< 2 June 4 June >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests (2005)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests (2005) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not indicate notability, trivia, no reliable, published, third party sources. Re: prod removal/talk, see also wp:OSE - notable, sourced guest info can go into the show's article. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-25t05:03z 05:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not saying keep this article because there are others like it. We are saying keep this article because there are many, many like it which are much more high profile and much more visited and are generally accepted. This is not the same as saying keep this vandalism because there is other vandalism. In that case, we can all agree that vandalism is bad and few will ever argue with you for taking it down. But in this case, just go and try to delete the obsessively detailed, completely unsourced List of The Colbert Report episodes (2005), and see what happens. The backlash you would receive is there because these types of pages are accepted by the community, whether they adhere to its strict rules or not.
-The Talking Sock talk contribs 01:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[2] -- The Talking Sock talk 02:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for any list of The Daily Show guests, but those pages exist and are accepted by the community. -The Talking Sock talk contribs 04:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tan | 39 23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the guests pretty much define each episode, this is essentially equivalent to an episode list.--RadioFan (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unity party uk[edit]

Unity party uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonexistent or wildly non-notable party. Difficult or impossible to find in Google web or news search. Seems to be little more than a student club or figment of someone's imagination. They do have a website, but the website says "At the moment there is nothing planned for the 2009 elections as we are not running in it, but we will do in the following one." Hairhorn (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Common Agenda for Health and Environment[edit]

A Common Agenda for Health and Environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced unencyclopedic coatrack for an organization. Alexius08 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the article is biased (a coatrack). It presents an example of generational goal setting as an approach to public policy-making. In my edits to address others' comments I have added, in my opinion, sufficient detail to show that the Common Agenda is a reputable document and a new idea for the online community to consider. Again, I welcome specific suggested improvements.--Toward tomorrow (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is my first voyage into wiki and I'm learning as I go. One reason why there are few links to other pages is because generational goals is such a new idea. I had planned on making a generational goals page as well, but it would also have few links to other pages and sites. Really, only Sweden has used this policy approach for their Environmental Quality Objectives, which outline 16 generational goals for improving the quality of Sweden's environment.

Please advise on how to improve this page as I believe it is an important concept to introduce to the public, but is fairly uncommon and therfore, not linkable. --Toward tomorrow (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have addressed Drawn Some's comments by adding the 6 goals and their objectives and priority actions. Have also addressed Alexius08's comments by adding content as opposed to organizational information. On what other grounds should this page be deleted? --Toward tomorrow (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric[edit]

Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Memming (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ops. I'll fix that. --Memming (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I never suggested to change the article name to include your name. I never said it was a plagiarism. --Memming (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–France relations[edit]

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

Another non-notable set of relations: OMG, french companies buy shit from barbadian companies! Hold the press! They don't even have embassies dedicated to each nation. Another Country X-Country Y relations page. No notability here, and nothing to justify a seperate article - they don't even have embassies with each other, although diplomatic missions are stationed in nearby nations. Ironholds (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You'll not find anything at search engine. Most of the Caribbean newspapers have added their newspapers to the exemption list of Google robots. CaribDigita (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only applicable guideline is the general notability guidelines. Wikiproject Foreign Relations also has its own guidelines here, but these have not been approved by the wikipedia community at large (as far as know). Yilloslime TC 00:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article under discussion has had new information added that addresses concerns raised in this AFD at this point in the discussion.
The above box is not a template in normal use, and was added by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).

There is also the attempted plot by one Barbadian and a group of French mercenaries during the 1970-1980s to overthrow the Government in Barbados and form the country of "The Commonwealth of Barbados and Dominica".(Tull: Tell us about coup rumours, NationNews, 04 October 2006) The U.S. CIA I believe disrupted the plot. CaribDigita (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE before considering deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't recognize the need for a de minimis relationship, only a notable and verifiable one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keita Goto (soccer)[edit]

Keita Goto (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD removed without any sources added to indicate footballer has played in a fully-pro league; fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is contracted to Kashima Antlers, but there is no evidence that he has ever played in a league or cup match for them. Being a non-playing member of the squad isn't enough for notability. Jogurney (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takkle[edit]

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

Non-notable webforum. A db tag was downgraded to a prod, which was removed by the article's creator without explanation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nine minutes after the first iteration went live, the page was inundated. Do you shoot newborns when they don't pass the SAT? Regardless, check alexa or quantcast as this obviously does substantial traffic. Point taken on need for further content, context, and links. It is editable, collaborative and evolving. Just asking the gleeful vultures to show just a bit more judgement before marching off to the guillotine. ChillPill77 (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — ChillPill77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment: nothing happened nine minutes after article creation. Eleven minutes afterward, though, ((notability)), ((uncategorized)), and ((unreferenced)) tags were added, which call for help improving the article. None of them call for deletion, though the notability tag does mention the eventual possibility of later deletion. Quantumobserver (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 21:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Duffy[edit]

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

Professor does not meet notability standards for academics. Closest he comes is his editorship of a journal, but I would not call it a major, well-established journal (yet). Doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria. References are scant. Google turns up little relevance. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is one paper that got 132 citations in Google Scholar: "Recording devices on free-ranging marine animals: does measurement affect foraging performance?". Ecology. 1986.
  • Here is another that got 128 citations: "Diet studies of seabirds: a review of methods". Colonial Waterbirds. 1986.
These results suggest that when someone has time to do a proper writeup, there should be no problem finding notable work to mention in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Houseman Youth League[edit]

Peter Houseman Youth League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A football (soccer) league offering under-9 to under-16 competition in one county of England. Only significant content was added by two editors who made precisely one edit each, use of "we" in the history suggests COI. Tagged for notability for well over a year, nothing has been forthcoming and I could find no reliable significant coverage. Obviously an admirable endeavour in helping the kids of Hampshire get into sport, but not notable enough for WP -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Coleman[edit]

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

Likely a self-written autobiography of a possibly notable orchestrator. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't nominate this to clean it up, I nominated it based on the fact that it's likely a self-written autobiography of a possibly notable orchestrator. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Thom[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, creater's (who has a WP:COI) only claim is that the subject won an award from a regional business publication ccwaters (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Passes WP:BIO under the WP:ANYBIO clause. Was published in a magazine as part of a continual historical record. Also promoted by peers in the field, and selected as business person of the year by business professors part of the University of Minnesota school system.Promixluvr (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising and no claim of notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankel Corporate Consulting[edit]

Frankel Corporate Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined A7 speedy, because the page's author does show evidence of potential notability on the article's talkpage. However, nothing tells me that the organization is truly notable per WP:CORP. I see hardly any other reliable source coverage to meet the "significant" part of that guideline; Google News shows 1 item and Google Books turns up nothing. A general search only reveals basic company profiles. Jamie☆S93 20:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Scandinavian migration to the United Kingdom. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Swedish[edit]

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

Only contains links to other articles. Topic already covered by Scandinavian migration to the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy White[edit]

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

I've tried fixing this up, but to no avail. A number of editors have attempted to insert this artist's name in a number of articles. The main problem is this: there are a number of grandiose claims made, and few actually check out. If you look at this version, you'll see claims to having exhibited at Moscow Biennale, Manifesta and The Museum of Contemporary Art Belgrade Serbia. The provided references do not support this, nor do searches of the respective sites. Claims to having collaborated with Joan Jonas and being written about by Douglas Crimp was referenced with a print source, but it should be noted that google, google books and google scholar come up with nothing for Darcy White + Joan Jonas and Darcy White + Douglas: Crimp[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Likewise, just "Darcy White" comes up with nothing that links to this artist. I'm wondering if this is just a young artist attempting to beef up their profile hoping no one will check, or perhaps he's somehow connected to some or all of these institutions and individuals, but not as an artist (as a tech perhaps?), but in any case, there is no evidence of notability, except for two exhibitions in Canada. freshacconci talktalk 20:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Mitford, 6th Baron Redesdale[edit]

Rupert Mitford, 6th Baron Redesdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. Having a peerage is enough of a claim to notability to pass A7, but not enough to pass WP:BIO unless they have done other things with their life. While members of the House of Lords are Members of Parliament, the idea that MPs are automatically notable applies to commons members, since those people have done something with their life other than get born. Ironholds (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see the others. Haven't I said something about the queen?Max Mux (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I replied to it. Ironholds (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything I'm saying on the other disc belongs heere as well!Max Mux (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then show us the guideline that says the rule only applies to members of the House of Commons. Mandsford (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't one, but the guideline is there based on the idea that there will be some coverage of the elected members, either through their election or their work in the Commons. There is no reason to suggest that these guys would get coverage for uhm, being born, and google seems to agree on this point. He helped set up a company that has some brief coverage, but that's it. Ironholds (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that makes no sense. I agree that they shouldn't have a seat but nonetheless they are relevant.Max Mux (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Cole Mager[edit]

Jason Cole Mager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was tagged for WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion, and I agree with that tag — the article in its present state does not make a clear assertion of significance that would pass WP:ARTIST. However, the authors requested more time to find sources, and in an attempt not to WP:BITE them I declined the speedy and tried a prod instead, which would have given them a week to make the article acceptable. Within less than a day the prod has been removed with no improvement to the article, so I am taking it to AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rognvald Richard Farrer Herschell, 3rd Baron Herschell[edit]

Rognvald Richard Farrer Herschell, 3rd Baron Herschell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. Having a peerage is enough of a claim to notability to pass A7, but not enough to pass WP:BIO unless they have done other things with their life. While members of the House of Lords are Members of Parliament, the idea that MPs are automatically notable applies to commons members, since those people have done something with their life other than get born. Ironholds (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With statements like that you can delete the article about the queen for examble. Its not an argument here to say "XY has not done anything important"Max Mux (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

example 1 (according to you): The President of Germany Horst Köhler held other offices before and was elected therefore he is relevant. The queen haven't done anything influential and wasn't elected but is head of state. So she is not relevant.

You are don't getting anything here and that's not meant as an offense. You clearly don't understand anything I said. Do you know the differences? There are different kind of members. 1) Bishops (all relevant) 2) Life Peers 3) elected hereditary peers 4) law lords (highest judges)

Max Mux (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my goodness.. Only people who are elected by the people are notable? You seem to contradic yourself. PLease explain your reasoning.Max Mux (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should delete Stalin as well? Max Mux (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course right but some people don't get it.

