could then be redirected to Monk Montgomery. Before that, however, someone please prove me wrong and find a source for this! :) Jafeluv (talk) 13:48, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry Jafeluv, but this seems to be a very obscure album. I can barely find any coverage of it at all, let alone a significant one. For example, a Google search of "Bass Odyssey"+"Monk Montgomery" gives 343 hits, which isn't high at all for an album; not that Google is the end-all, be-all of notability tests (far from it) but it does give you an idea of how unknown it is. -- Atama ^chat 17:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The album is notable because of the long list of notable musicians it is on, plus the fact that it was released for Motown. M Montgomery released only three albums, they are each notable because of the personnel and label. Cosprings (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Please state how that satisfies WP:NALBUMS, which states that "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I'd argue that considering the vast number of albums that Motown has produced over the years that not every one of them can be notable, and there are many, many compilation albums with notable artists that are themselves non-notable. In fact, just casting aside Wikipedia policies, common sense dictates that if this album really were that big of a deal someone would have made significant mention of it somewhere other than some jazz fan message board or blog. -- Atama ^chat 17:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Montgomery I think released the first jazz album by an electric bassist. All three of his records should be notable. I'll have a look 'round for sources but definitely suggest keeping this. I note that NALBUMS in addition to what is quoted above also wisely points out that albums by notable artists have a likelihood of being notable, which is a common sense inference even if we do not have sources to hand.

Typically merges do not, for some reason, import tracklistings, so at the very least that information is being lost in such a course of action. 86.44.18.234 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Clayton, Jr. Big Band Bass, Alfred Publishing: Van Nuys, 1983. 86.44.18.234 (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. the only objection/rationale from the nominator towards deletion has been resolved. Keeper | 76 21:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KCTJ[edit]

Delete. Only one current link available. The other is a redlink. Unless the other article is created soon, this disambiguation page should be deleted. Kayau (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote John 16:24, "ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full" - Dravecky (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Georgia Regional Airport, the other KCTJ doesn't appear to be notable. snigbrook (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Even if the other article is created, this DAB is still unnecessary. The non-low power KCTJ would obviously be the "primary" topic, and could have a hatnote linking to the other page. A DAB is only recommended when there are 3 or more subjects. -- Atama ^chat 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Changing my vote, if a 3rd usage of the acronym is valid then a DAB makes sense. It doesn't even have to be an article if it is notable enough for mention, and it seems to be. -- Atama ^chat 16:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclosure: I was the creator of this disambiguation page, and remover of the prod tag). Licensed radio stations are generally held to be notable so, whether the article is created soon or several months from now, it's a valid redlink. The ICAO code is a tertiary identification for the aiport (the actual name of the airport being primary and the IATA code secondary), while the call sign of the radio station (and correct name for the article) is KCTJ-LP. As a result, neither usage is primary, and so disambiguation is appropriate. Despite WP:Otherstuffexists being a poor argument, this is also standard practice for disambiguating between a radio or television station with a call sign that includes '-FM', '-LP', or '-TV' and an airport, organization, or other situation where a code or abbreviation associated with them is the same as that base call sign. Mlaffs (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psst: ~~If by some miracle the radio station article is created,~~ it can be included in a hatnote on the airport article. Tavix | Talk 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by some miracle…? A little snarky, no? Anyway, please see below. Mlaffs (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was more alluding to the saying that miracles happen every day... Tavix | Talk 19:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to the airport. While the radio station may be notable, if it is created it can be a hatnote. Tavix | Talk 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Keep per Mlaffs and Dravecky's links. Tavix | Talk 02:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another member of the radio stations project has created the KCTJ-LP article; a stub at this point, but it includes an infobox, and it's properly referenced and categorized. Based on this, the original rationale for deletion is moot. As for hatnote versus disambiguation page, I laid out my thoughts in my "keep" comment above. Mlaffs (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I say hatnote because looking on Google almost every single page refering to "KCTJ" is for the airport. Tavix | Talk 19:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that's not the main test for me. However, if you dig through the first 3 or 4 pages of Google hits, you'll find that another usage of KCTJ crops up which could realistically be linked from this dab page as well. KCTJ is an initialism used to identify a Knight Commander of the Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani, about which I've learned more in the last five minutes than I'd have cared to know in my lifetime. That could make this a three-way dab, but I'd never make such a change while this debate is ongoing. One more thought, and then I'll shut up. From my experience of cleaning up incoming links to disambiguation pages just like this one, I can attest that maybe twice out of every thousand links I've cleaned, the intended target of the link is the airport. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the person creating the link intended to point to the radio or TV station. Mlaffs (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems logical. Maybe it is best to leave it as a dab in case new info comes to light. I'll change my vote... Tavix | Talk 02:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as disambiguation pages exist for this exact scenario: two articles where neither is the overwhelmingly obvious choice to occupy the namespace. "KCTJ" (albeit with an -LP suffix) is the radio station's primary identification and the ICAO code for an article named West Georgia Regional Airport is merely a secondary or tertiary identification. Relative Google hitcount is not a factor in this decision. Dozens of similar DAB pages over many years show that precedent and consensus is to maintain exactly this sort of disambiguation page. - Dravecky (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: See KABE, KABY, KACB, KAMN, KANB, KASE, KAUN, KAZO, and... well, that's just the KAs. - Dravecky (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per Dravecky. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dravecky and Mlaffs, plus the possibility of this becoming a 3-way dab. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Linking#Chronological_items