Not all. All in the peerage of UK.Max Mux (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the point. Anyone belonging as above stated to the national legislature IS relevant.The only answer that makes sense is a strong keep!Max Mux (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(The link to Ironholds' proposal is here as well as the discussion. Mandsford (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clearly notable as above stated Max Mux (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that not the point! He had the right.He was a memberMax Mux (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable as member of legislature very strong keepMax Mux (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told, self-published sources are not reliable. Please stop adding them in. Ironholds (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a very brief biography of him at the Baron Herschell article. Tryde (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC) By this I was trying to show how articles on non-notable peers can be merged into the article on the peerage they held. Tryde (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They ARE notable!Max Mux (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have to be so unhelpful? ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say so?Max Mux (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That you're unhelpful? Because we tell you things aren't acceptable and you keep using those things over and over again. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have also done much that is not acceptable.Max Mux (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing my behaviour here, we were discussing yours in response to a question you posted. If you have a problem with my actions, post a detailed and reasonable opinion on them on my talkpage and I'll respond as soon as I can. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Victor John Carington, 5th Baron Carrington[edit]

Rupert Victor John Carington, 5th Baron Carrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. Having a peerage is enough of a claim to notability to pass A7, but not enough to pass WP:BIO unless they have done other things with their life. While members of the House of Lords are Members of Parliament, the idea that MPs are automatically notable applies to commons members, since those people have done something with their life other than get born. Ironholds (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 6th Baron Carrington was far, far more notable as he served in Thatcher's cabinet. I do suspect that a revision of this guideline is in order (if only a minor one) to deal with members of hereditary legislatures.Tyrenon (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the same argument for life peers but if they attend is not the point here. They are members of the legislature on a national level and therefore relevant for wikipedia as it is clearly stated in our guidelines. If some people think they should do it otherwise out of a habit they are violating these rules.Max Mux (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very clear keepMax Mux (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max, could you ensure that you don't just vote, but actually provide a rationale? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 08:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get that it's not the point at all!Max Mux (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I meant that that's not the important thing here. A king for example who never rules himself is still notable. A high judge is notable if he has done important things before or not.Max Mux (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A king or "high judge" has done something to achieve that position. What has the great-great-grandson of a notable person done that is so notable? Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but how can someone be so dumb? 1) A king has done nothing to archieve this position. 2) A member of legislature is according to wikipedia guidelines notable. It is not importan HOW someone get to that position (well personally I'm generally for completely elected parliaments but that's not the point). When someone belongs to a parliament he has a relevant position and is therefore relevant himself.pS: Do you think most of the life peers attend regurarly?Max Mux (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the hint given by me and two or three others - avoid personal attacks, or you'll be blocked. A life peer has done something notable to become a life peer - you don't just give a peerage to Mick the Bricklayer from number 32. You're saying "X is a guideline, therefore it doesn't matter why the guideline is there or if it should be changed - its a guideline". That isn't how policy and guidelines work on Wikipedia - consensus determines what guidelines and policies are. Ironholds (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't change it only becaus we are against the sitting of hereditary peers. And not every important person has endless media reports.If we delete anyone we don't like there would be enough people here.Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mobutu, Göring, Mugabe, Gaddafi...Max Mux (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not debating deleting people we don't like, and we aren't saying we want to get rid of hereditary peers on en-wiki because we don't like them - read the proposal. Actually, every important person does have reports in the media or in other reliable sources - it's how, on Wikipedia, we determine their importance. Notability is based on verifiability, verifiability is based on references. Ironholds (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then look again at the links. They show that he was a member and therefore notable!Max Mux (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We know he's a member. Nobody is questioning that he's a member, we're questioning whether or not WP:POLITICIAN is meant to be applied in that way. From the wider discussion I've been having I can see several who believe the current policy is being misapplied and many more who believe the policy should not cover hereditary ponces. Ironholds (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be judged with prejudices. I'm against the monarchy but that don't mean I try to delete the article of the queen!Max Mux (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it being judged with prejudice? Ironholds (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By you.Max Mux (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't answer the question. How am I judging it with prejudice? Do you think I'm doing it because I don't like hereditary peers? What is your evidence for that being my motivation for doing this? I don't like hereditary peers having seats in the Lords, but targeting peers who have been dead for sixty years and denying them a Wikipedia article is an odd way to go about changing it, don't you think? People who feel fervently enough about something to do something about it normally go out onto the streets, not try and have an article deleted. Please stop accusing me of things with no evidence to back up those accusations. Ironholds (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you explain your behavior ? It certainly looks that way!Max Mux (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I nominate something, I'm biased against it? No. If my normal attitude to articles had been swayed as a result of me dealing with this, that would be biased. Take a look at my AfD record, see what I normally do with unsourced articles about unimportant twonks, and then apologise. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You better should apologize yourself.Max Mux (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Have I insulted you? No. I've not made any personal comments despite being accused of being "dump" "stupid", "sick", "mad", having a "bullshit" opinion, talking nonsense and destroying wikipedia, I've kept my head attached firmly to my shoulders. I've warned you repeatedly against making unfounded personal accusations, and yet you persist. Find me something I've done that I need to apologise for, and I'll do so. You, on the other hand, are edging closer and closer to a block. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have spoken about "unimportant twonks".Max Mux (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...yes, referring to the peers, unimportant being the operative word. Unlike me being called sick, stupid, dumb, mad and nuts, my comment wasn't directed at you and thus unlike yours wasn't a personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a member of the legislatureMax Mux (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Records you yourself provide show he never even spoke. You've been told not to use the peerage, and I'm not sure why you've added quasi-inlines all over the place. Ironholds (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It is not important if he have spoken or not. What do you mean with "qusi-inlines"? Max Mux (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the little [1] [2] you've put in even though they're not linked to any references. Ironholds (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will see after that later. I'm looking forward to hearing from the House of Lords.10:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Max Mux (talk)

You've emailed them? About what? Ironholds (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the peers peers, who were mebers. For example Carington and Herschell.Max Mux (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting additional information? Information has to be verifiable, so findeable. If the information is "here's a link to a good source", fine. If it is "here's an email full of info" it wont be useable. Ironholds (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a brief biography of him at the Baron Carrington article. Tryde (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) By this I was trying to show how articles on non-notable peers can be merged into the article on the peerage they held. Tryde (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He IS notable!Max Mux (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not helpful. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 16:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But some of the people here seem to be blind.Max Mux (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you before about making personal comments repeatedly. This is your final warning - keep comments about editing only, or I'll report you and have you blocked. You've been told repeatedly that your comments aren't helpful, yet you keep making them - that is editorial blindness. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying people are blind is, as Ironholds points out, not nice, and basically incorrect. But even if it were OK, you're still not being helpful. What you're doing is like telling a blind person, "There's a beautiful building in front of you." You should describe it, give details, give input, illuminate people.
Or just keep quiet. But making unsubstantiated statements like that will always be unconstructive. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 21:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick John Bernard Jellicoe, 3rd Earl Jellicoe[edit]

Patrick John Bernard Jellicoe, 3rd Earl Jellicoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. Having a peerage is enough of a claim to notability to pass A7, but not enough to pass WP:BIO unless they have done other things with their life. While members of the House of Lords are Members of Parliament, the idea that MPs are automatically notable applies to commons members, since those people have done something with their life other than get born. Ironholds (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

same as the othersMax Mux (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. He hasn't got a seat.Max Mux (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has absolutely nothing to do with being active in some way.Max Mux (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we, and lots of other people, think that it does. Would you explain in your own words, ignoring policy for the moment; a purely "moral" argument—why does this person deserve an encyclopedia article just because one of their ancestors was mildly interesting? ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 19:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have anything to do with "being interesting". The UK is a monarchy and Jellicoe has one of the highest titles. Therefore we should include him and other peers such as Dukes, Marquees, Earls and Barons.Max Mux (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is a constitutional monarchy - the queen is almost entirely without power, those powers she does have are exercised by the PM. Senior members of the nobility who are not life peers have not necessarily done anything notable per se - their achievement was being born. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are people of the public life. For the 100ist time I tell you that the powers someone have is not the only important thing. People who are DOING nothing notable can despite that be notable! Please tell me what has the queen done before becoming queen.Max Mux (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like Ironholds, I have never understood why people should be considered notable merely for having been born. Although I'm not fascinated by royalty-- it's like saying, "You're better than me because you're royal and I'm not"-- royals get covered in independent and reliable sources. I think Mux will concede that Elizabeth was noticed by the media between 1926 and 1952. On the other hand, I see nothing that would justify a similar entitlement to members of the nobility. Earls, dukes, barons, lords, etc., can earn themselves a place like anyone else. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm against monarchy and such things but that doesn't influence my opinion here.Max Mux (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are links in the article, you know.Max Mux (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been mentioning them, you've just been going "the nobility are notable, just look at the queen". Of the four links you've provided, two are not reliable sources, one confirms he once spoke at a meeting and one confirms his father was notable. Ironholds (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not completely understanding! Max Mux (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains even less information on him than the Earl Jellicoe article! Tryde (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jamie☆S93 19:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TeamViewer[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable software product. The only source beyond the company's own Web site is a review of a beta version; TeamViewer does not seem to meet the criteria for notability. It is also rather promotional in tone, including a how-to section for establishing a connection and a section describing the pricing model. —Bkell (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TeamViewer is one of the widest spread remote control tools worldwide with many million users so it shouldn't be at all irrelevant. TeamViewer was reviewed by the most influential IT magazines and is a state of the art tool for desktop sharing. If you think this is non-notable then please check here Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software to find some non-notable companies as you put it . So where should we start deleting articles?
I will put some third party citations to the article which will prove its status in this field and will edit it from the ground. Let me know if you should have further suggestions. Altalavista (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete all but the first two paragraphs, the rest is all marketing, promotional and advertising using mainly blogs as references. The main contributor also has a clear conflict of interest. TeapotgeorgeTalk 08:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teapotgeorge, thanks for you comment. Lifehacker, Downloadsquad and CNET (CNET is actually a IT news platform) are some of the most recognized IT-blogs worldwide and have more readers than lots of magazines or print publications. A lot of users contributed to this article as you can clearly see in the history, so I'm not the main contributor but the initiator. Contributions from my side are mainly the citations as one of the critics was that TeamViewer is a 'non-notable software product'. This shouldn't be an issue anymore. Please also help to contribute to it where you think it might be biased. Altalavista (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant search results:
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/software/programming-software/softpedia-teamviewer-314840/review
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/159331/teamviewer_desktop_collaboration_app_now_maccompatible.html
http://www.macworld.com/article/138757/2009/02/teamviewer.html
http://www.macworld.com/article/133663/2008/05/teamviewer.html
http://www.webuser.co.uk/products/TeamViewer_review_4811-7428.html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/TeamViewer-Full-Version-Is-Free-Download-Here-90156.shtml — Rankiri (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Beckett[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited, and it is not married into. I feel that the best place for this would be a subheading in Eden's entry, perhaps as "personal life" (as this is basically a regurgitation of what is already there), but this is largely a stub on the spouse of a politician who divorced him before he became PM, and who isn't notable for anything else in particular other than possibly parentage. Tyrenon (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Alexf(talk) 21:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ballies[edit]

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

obvious WP:MADEUP WP:BOLLOCKS. Ironholds (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blu (Software)[edit]

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

no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thre3[edit]

Thre3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book. The author admits ([13]) to having written the book as part of a college project, and then written the article as part of another college project to "get noticed". Several speed delete tags (including a ((db-userreq)) incorrectly placed instead of a ((db-author))) resulted in an admin declining speedy. So here we are at afd. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Discuss a potential merger elsewhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Hear Me Now?[edit]

Can You Hear Me Now? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The Deep (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You Only Die Once (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Time's Up (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Down the Rabbit Hole (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Boo (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Commuted Sentences (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Buzzkill (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One Wedding and a Funeral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Thing About Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Child's Play (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Happily Never After (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All in the Family (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Playing With Matches (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DOA For a Day (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Right Next Door (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Like Water For Murder (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Admissions (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Personal Foul (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taxi (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hostage (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

None of these episodes asserts any form of notability. The articles consist entirely of an overlong plot summary written in informal prose, and have been lacking reliable sources at least since 2007, judging from the tags on two articles. Not one single episode in this series seems to be notable, and the (mostly unnecessary) qualifiers in the title make them unlikely redirect targets. At least one also has a trivia section. I'm going with these since it's the first batch I found, and indeed believe that almost all of the episodes from this particular series should be deleted, as they have a very high potential of the redirects being undone by fans. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

basically you are saying that for the good shows, we should eliminate the material because it will be covered elsewhere. (I doubt you mean we should contain only the poor ones that nobody has devoted a wiki to) On that basis we could delete essentially every topic in the encyclopedia; come to think of it, every topic, because if it is not covered elswhere it should not be covered here.DGG (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Harris Cape Town South Africa[edit]

Roy Harris Cape Town South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Removed prod. Article is a resume for a non-notable religious leader in South Africa. There are no indications that this person meets the inclusion criteria spelled out at WP:N or WP:BIO. This was a speedy (declined) and a prod was removed by a new user who I can only assume is a new account created by the person who originally created the article, or at best is an associate or friend of the person that created the article. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. hoax GedUK  19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Bites![edit]

Computer Bites! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax. A Google search returns nothing about this film. The IMDb link in the article is to a different film. Cunard (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alo Photo Scan[edit]

Alo Photo Scan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable editing program created by non-notable company. A Google News Archive search returns only one source, but clicking on the result returns a blank page. Cunard (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author, Marco.Carboni (talk · contribs), has also placed the following comment on the talk page:

Cunard (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W.A.X.[edit]

W.A.X. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article claims that WAX is an ethnic slur -- "an abbreviation that means "White Asian 'Cross'"." There is a resounding lack of commentary on the term on the internet ... which seems particularly odd for a slur. Does not seem a common enough term for Wikipedia, or even Wiktionary. Sixtysixstar (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Islam in Singapore. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Pork No Lard[edit]

No Pork No Lard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

seems like a neologism to me. Prod removed and 2 unreliable sources added. Ridernyc (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These signs are apparently somewhat controversial since they imply that even though the eatery isn't certified, that it's OK for Muslims to eat there. I don't see major news coverage though (at least not in english), it seems to be a local issue in Singapore among the strictly religious. Gigs (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted, author request (G7). Jamie☆S93 18:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Robertson[edit]

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

Borderline speedy - originally tagged as such : The sole purpose of the article is to promote a nn candiate for the upcoming EU elections. I except we will get a lot more of these over the coming days. Passportguy (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Box Network Services is a publicly traded international company and one of the largest providers of telephony and networking equipment in the United States. Scottel, founded by Duncan Robertson, was one of the largest providers of telephony equipment in California. The news of the Black Box acquisition of Scottel was of considerable interest to the telephony and data networking industry in the US. In addition, Mr. Robertson is the only independent candidate running for European election and as such, is of considerable interest as an exceptional case. Diarmishere32 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2009 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.11.109.98 (talk)

The article was useful for me in understanding who the candidate was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.14.34 (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squeegle[edit]

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

SoWhy declined the speedy deletion of this article claiming that it isn't patent nonsense (as I so tagged it), but...how isn't it? The only Google hits I found were Urban Dictionary and a whole bunch of unrelated links. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Per A7. The claims are probably all fake but it sounds more like a real person's inventions. SoWhy 18:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica frank[edit]

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

Another nn/prossible hoax. Google turns up no hits for "Veronica Chih Ming Frank", nor for her purported "best-selling children's series" "Kyra: Soccer Supperstar" (also checked Superstar) Passportguy (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MacTalla Mor[edit]

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

Non-notable band with few claims of notability. Article also has some COI problems, as evidenced here. Google news only gets one hit, and MacTalla Mor is just mentioned once in that article. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MacTalla Mor is notable.. They are recognized as one of the leading Celtic Roots bands in America. Among many other notable events, they were recently chosen to perform at the British Memorial Garden in NYC for a major Tartan Week event attended by the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament Alex Fergusson and were the only Celtic Fusion band choosen to appear at this years Clearwater Festival celebrating Pete Seeger's 90th Birthday (http://www.clearwater.org/festival/). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothariseldon (talk • contribs) 05:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Nothariseldon (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)— Nothariseldon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There are numerous similar articles about less notable Celtic bands which have not been considered for deletion. While the notability of MacTalla Mor has been questioned, no one is questioning the expertise of the examiner to judge such notability. And there is no democratic or academic means to question the arbitrary claim of non notability.

....one knows that it was invariably left by either an Admin or a member of some squad or cabal, some officiating technopriest of the Cult of Ignorance....

It is all done in the name of a representation of a majority and culture for the masses. The unassailable mediocrity of the entries is the credo of Wikipedians, enshrined in a new ideology, sans-party, the cult of the NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The NPOV is supposed to be the result of the checks and balances of community participation in the Wikipedia project. But that's baloney - since the community effort is an exercise in power by the new cyber-bureaucrats that go by the name of Wikipedia Administrators, and the power-play in which the "house always wins" specializes in optimizing the degradation of information to fit it into premade slots. It is more an axiomatic of overcodes by voluntarily enslaved cyberbureaucrats, than a party-police machine. Yet, it functions with a hardline reminescent of fascism red or black, and deploys a thought-police filled with policies and procedural guidelines, as these excerpts from Requests for Adminship so well relate:

What Wikipedia is not, is an effective repository of the best in knowledge - or even, much more modestly, of actual, factual and adequate knowledge. Instead, Wikipedia has become a forum for an officiating falsification of knowledge, a system for disinformation and an assurance of misinformation. Backed by cabals of administrators and bureaucrats, Wikipedia features the raw, unfettered and exhibitionistic domination exerted by ignorant and fascist bullies. It is easy to see how a few - ignorant and stupid ones - can, in the name of a 'democratic access to knowledge', establish the worst kind of dictatorship: the fascism of the expression, the fascism of the most mediocre and most ill-digested of commonplace notions. It is easy to see, because, in fact, our most public institutions are now subject to just that same kind of fascism - the diffuse fascism of unquestioned majorities represented by groups of loudmouths manipulated by bully boys...... From: Wikipedia A Techno-Cult of Ignorance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothariseldon (talk • contribs) 05:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Nothariseldon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Palm Beach Post http://www.palmbeachpost.com/entertainment/content/entertainment/tgif/epaper/2009/03/13/tgi_irishfest_web_0313.html

The Tribune Review Pittsburgh http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/ae/music/s_586069.html

Celtic MP3s Magazine (http://www.celticmp3s.com/magazine/2007/07/new-colossus-by-mactalla-mor.shtml) Luxury Experience Magazine (http://luxuryexperience.com/music_scene/music_artists/mactalla_mor_-_piping_hot_and_jacob%27s_ladder.html)

News-Times "Celtic Christmas Spectacular" search MacTalla Mor in archives www.newstimes.com

CBS Ch 3 Eyewitness News Joy For the Kids Concert December 2006 http://www.wfsb.com/riseandshine/index.html

Celtic Radio Music Award Roots Traitional 2008 (http://www.celticradio.net/php/celtic_radio_awards_archive.php?year=2008)

Brookhaven Lab News http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=07-17

Times Heral-Record by Sandy Tomcho November 19 2007

Celtic Band Celebrates Its Roots by Rachel Collins :Southampton East; :Nov 16, 2006; :Arts & Living; :B3 Taconic Press Arts Entertainment

Interviews and broadcasts on WFUV, WBAI Pacifica Radio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asa Erikson (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Asa Erikson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted however you please. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Mines[edit]

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

Hmm. Article claims that "Kingdom Mines today is one of the largest sapphire mines in the world.", however they apparently don't even have enough money to pay for their own website and have to rely on free webspace providers to host their website. That certainly doesn't indicate that thi company is nearly as large as the article claims. Google doesn't have any relevant hits either as I can see Passportguy (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cllr Kevin Byrne[edit]

Cllr Kevin Byrne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local councillor, election spam Passportguy (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation regulations[edit]

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

Article last edited June of last year, Fails Wp:N and Lacks Sources.--SKATER Speak.

*Merge to Aviation law. Fences and windows (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List already exists: List of civil aviation authorities. NVO (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, List of civil aviation authorities has the names of the authorities, it needs to include the name of the published regulations. Btw, regulations and laws are not the same thing.--Sum (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely! national govts are different, but then we shouldn't try to fill many fields in the table: they might be incompatible. I don't think that publications can be easily fit into a one line, one entry format. Is it really important to the topic? p.s. cool username :)) have a good summer :)) NVO (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Dream Focus' plan, struck my previous comment. Fences and windows (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Phantom Tollbooth. Cirt (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The island of conclusions[edit]

The island of conclusions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not significant enough to merit own article Cybercobra (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to My Name is Rachel Corrie. I can't enact my close here, but I will review this article in 7 days, and force redirection at that time - merging can still take place after that, but it will be easier if you get it done soon Fritzpoll (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Name is Rachel Corrie performances[edit]

List of My Name is Rachel Corrie performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list is a rather odd one. We have an article on the play itself (My Name is Rachel Corrie) that has extensive mention of the more notable of the stagings of this minor play. A list of every single staging of a play, major or minor (think of the nightmare List of Hamlet performances would be), does not make any encyclopedic sense. It's indiscriminate, directory-type information with no context. To the "but it does no harm" folks, I would disagree. "Merge" is also a bad result here. The major stagings of this play are already covered in the main article -- a regurgitating of every minor staging of this play is trivia of no rational use to a reader. If wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia that has some discrimination, clutter like this does harm over time to the project as a whole. After deletion, would have no opposition to a redirect to My Name is Rachel Corrie.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Bali ultimate (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • So Rachel Corrie is an ultimate threat to all wikipedia project, because it lists songs about Rachel Corrie or stagings of My Name is Rachel Corrie right.
  • And even List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" deserves a space in Wikipedia after multiple reviews, and is considered not trivia, but staging list of an international theater production is trivia.
  • 'All the productions are verifiable, and the list build upon that references. Some stagings, especially the first ones has more coverage reasonably. Theatre reviewers don't write separate critic for every other theater's staging, notability guidelines doesn't require separete notability for every single piece in an list. Like you don't have to find separete notability reference for an albums each song.' Kasaalan (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, major might be doable, though of course one would have to define "major." I'm guessing a reasonable standard would lead to 20-40 -- obviously the premeir, Olivier's first performance, stagings that broke new ground in one way or another. It would also require extensive scholarship. My bet is hamlet's "major stagings" would be doable, given all the ink that's been spilled over the play for centuries.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a real nightmare for people who actually afraid of gathered encyclopedic info based on extensive research like the list of plays. So instead not reading them, they would nominate it for deletion possibly.
I don't know if you ever watched a theater. But theater productions are localized, unless it travels through cities on tours. Most of the plays and theater's in the list has enough notability and coverage in the first place. A theatre is not a movie, they don't play every play, they judge it then play. My Name is Rachel Corrie play is already notable, and got reviewed by multiple sources including NY Times, Guardian and so on you cannot expect big theater critics to go every single staging, and write a new critic separately. Requiring high coverage in internet for every theater staging is not reasonable.Kasaalan (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand your deletion reason at all. Kasaalan (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually checked the refences at all, because you claim non-notability of some high notability references. Kasaalan (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a "notable reference". References are either about notable subjects, or they are not. The quality and number of references can indicate the notability of a subject. In this case, however, this is a list of performances. There is nothing notable about a list of performances. Individual performances may be notable, but there is no reason why such performances would warrant their own article. Sorry, but there is no reasonable rationale for keeping cruft like this. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are twisting the case. The article is about stagings of My Name is Rachel Corrie and most of the staging info is based on reliable sources (published newspapers and leading review sites) so the notability of the subject is high. The list of performances article needs verifiable references, and in this case the staging info is verifiable. "Individual performances may be notable, but there is no reason why such performances would warrant their own article." no they don't have their "own" article, this is a collected staging info article like any other table articles, such as List of performances of French Grand Operas at the Paris Opéra in Category:Opera-related lists Kasaalan (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the theaters (especially international ones) the stages the play are notable themselves in the first place and even have devoted wikipedia articles, also lots of the references are based on published international or local daily newspapers and leading theartre review sites. Did you actually count before claiming "most" or just figuring and rounding them out according to your own like. Kasaalan (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really sure what you try to claim. "list of performances" articles in wikipedia result 49354 pages. There are countless articles on lists of performances under various titles. List of performances on Top of the Pops, List of performances of French Grand Operas at the Paris Opéra, List of Judy Garland performances, List of tournament performances by Tiger Woods, List of Barbra Streisand tours and live performances, Cocteau Twins performances, Fred Astaire chronology of performances, Vivien Leigh chronology of stage and film performances, List of performers at the Metropolitan Opera the list goes on to near 50 k articles. Kasaalan (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory clearly refers: "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic (for example, Nixon's Enemies List). Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)" Kasaalan (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per Benjeboi. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of adaptations of Shakespearean plays perfectly fine article. Kasaalan (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a really good article on this topic is Hamlet in performance. However, these playwrights aint shakespeare, this play aint hamlet, and there is nothing that establishes independent notability for every time this play has been performed. There is a rather vast recounting (past all due weight, but whatever) of stagings of this play in the "Other stagings" section [15] of the My Name is Rachel Corrie article and this is an indiscriminate content fork at best.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it is not a nightmare, but a good article then. I created the list of performances article to leave only most important stagings in play page, and rest here, the recounting plays you referred were not added by me anyway. Also, people claimed in the past, the play is not notable at all or no good references available on staging performances, so I created a list of them in relevant discussion pages, then converted that info into an article. We can merge the content, but coming here telling references isn't good or most of the stagings isn't notable is like a true joke. Most of the theaters are notable themselves, and theaters are not movie theaters, they pick plays, evaulate them, study them then they perform them, as I clearly showed in Article References most of the stagings have enough notability to be mentioned anyway. So you should make some effort and mark which stagings you find not notable in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Five of those mentioned in the My Name is Rachel Corrie article are the notable ones. I won't bother to edit the rest of it out of that article as i don't see it as a point worth fighting over.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are just admitting you didn't even bothered to check the two articles. Much more than 5 plays are notable by solid references and in any means. Even more than 5 international plays were staged in highly notable theatres. Kasaalan (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly checked out both articles. All i'm admitting is that i have much higher standards in regards to notability than you do. Yes, i find "The Kitchen & Roundhouse Theatre in Silver Spring, Maryland, staged a one-time performance on July 21, 2007. It was directed by Lise Bruneau and featured Mindy Woodhead as Rachel" to be the height of trivia. I understand you disagree -- but our disagreement says nothing about what i have or have not read or considered.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You reversing the case. You claimed only 5 plays were notable so I claimed you didn't check the articles correctly, because there are definately more than 5 plays staged in highly notable theatres. But now you claiming some plays are not notable, that is only twist of words. Kasaalan (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you don't understand the meaning of the word notable has nothing to do with my "twisting" anything.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure the "high notability" which you don't require for rest of the 50.000 lists in wikipedia, that you ask when it cames for Rachel Corrie has nothing to do with twist. Kasaalan (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you seeking here? You keep hurling accusations at me ("didn't even bother to check" "only twist (sic) of words") when in fact we simply disagree. I believe an indiscriminate list of every performance of this play (as i would even for major world plays like, as we discussed, hamlet) fails the GNG and a number of things that wikipedia is not. I understand that you disagree. I certainly believe that many of the lists on wikipedia are inappropriate for inclusion; many are also appropriate for inclusion. They need to be evaluated each on their merits. This one, which we are evaluating here and now is, in my analysis, a clear fail. I think merger is a bad idea since, after all, 850 words (yes i cut and pasted into Word and counted) in the target article (My Name is Rachel Corrie) are already devoted to various stagings -- at least 16 of them by my count. I would go on to further argue (or "twist" in your view) that mentioning 16 stagings of this play in the target article is already past all due weight. This list we are evaluating, as i have argued already, is at best a content fork from the main article on this minor play.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the stagings are in international notable theatres. Actual theatres are not movie theatres, they select plays by jury and perform them after long time preparations. So your claim fails on "notability" in the first place. Also most of the references and critics I provided are from daily printed newspapers and magazines. List articles has other "notability" guidelines, and the notability guidelines you refer are actually for "seperate page" articles. In a list type article, not all items should have "seperate high notability". That is why there are near 50 thousand list articles in wikipedia as I listed above. Throwing guidelines and actually referring them are 2 different issues. Kasaalan (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a link showing that "list articles has other notability guidelines?" I understand the guidelines for what makes an appropriate list, but you seem to be referring to something else.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't make any edit in neither of the theatre articles List of_My Name is Rachel Corrie performances history, My Name Is Rachel Corrie history nor in Rachel Corrie history Rachel Corrie article but 2 reverts and a discussion about nickname. For assuming good faith, you should have bother to tag the article for improvement or at least make an attempt to discuss it before you swiftly nominated it for deletion. So it is interesting that, just after I began to improve references in the article, you nominated the page which you haven't even bothered to edit once, but tracking page (or my edits), and out of sudden before trying to discuss it in talk page nominating the article for deletion. Sure expect good faith by difference in views, but some editors share their views in discussion page beforehand and make some effort to improve articles, before taking last resort measures like deletion nominating. Kasaalan (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of parks in someplace, doesn't need seperate wikipage or notability for every single park, the city's and some parks notability is enough to build a list. Like every single song in an album does not require notability to create an album's list. Kasaalan (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments clearly false. Even second-season episodes of Star Trek: The Original Series called "The Trouble With Tribbles" has its own seperate article along with Category:Star Trek: The Original Series episodes, yet a collected list of My Name is Rachel Corrie do not according to your argument. Try to think a bit more neutral to the case. TVs, or movie theaters are not actual theaters, so being shown as a movie, and being staged as a theatre play are completely different you should know that clearly. Theatres has artistic directors, spent lots of months to stage a play which actors and other backstage artists involved. Kasaalan (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also Internet Broadway Database used in 2227 different wikipedia articles as a reference. Kasaalan (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think 6 has a point. He wasn't talking about not having an article at all for Trouble with Tribbles (that argument was lost long ago), just having an article for every airing of it. And in fact, for those who care about such things, "My Name is Rachel Corrie" gets 49K+ ghits, whereas "Trouble with Tribbles" gets over 2.6 million ghits. We don't need a list of all the performances/airings of either one. IronDuke 15:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are wrong. Both "My Name is Rachel Corrie" and "Trouble with Tribbles" has 8 pages long google result, when duplicate results omitted. "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 773 already displayed." star trek episode is more "famous", because its results get crowded by duplicate-similar entries, about "how to download" episode, or tv guides, or just "fan quotes" etc. Also comparing one of the most famous TV shows on earth, with a notable theater play, and comparing TV airing with Theatre staging, are completely illogical. So he has not a point. Kasaalan (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thumb|"Mister Kyle, please transport this article into space!" I'm not getting the same Google result -- perhaps you're handier with it than I. Can you link to your results? And comparing the two does make some sense, even if they are not exactly similar. That ST is so famous just makes 6's point that much more german. Illogical? This fellow begs to differ. IronDuke 17:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are getting same results. Just go to the last page of google. It should be around 800th internet adress, if you have 100 pages per list 8 pages, if less more. Google lists all pages that contain the term. Yet omits rest of the pages other than 800 because they are "similar" or "duplicate" ones. Kasaalan (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omitted results The link to the Omitted results, at the end of the last search results page, show the URLs that were judged to be very similar in their content to the ones already on the list, thus excluded in the first run. You may click on this link and see the full list of every matching URL for a certain query, and will find that it's a useful way of grouping multiple similar results from same domain, to occupy less space on the result pages, thus provide more options and variety.

So raw numbers not matters much more than a repeated number of the title of the star wars episode. Even someone's signature on forums get into that list. that 2.6 results are actually has "troubles with tribbles" that 2.6 million result is overstuffed. Kasaalan (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think what you're seeing there is that the search engine is just conking out around a set number of entries. Try "Barack Obama" and you'll get the same result -- but it is highly unlikely that there are the same number of unique websites for all three topics, no? Maybe I'm missing something, and anyone else here who has good Google skills please weigh in, if you like. IronDuke 18:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have a point. My argument not completely true then. Kasaalan (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think each airing of a Star Trek episode very much resembles the previous ones, for example the cast changes very little between broadcasts. Citius Altius (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that's entirely true--I think they are cut differently, so the cast could conceivably change during some broadcasts. And in any event, this list doesn't tell us how the cast of MNIRC changed, nor is it, in most cases, notable that it did change. 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not? Citius Altius (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it fails WP:NOTE and also WP:NOT. IronDuke 18:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines clearly refers to requirements for separate articles, not to every single entry in an article. Kasaalan (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we really got an answer here, so let's try again: why do these cast changes fail WP:NOTE and WP:NOT? Citius Altius (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a random agglomeration of information. Would all of these stagings - would most of them -- merit an article themselves? IronDuke 20:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of keeping all staging info collected in 1 article. That is why I build a list article, and not separate article for all notable plays separately. But people even try to get deleted collected list. Kasaalan (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is all fair enough. And I think some people would agree with you that a list like this has a place here on WP, a not automatically unreasonable premise. I just don't happen to agree. IronDuke 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've given up on trying to apply policies then? Trying to follow your logic I think we got as far as "cast changes are not notable because they don't justify a whole new article" or something along those lines. Citius Altius (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"You've given up on trying to apply policies then?" I wish I had thought to put my own position as succinctly as you did. Yes, I have given up on applying policies, sorry I didn't mention that right out of the gate. Any other questions? IronDuke 21:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well all this WP:NOT and WP:NOT stuff had me confused... thank you for your frank confession. Citius Altius (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most welcome. (And I already sensed you were confused ;)). IronDuke 21:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is the guidelines are interpreted by users, and they actually vastly subjective. Notability for example. I just proved most of the plays were sourced by reliable secondary sources newspapers, magazines, a book, which proves enough notability for me. But some other editors might also disagree, however I really suspect everyone voted here actually checked the references 1 by 1 like me, especially after I fixed the reference layout and added more reliable sources into the "weaker" plays. On the other hand, notability and famousness is not directly related. A theater play will be less popular, than a movie or a tv drama for obvious reasons. Notability has something to do with quality, while famousness has something to do quantity. Kasaalan (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have it exactly right, K. It's very subjective. Some people honestly believe one mention in one RS (or even not so R of an S) = notability. I don't. I think WP blows up to a hugely unweildy size if we allow that. IronDuke 22:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused again. Ironduke appears to think notability has something to do with mentions in RS's, and this does indeed have some relation to policies like WP:NOTE... unfortunately it seems we can't just examine the quantity and quality of sources to determine the notability of these stagings, because of Wikipedia's size limitations or whatever. Citius Altius (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it technically possible for you to be confused "again" when you have ostensibly not recovered from your earlier confusion? "unfortunately it seems we can't just examine the quantity and quality of sources..." Unfortunate, yes, but I'm not sure what the word "we" is doing there. If you wanted to rephrase it as "I, Citius Altius" you'd be much nearer the mark. IronDuke 19:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes exists with Title, Original airdate, Stardate. Again arguments are false. Kasaalan (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Collected Replies for Deletion Arguments[edit]

You may read rest of the answers by clicking blue button. Kasaalan (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For layout reasons, I moved my nearly all answers as a defense for various claims by deletion voters. Kasaalan (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the number of references doubled and number of reliable secondary party references more than tripled since the deletion nomination started. Kasaalan (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the number of sources is relevant. A list of performances, particularly of a production that is itself marginally notable, is non-notable trivia, regardless of how well-sourced. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't in your head or pocket. You cannot claim 1 play is not notable, when there is enough second party coverage in reliable sources. I provide reliable source for claiming notability. You provide your own thoughts for claiming non notability. Trivia is your own claim. Kasaalan (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Canadian plays, List of fictional plays, List of plays of Dorothy L. Sayers, List of films based on stage plays or musicals, List of plays and films about the American Revolution, List of plays with anti-war themes, List of plays made into feature films, List of plays and musicals set in New York City, Shakespeare's plays, List of Sophocles' plays, List of plays produced by the Shaw Festival, List of one-act plays by Tennessee Williams, List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish, List of Noh plays: A-M, List of Noh plays: N-Z, List of X-Play characters, List of musicians who play left handed, List of actors who have played the Doctor, List of actors who played Santa Claus, Broadway theatre#List of Broadway theatres, Guthrie Theater production history, Claudette Colbert chronology of performances, List of the longest-running Broadway shows, ...
List of theatres and concert halls in Barcelona, List of theatres in China, List of theatre directors in the 20th-21st centuries, List of theatre personnel, List of theatres and opera houses in Paris, List of movie theatres in Mumbai Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of theatres in Mumbai, List of Norwegian theatres, List of theatres in Bangkok, List of London venues, List of national theatres, List of fictional theatres, List of theatres in United Kingdom, List of theatres in San Francisco, List of Theatre Communications Group member theatres, List of improvisational theatre companies, List of Cineplex Odeon theatres, List of English Renaissance theatres, List of theatre managers and producers, List of Asian American theatre companies, List of Irish theatres and theatre companies, List of Las Vegas Academy theatre productions, List of movie theaters and cinema chains, List of entertainment venues and cabarets in Paris, List of films broadcast by Cartoon Network, League of Resident Theatres ...
"Wikipedia is not a list", "Wikipedia not a directory" sure. Kasaalan (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really should slow down Kasaalan. Walls of text aren't convincing. At any rate, I clicked on the blue links List of Sophocles' plays up above, because i was planning on using it as an example of a good list (he didn't write that many plays, and those that have survived are landmarks in world literature). At any rate, it's simply a "redirect" to Sophocles. I have no idea how many others of those are redirects. Do you?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. I checked each of the page before I posted. Having a list within a page, or as a separate page not matters, since you vote for delete not merge. Dont try to create an illusion of pages are redirects, only 2 pages Broadway theatre#List of Broadway theatres and List of Sophocles' plays are redirects into main page yet a huge part of the main page. But again by "coincidence" you came up with it, so all the examples should be "redirects", don't they, especially if you don't bother to check them in the first place. If you want to prove me wrong, you can always check them. Walls of text are for deniers. Kasaalan (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest Kasaalan, i don't really care about those other lists. At a glance, some of them seem appropriate to me and some seem highly innapropriate. So what? The list we are evaulating is this list. I'm not interested on this AFD page in discussions about other really, really bad lists. For what it's worth, were wikipedia to have a separate article listing all of Sophocles plays, I would be highly supportive of it. Were wikipedia to have a separate article that sought to list every production of, say, Oedipus at Colonus, i would argue for its deletion on the same grouns i'm arguing for this list's deletion. I hope you can understand the difference in these two positions.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People chanting "wikipedia is not a list or directory" so it is a clear reply to them. I don't care what you care or not, that is your own issue.
And to be honest, "at a glance" comment or vote approach is not much useful
If someone share his time to create such a list, I would support it, too, however its length. Possibly you wouldn't understand but Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, which doesn't have length limitations like a regular printed encyclopedia.
So even the concert tours of "notable" pop culture singer brats has separate articles, list style articles, but stagings of theatres, even when they are notable, do not deserve a page, extremely good personal policy, but where did it ever written in the WP. Kasaalan (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a list that seeks to list every production of the play? Citius Altius (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every "stage" production list article (as a separate page) for any notable theatre play, would be useful. And if you chose not to use it, well you can always ignore. Movie theatre and actual theatre are 2 different things. Being played by a theatre is an international criteria, while being screened in a movie theatre is not. As far as I am aware 3.000 movie theatres exist in America. [16] Kasaalan (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Stifle (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy olsen[edit]

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

Likely hoax - Imdb [17] which usually has almost any actor only has an Ivy Olsen from way back in the 60s playing in Italian films - obviously not identical with this purported 14 year old Passportguy (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coriole[edit]

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

Neither the article itself nor the sources establish notability as per WP:N BodegasAmbite (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't see that claim being made in the article. It it were to be made it would have to be very well referenced, more than just a quote from BarrelsandBottles (an online wine vendor) which is itself unsourced.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nUvA6tXHtYcC&pg=PA61&vq=coriole&dq=Coriole — Rankiri (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, have you actually looked at those mentions? Over 85% of them don't actually have anything to do with Coriole and the ones that do have only brief, one line mentioned. Nothing that satisfy WP:CORP or WP:NOTABILITY requirement for multiple, non-trivial mentions. AgneCheese/Wine 16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've actually checked all of the so-called references provided: half are not available for viewing (you have to pay or subscribe) and the other half are passing mentions in related fields (tourism, cuisine, etc) Not a single source has any actual content, let alone notable content, which is what is at issue here.
Also, over at WikiWineProject, we believe its not the number of hits that come up on Google, GoogleNews, etc, but their quality and content. The issue here is Notability as per WP:N. As it stands, there is nothing in the article itself or in the references provided that shows notability.
  • Comment I didn't know there was such a thing as a "speedy keep". And I'm not sure that dumping a dozen general newspaper sources in a non-standard "format" into the article convinces other editors otherwise. Tomas e (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that I've logged in and gone through all the subscription service refs, I have to say they are extremely weak referencing with just passing trivial mentions in articles about the region. It like an article on the city of Paris, Texas making a brief, one line passing reference to a local pizzeria. Would we honestly consider that one line passing ref an inference of notability on that local mom & pop pizzeria? Now there is still hope for notability if any reliable source can found regarding pioneering Sangiovese in Australia. So far I haven't been able to find it and, admittedly, seeing the extremely weak referencing that has turned up so far is diminishing my hope. AgneCheese/Wine 16:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The Penguin Wine Guide is not notable, so winning an award from that is just as notable as my roommates homemade wine winning an award from a national home winemaking magazine. The same with the olive competition. The competition has to be notable before winning an award from it is. While the Music Festival may have borderline notability, that doesn't confer notability to the sponsor. Each year we have some team win the Little League World Series and they almost always have some local sponsorship like Crazy Dave's Tires. Is Crazy Dave notable because he sponsored that local team that went on to win the LLWS? The 30 second wine adviser is a blog entry, of which there are numerous blogs about non-notable wineries and restaurants. I can create a blog in 10 minutes on any non-notable topic you would like but that still wouldn't merit a Wikipedia entry. So again, we're grasping at straws trying to establish notability here when the one truly notable fact-pioneering Sangiovese in Australia- doesn't seem to have any referencing support to prove it is true. AgneCheese/Wine 16:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well first of all, WP:GNG does require the coverage to be about something you consider notable to count - it only requires non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. (I've learned this over time myself after often arguing that coverage was of something not important.) Second, the 30 second win adviser page is not just some random blog - if it was it wouldn't be linked to in the Google news archives. Blogs (and I don't think this is actually a blog anyway) aren't automatically out, they just generally don't count b/c they generally aren't reliable. Blogs can still be used as sources if they have earned a reputation for fact checking (same way a regular source gets to be considered reliable). Finally, here is an industry publication that says they pioneered Sangiovese in Australia: [19] --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the state of play so far. There would seem to be two possible claims to notability: the Sangiovese claim and the reviews in the WA. All the rest is clearly not notable and/or irrelevant. So while the sources and refs to these two claims are being clarified, I'm changing from Delete to Neutral. The Sangiovese claim is impressive and if it were shown to be true beyond doubt it would be enough for a Keep (IMHO). It would need more than just a ref in Winebiz.com though. (i haven't had time to investigate yet). Secondly, what to do about the WA reviews? If they can't be referenced, they don't count, no? --BodegasAmbite (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free sources can be used if necessary, they just should be replaced by free ones when possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Kenyan relations[edit]

Greek-Kenyan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination. Greek foreign ministry notes no one higher that a foreign minister has visited. The 'economic and trade' description is incredibly vague with no actual numbers for trade. [20] There was some incident in 1999 and another "cooperation' agreement reported in the media but not much else. LibStar (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can't that be covered in Abdullah Öcalan LibStar (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule that information has to exist in only one place in Wikipedia. That is why we have the Main template. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
simply being members of the World Trade Organization is not evidence of actual bilateral relations. precedents have shown having an embassy is not necessarily evidence of notable relations, can you provide any evidence of significent coverage? LibStar (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philomena, duchesse de Vendôme[edit]

Philomena, duchesse de Vendôme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested with the statement "I am pretty sure all nobility are considered notable," but in a look through relevant WP guidelines I can find no evidence that this is so. Myself, I doubt that inherent notability attaches to the wife of a person in one of the several putative lines of succession to a monarchy that no longer exists. The only sources about her that I can find deal with her recent engagement and marriage to Jean, duc de Vendôme, and the article does not state that she's done anything else that might satisfy WP:BIO. If her marriage alone is enough to establish notability, I'm in error here; but I'd like to see the relevant policy or guideline. Deor (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(later) — I've added two three of the references the previous debate participants couldn't find, and I'd invite them to repeat their searches more thoroughly, because there are certainly others.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said I couldn't find any sources that weren't about her marriage, and—what do you know?—you haven't managed to find any, either. Furthermore, she's not a "scion" of any "foremost pretenders" to anything, since she wasn't born into the nobility. Deor (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is your case then based on WP:BLP1E?

That's a fairly republican view of noble titles, but I'll concede it's probably defensible. I'd be prepared to support a redirect to Jean, duc de Vendôme if that's the consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that scion means "descendant"; do you have evidence that she's descended from any pretenders to any throne? And, no, my case is not based on WP:BLP1E. It's based on the lack of reliable sources supporting a claim of notability. Whether her marriage to a nobleman is sufficient to establish such a claim is a question I raised in the nomination and is, as I see it, the crux of this discussion. Deor (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting me on that. Let the record show she's a member of that family but not a scion.

Which two of the three sources I've cited do you feel fail WP:RS? (If two of them survive, then the GNG is passed).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this one more time in a different way: Your sources don't fail WP:RS, but all they establish is that she married the guy. I'm suggesting that her marrying the guy does not establish her notability. Is that clear enough? Deor (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously having a dumb day, because I'm still not getting it.

She's got significant coverage in two reliable sources. How then does she fail WP:N?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources do is say who she has married: how on earth can anyone call that "significant" coverage? She has no significant coverage anywhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read them, thank you.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read them. As far as I can see the only thing any of them tells us about her apart from her title and the circumstances of her wedding is that she was 31 years old. If I am mistaken please tell us what else they tell us: that would be more constructive than simply saying "please read them". JamesBWatson (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sources are mostly focused on her wedding (which is why I asked Deor about BLP1E earlier). I think there's also biographical coverage of Philomena herself tacked on, though.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You think there is? Can you tell us what biographical coverage is tacked on? As I said above I can't find any: can you? The sources are not "mostly focused on her wedding": they are about her wedding and nothing else. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Camp[edit]

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

Speedy declined, thus listed here. Non-notable group that organizes workshops/events at a Burning Man. See also discussion with author at User_talk:Passportguy#Welcome_Camp, although be careful not to confuse the notability fo Burning man with that of this group, especially when it comes to membership numbers that are claimed. Passportguy (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure what I do here but I guess I stated everything on Passportguy talk page. When you talk about confusion of membership numbers, I feel you are saying this because I am purposely trying to confuse membership numbers. I am and have not tried to do so. The membership of this theme camp is right about 50. That is 50 members of the theme camp. Burning man has 50,000 participants. They buy tickets not to see our theme camp but to come to the event and participate in MANY theme camps. We have thosands of visitors to our theme camp during the event. There is no way to prove this because we do not sell tickets to our camp. We have picutes of the events, community murals that are contributed to by thosands of people, emails from hundreds of people that felt they needed to tell us how they enjoyed our camp and want more information on how to join and just general information.RACESV (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I guess it is worth noting that since a portion of this page was deleted by someone, that I have just started this page. Once it was up the other members, that is some of the 50, and perhaps some of the thousands of visitors would begin to edit this page and provide more information and provide notability and eventually be a place for people to come gain information about the theme camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RACESV (talk • contribs) 18:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


no⋅ta⋅ble  1. worthy of note or notice; noteworthy: a notable success; a notable theory. 2. prominent, important, or distinguished: many notable artists. Synonyms: celebrated distinguished great illustrious noted preeminent prestigious These are things that only people that have been to Camp Welcome or Welcome Camp would be qualified to answer. For someone to say that it is "Non-notable" I would ask that person when they had visited the camp. I believe anyone who may attend Burning Man and visits this camp would agree that it is all of these things including notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.104.215 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — 71.9.104.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I dare say. But notability in this context means something quite different: it's a requirement that articles have sufficient, reliable third-party reporting about them, amongst other things. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IText[edit]

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

All references are to the software's own website. Notability not established. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Xpdf. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poppler (software)[edit]

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

No third-party references to show notability. PROD contested. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor point, but that google news search you used only shows results from the last month. If you search all time periods you get 41 hits. However those are mostly comments on a handful of source articles, and the mentions of poppler are fairly incidental. Bazzargh (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an external source and asked on the librarie's list; the response from the maintainer sums up my response to these discussions: "Not that I care much if Wikipedia decides the leading free software for rendering PDF is notable, it's their loss, not ours."--Oneiros (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is really the opposite of WP:INHERIT. Multiple PDF programs are notable & they all use poppler for the actual rendering of the PDF. Does that make poppler notable? Thanks for adding the search: I had URLs with spaces & forgot I can change them to pluses. --Karnesky (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:N recognizes not only sources as evidence of notability, but also "published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines." Unfortunately, Wikipedia:Notability (software) never gained consensus. It'd certainly meet it: popcon shows that poppler is installed on over half of Debian-based systems that run that tool. It is a core library of many default PDF viewers in various distributions of Linux. I don't think we need exclusive coverage of a subject in order to keep any article. The sources for this one, in particular, might be borderline. But they seem reasonable enough in the context of other software libraries we have chosen to accept in WP. --Karnesky (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clean up[edit]

I made the article readable and added sources to quite a few things, can someone make a check to see if this needs more cleaning?

if more cleaning is required can you tell me what exactly is required for this page to be kept. Please leave a notice on my talk page if you respond --Gnepets (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to History of Western fashion. Cirt (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medeival fashion[edit]

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

Prod contested - Unsourced OR article whose content can be found in much more (sourced) detail at Medieval_clothing and subpages Passportguy (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval clothing is itself a redirect. Deor (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, redirect to History of Western fashion. The author apparently didn't notice that the subject was already covered. Perhaps he'd like to work on the "$TIMEPERIOD in fashion" articles? --Kizor 15:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamas–Russia relations[edit]

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

totally random combination with non resident embassies. any useful info can easily be contained in Foreign relations of the Bahamas. only coverage is of 2004 diplomatic recognition otherwise multilateral. [21] I think these 2 countries only meet at UN meetings? not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was flagged for rescue at approximately this point in the discussion by Cdogsimmons.
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't relevant, the US and Cuba don't have embassies or direct flights. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has had new information added by a member of the rescue at this point in the discussion, that addresses concerns raised in the AFD.
Trivia and factoids are not Wikipedia concepts. Wikipedia recognizes information from reliable sources. "BT MyPlace is a service that dynamically delivers content and information to people, based on their personal preferences and location." and "Dante María Caputo (b. Buenos Aires, 25 November 1943) is an Argentine academic, diplomat and politician, who served as foreign minister to President Raúl Alfonsín." are random facts. I used the random article button to collect them. Can you discern the difference? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe I have answered to this style of faulty analogy and special pleading too many times by now, Richard. Seriously, I'm tired. Dahn (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But, okay, one last time: water is notable, and its existence documented; so is mucus; so are bilirubin, fat and several other things, all of which are likely to be found in one of my stools. Should I proceed to write an article about my stool? As for factoids etc. and how they relate to wikipedia rules, you were many times pointed to to WP:N (and WP:GNG), WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT. It's all there. Dahn (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not having seen previous discussions being referred to, I am running a risk of repeating the arguments, but I'm gonna try anyway, as I believe it is Dahn's analogy that is faulty. No, you should not write an article about your stool. We should, however, have an article about stool in general.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:32, June 9, 2009 (UTC)
No, the article corresponding to stool in general would be this one. I usually put some thought into my analogies. Dahn (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're basically telling us that the article should be kept because others exist. Dahn (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am basically trying to say that the article should be expanded by people who know the subject, not deleted by folks who don't know squat about it. Since when has going on deletion rampage become the ultimate solution for quality improvement? I see it only as ignorance trying to undermine the encyclopedia. Lame excuses do not help either.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, June 9, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I get it, you're one of the users who think that, once the article exists, it should never be deleted. Because it exists. And, if you want to talk about what's "ignorant" and what's "lame": copy-pasting google results that match two terms is not only not a substitute for research, sourcing, or coverage of a real-life phenomenon. Dahn (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's you who doesn't get it. Once the article exists, it should be carefully reviewed (note the emphasis) and considered. Yes, it's possible the article could be started as crap, but it's not a reason to send it straight to AfD without even attempting to investigate if the subject has a potential or any salvageable pieces. One, of course, cannot be an expert in everything, but that is exactly why we have all those WikiProjects available—one can seek all kinds of help there. It's obvious that some bilateral relations are more notable than the other (and I myself voted "delete" in some instances—a shocker, eh?), but submitting an AfD based on a gut feeling and the results of a few google hits (you knew I was going to pass this one back to you, right? :)) is nothing short of wikisabotage in my book. Just so you know, when I say "keep", I don't mean "keep forever", I mean "give it a chance for expansion", because, based on what I see, the expansion potential is out there. What the reason you folks want to get rid of these articles as soon as possible and not a moment later is, I have no idea.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:19, June 9, 2009 (UTC)
One thing: the burden of proving notability rests with those who support the article, not with those who contest it. Placing trust in some speculative future is not only ridiculous, it is detrimental to the project. The only "gut feeling" here is that of those "keep" voters who have not only claimed sources are bound to show up around the corner, but who have effectively attempted to manipulate the other editors by synthetizing a flood of mind-numbing nonsense and presenting it as effective "rescue". That is what I would call "wikisabotage". And, once more and hopefully for the final time: in the unlikely and speculative eventuality that some of these topics turn out as "important" under transparent and proper definitions, the articles can be revived from redirects or even thin air. As for your final assertion, two can play at that game: I can't for the love of me imagine what reason there is behind seeing these nonsense articles surfacing and proliferating. The only justification I keep hearing over and over is the question "why not?", which was shown to be invalidated by several guidelines, and which is the staple of an untenable inclusionist agenda. Dahn (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot speak for every person, obviously, but for me, personally, the first most logical place to look up information about the relations between countries X and Y is, you guessed it, the article titled "X-Y relations". When I started planning a Cyprus vacation for my relatives in Russia, one of the first articles I looked up was Cyprus–Russia relations. What I found was this pitiful stub, yet it still proved a surprisingly useful starting point for further research (and, incidentally, it was the first article where I learned of the bilateral relations article deletion carnage). For the love of cheese I can't fathom why anyone would want to deny this information to our readers. Even if the relations are minimal, informing readers of this fact is still of benefit. Notability issues seem to be the focus of each and every one of these AfDs, and by now it is bloody obvious that there is no consensus on whether these articles are notable or not (good arguments have been presented by both sides). In such a situation, it is obvious to me that we should err on the side of benefeting our readers and keep the articles. To you, however, it is a conspiracy by damn inclusionists who want to "keep stuff" for reasons you can't even explain.
On a different note, it is true that the burden of proof lies with the authors of the article, yet it is also true that these authors or other people interested in the subject should be given a chance to provide such proof. Yes, it's possible to resurrect an article from redirects or thin air, but the very fact the article had been previously deleted could be a sufficient deterrent to do so (if only out of fear of having one's work deemed "useless" and "unnotable" once again), which is a huge impediment for further development, editors retention, and overall progress of Wikipedia. Which brings me back to the definition of wikisabotage.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:56, June 9, 2009 (UTC)
Are you asking me to tell you again why I think x article should be deleted, or are you asking me to tell you why you "can't fathom why anyone would want to deny this information to our readers"? Because, in either case, you're dragging me as respondent and others as readers around in circles. If you can't see it, you can't see it, and that's that.
And do excuse me if I don't spend time worrying about those who may find urge to revitalize these articles in (I'm repeating myself here) the unlikely and speculative eventuality that proper sourcing, which has so far admittedly eluded any "rescue" attempt, is made available. I think we all have better things to do than worry about that. Oh, and: the "Cyprus-Russia relations" is still, well, nonsense; it's just that the "rescue" posse has turned it into convoluted nonsense from stubby nonsense, as has happened in about a million cases abusively cited as "the work of research". Dahn (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for not accepting this "explanation". It makes no sense to me at all; I have tried. End of circle.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:58, June 9, 2009 (UTC)
And the need to move past this apparent blockage in communication is what the AfDs stand for. Dahn (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument again is "relative importance" instead of notability and verifiability. I am sure we all agree it is not in the top third of press coverage, but its is still verifiable and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Area 51. I've taken the nominator's endorsement for this suggestion to be a withdrawal of the deletion request and so I'm closing this early. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groom Lake Road[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Groom Lake Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The road is non-notable; the one reference used is not reliable. Binksternet (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the road has been known as for years, even Google earth refers to it as this and The articles surrounding Area 51 also use this name LordNatonstan (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right. Redirect! Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. An early closure, as this falls squarely under A7. Content has been userfied as requested (User:Billcheese1/Guards on Duty) Marasmusine (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guards on Duty[edit]

Guards on Duty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable web forum Passportguy (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Passportguy, I understand you have to maintain Wikipedia's credibility and cleanliness, I am the writer of the Guards on Duty article, and I understand that you may think it is "non notable," for it is a smaller site. But I believe all sites start somewhere and cannot always contribute or be nationally recognized without gaining some ground first. The site aforementioned offers insight into various medias and personal reviews. Whatever you decide is fine, but if you do decide to delete it, I would like it to be userfied, or whatever the term was, to my talk page and/or emailed to me. Thank you, Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billcheese1 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billcheese1, we understand that the article may grow in importance in the future. But until it gets reliable sources and is verifiable, we can't consider it notable enough at this stage. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's our policy to delay articles about such future successes until they indeed become successful. Whilst it might deserve an article in the future, it might not. And, as you seem to understand, it doesn't really deserve one at its current swtage. Thanks for being a good sport about it. Greg Tyler (t • c) 10:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Happy to userfy to be worked on prior to a mainspace return under the usual conditions, but consensus at this time is that this article is not suitable for Wikipedia Fritzpoll (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic original research and synthesis. Most of the quotes do not explicitly claim that that these cultures are patriarchal. They offer one ethnographer's (quite possibly biased, but that's a different issue) observations on practical actions. Furthermore, there are no references citing who claimed these cultures were matriarchal. (The Iban, Iroquois & Tlingit descriptions cite Wikipedia as a source?!)

So this article could more aptly be titled "List of cultures we have claimed are patriarchal and which we claim have been claimed to be matriachal"

Even if one ethnographer has claimed explicitly that they were patriarchal, a better title would be List of disputes about the patriarchal or matriarchal nature of certain cultures. Why would the first ethnographer to record details automatically be correct? Ethnographers can and do make mistakes... see Social Darwinism.

TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are mistaken. The article was originally a template, and I think the name List of patriarchal societies was only used due to a misunderstanding of the purpose of the template by the person who originally moved it from template namespace to article namespace. I think the purpose of the template/article has always been to list societies that were claimed to be matriarchal. Calathan (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that, but I agreed with moving it from a template into the article space. The point I wanted to wind back to was the moment when it was renamed to List of patriarchal societies.

My basic point is that a list of patriarchal societies seems encyclopaedic to me, and the current article title just isn't. I feel that we need to WP:PRESERVE the sourced content here, but to do it in an encyclopaedic way, so I remain convinced that a rename is the way forward.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you are mistaken. My understanding from reading the templates for deletion discussion, article talk page discussion, and edit summaries, is that the original template was created from a list or table used in the articles patriarchy and patriarchy (anthropology) (which have apparently since been merged), and that the point of the template/article is to help show that no society has ever really been matriarchal and every society has been patriarchal. Naming the article List of patriarchal societies suggests that not all societies are patriarchal (otherwise the article would just be named "List of societies"), when the whole point of the article is to show that all known societies in human history have been patriarchal. While I think this current article is misguided, if it is true that all societies have been patriarchal, I don't think an encyclopedic article on List of patriarchal societies could be written, as it would either need to include all societies, or select the "most patriarchal" societies by some arbitrary criteria on what makes a society patriarchal enough for inclusion. Furthermore, I don't think the rename would help preserve the content as you suggest, as the societies listed in the article seem to have been selected based on being mistaken for a matriarchal society, not based on being any more patriarchal than any other society. Calathan (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true (and I'm far from qualified to decide if it is), then I certainly agree with you that it's hard to justify this article at all. Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to "show" anything; encyclopaedias report sources, they don't present proof.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All societies, including current ones, are patriarchal according to anthropology (and form the rock solid raison de être of feminist theory: men will rule everywhere unless something is done about it). However, of thousands of known societies, only a couple of dozen have ever been proposed to be anything other than patriarchal. These societies are important in documenting the criticism of the empirical datum of the universality of patriarchy (and of the criticism of the criticism). The now well established consensus is this universality of patriarchy (and hence, a raft of legislations in the contemporary West to redress the "glass ceiling" by "positive discrimination").
It seems odd to attempt to remove the empirical basis of feminism and of objections to the universality of patriarchy. Is the proposer suggestion there is no glass ceiling and no doctrine of positive discrimination? Should those articles be deleted also? Or is the POV nomenclature a redeeming feature of those ideas?
The proposal can be thrown out, since it is simply unencyclopedic and original research: the proposer's inexpert opinion of ethnographers and the reliable secondary sources that evaluate them. However, presumably the proposer is left in ignorance because the list has been moved out of the context of the patriarchy article, where the major secondary sources that cited the works listed (and identified the quotes) used to form part of the text. These too have been repeatedly removed by editors unilaterally and over protests.
I think there really is a problem here. The data is notable, neutral, reliable and relevant: we need to place it somewhere. However, the problem is: where? It is absolutely notable even in its own right, but needs to be readily accessible from the patriarchy article. But if added to the patriarchy article, it takes up space and makes that article long. A long-time stable solution was having a collapsible table at the patriarchy article. That way, all the people who don't want to read or see it don't have to, but anyone who wants to doesn't even need to leave the page they're on.
We've tried it as raw text in the article, we've tried it as a template, we've tried it as a list. In all three cases people object both to the content (which has been established to be an invalid objection already) and the placement. I don't think there is a perfect placement, we've given everyone's alternatives a run. Let's decide, once and for all, which location the list lives at: mainspace, list space or template space. I recommend the last: collapsible and collapsed. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some extra sources for the skeptical (there are hundreds or thousands of sources, but these are just a few of those that are online):
  • Feminism says: "If patriarchy is defined as male control of women's economics, legal status, and sexuality, and matriarchy is the opposite of patriarchy, then it appears that there has never been a matriarchy."
— Winnie Tomm, Bodied mindfulness: women's spirits, bodies and places, (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1995), p. 289.
  • and Lerner, Cantarella and Hoberman agree: "Lerner writes that there is no evidence of any society where women as a group ruled men, suggesting that in the strictest sense, there has never been a matriarchy, and Cantarella concurs."
— Ruth Hoberman, Gendering Classicism: The Ancient World in Twentieth-century Women's Historical Fiction, SUNY Press, 1997), p. 24.
  • Psychology says: "In his book, The Inevitability of Patriarchy (1973), Dr Steven Goldberg marshals much persuasive evidence to support his thesis that male dominance is a manifestation of the 'psychophysiological reality' of our species. In addition to advancing the genetic and neurophysiological evidence relating to the biology of sexual differentiation [see also Gender taxonomy] already summarised above, he observes that 'authority and leadership are, and always have been, associated with the male in every society, and I refer to this when I way that patriarchy is universal and that there has never been a matriarchy.' Patriarchy, it seems, is the natural condition of mankind. 'There is not, nor has there ever been, any society that even remotely failed to associate authority and leadership in suprafamilial areas with the male."
— Anthony Stevens, Archetype: a natural history of the self, (Routledge, 1990), p. 188.
Then there are endless refs like: The Persistence of Patriarchy: Class, Gender, and Ideology in Twentieth Century Algeria. These things do not form the basis of what is reported in popular media or education, except in so far as individual or collective achievements by women, that seem to suggest something new or different to the norm to this point in history, are considered newsworthy. In fifty years time we may achieve our goal, but at this point the sources say it is a work in progress. Given that our aims do not yet meet reality, reader surprise in engaging with sources on this topic is something of a given, certainly editors (like the proposer) seem surprised. It is quite understandable. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User talk at patriarchy frequently has people dropping by to say such and such a society was matriarchal. They typically mention one or another of the societies on this list. The mandate for having the list at that article is also already well established, not just from the talk page, but from the previous deletion discussion.
The only final suggestion I'd have, though, is that there's nothing to stop us retaining the list in list, template and article space. Diskspace is no concern. The list is frequently cited in literature regarding patriarchy, which is relevant to many top-level articles: patriarchy, matriarchy, feminism (and many lower level ones). By having list, template and article space covered, those articles can take their pick of which way they give access to interested readers. We put power of choice in the hands of other editors and of readers.
While the MightyQuill clearly cares a lot about keeping this information off Wikipedia, we're not in the business of censoring the consensus of reliable scholars on topics of significant interest to readers. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Userfy" means the page would be moved from being an article to being a subpage of your user page (i.e. it would be at User:Alastair Haines/List of patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal). If the page is deleted, it becomes unaccessable to non-administrators, which would make it hard to reuse any content from it in other articles without retyping it. Having the page be userfied makes it no longer an article in the article space, but keeps the content around so that it can be accessed and improved or used elsewhere. Calathan (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, userfy is obviously not the solution then. It's just an attempt to remove standard material on the topic from Wikipedia. You'd need a valid reason to do that, which to this point hasn't been offered. On the other hand, given the wide relevance of the material, a range of different ways of providing access to it give a lot of people control over just how they make it available: text, template or link.
The decision here seems pretty clear. The proposer simply asked if the material was backed by reliable secondary sources, it's clear there are endless such sources available from all points of view. There are no grounds for deletion, and many for providing multiple versions of the material. I think we have an outcome: keep as list and template for ease and flexibility of access depending on the needs of the many articles that can use the information.
The proposal needs something like either of the following to stand a chance:
  • an example of a matriarchal society claimed by sufficient reliable secondary sources to represent a not-unduly weighted scholastic point of view OR
  • an example of a reliable secondary source that offers a different argument, other than the key evidence in the list, for the universality of patriarchy
Last time this was done, the proposer (and all observers at TfD) were offered a month to find such sources. I think it's fair Calathan and MightyQuill have the same opportunity.
Good luck. :)
Unless the above can be found, I've changed my mind to the following:

edit break[edit]

Question: Are there only two alternatives for a culture (i.e. patriarchal or matriarchal)? It seems to me that what Editor:Haines is conveying is the third option...cultures that were thought to be one but in actuality were the other. His inclusion of referenced works should also discourage any further comments about un-encyclopaedic or levels of scholarship. We are editors. Lets work at renaming the article, if that is the consensus, rather than destroying it. It is sourced, notable, relevant to the pat/mat discussion, informative to our reader, and is certainly superior to many other Wikipedia articles. Keep......--Buster7 (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry man, you missed the info above, don't know what you're smoking ;) most of this list was published 35 years ago. It belongs together, that's what the sources cite. I'm not convinced lists have to be as pure as you suggest (see List of sovereign states, List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel, there are other, more complex lists). But I like your main point: the info should be in all the society articles as well. Looks like we have an addition to the solution. The list needs an article, a template and a collapsible table in the patriarchy article. Plus the relevant source material should be added to each respective culture. That way we get all the reliable info out to all the places that can use it, with maximum flexibility for ease of use across a range of articles. What we're looking for now is the best name for the list. How about List of alleged matriarchies? Alastair Haines (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is clearly notable, it is useful in a single place, and the research appears sound (I'm not an expert and haven't chased down the source material) if not—as claimed—obviously from a single source where it lies together. However, I maintain that the need for extensive citations and explanations merely to demonstrate list membership makes the items not well-suited to list format. Rather, I would think a full-blown article (a companion to the matriarchy article) entitled something like The myth of matriarchy (if that doesn't sound too essay-like) explaining the origins and debunking of claims to matriarchy general, and then, using the citations from this list, going through each alleged matriarchy in detail. If a list is still deemed useful, it can be a single unreferenced list with a few columns (possibly fewer than now, perhaps by grouping by region and eliminating that column), without the need for the "List of ethnographic references for the table" section as those would have been adequately covered in the article. Bongomatic 12:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds (not mine) think alike. In this case you seem uncannily like many published reliable sources:
Sample text @ New York Times site, with pay-to-view review link.
I do take your point about complicated lists, once again. Yes, when there is too much information on members, especially proving inclusion, we might as well cross the line into a simple article, with subsections indexing what would otherwise be a list. Taking your advice here would mean renaming the current list and expanding it to be an article, cross referenced to patriarchy, matriarchy and various articles on books like The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory and The Inevitability of Patriarchy. The sources to cover this are endless, but the core work has already been done. Phew!
So, yet another change of mind on my part:
But I want both courses of action to occur. They aren't mutually exclusive. Calathan (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<tongue in cheek> I'm not sure Calathan's "voted" twice, cause this isn't democracy is it? He's multiple-strands-of-advice-to-consider-incorporating-into-consensus-outcome-ed, not voted as such. But I'd like to see the userfy struck. That can't be done (at my user space anyway) without my consent, and I've not been bribed enough yet to give it. ;)
Name options please friends! Alastair Haines (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, in that case, we probably go back to very close to your first suggestion, based on the word patriarchy rather than matriarchy: the sources speak of the "universality of patriarchy". It's listed in Donald Brown's Human universals (cited in Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate). Steven Goldberg appears to have coined the term in The Inevitability of Patriarchy (though he doesn't actually believe patriarchy is inevitable, just empirically universal). Many ideological books (and a host of websites) bemoan or celebrate "the universality of patriarchy" (36,200 hits at Google, 23,800 at Scholar), many (if not most) of these are feminist sources working on exposure and practical solutions.
There are other relevant terms in the literature, but all things considered, I think Marshall's original "list of patriarchies" is, translated into "source speak", "universality of patriarchy". The article simply addresses the counter-examples that have been offered, those who proposed them, and the consensus that has rejected them. Done. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after hearing back from Calathan and Bongomatic, should they support us, I'll volunteer to execute a draft of our decision. I've access to a host of sources and have read a fair few too. I think a couple of societies are currently missing, and a couple have rather more interesting discussions associated with them than others. It is very well that we have come to this decision, because we can do more justice to something readers have been demanding. Thank you all.
Rename to Universality of patriarchy. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Universality of patriarchy sounds like a fine name to me. I'm against any name with "myth" in the title. Calathan (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Universality of patriarchy.--Buster7 (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair Haines seems to be stating that:
  • there is authority on the proposition that all claimed matriarchies are in fact patriarchies (not just one-by-one); and
  • that there is uncontroversial authority that every originally-claimed matriarchy has been commonly agreed to be a patriarchy within the profession
If this is so, then I don't see the OR/SYNTH/POV problem. I'm not an expert in the field (perhaps you are) but without seeing the article (which should obviously include alternative viewpoints, even if outside the mainstream), I don't think it is ripe for a deletion opinion. Bongomatic 04:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"AH seems": Bongo has understood and represented my summary of hundreds of sources precisely and concisely. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair, I suggest (a) making sure that the authorities are clearly identified as supporting the propositions in the first bullet point above; (b) making sure to give airtime (not UNDUE, but due, anyway) to dissenting views; and (c) getting to work in the article! Bongomatic 16:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article without WP:SYN would rely primarily on sources trying to make that general point. Instead, this article pieces together bits of information from a very wide variety of sources to counter unsourced claims to matriarchy. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though we all agree then. The problem is that the list should not be a free standing list, it needs to have the context of an article. (I have argued the same for two years now.) Freestanding, the list is a "trap for mature players": immaculately sourced as it is, the criterion for inclusion is obscure and convoluted, and there is no space for adequate presentation of the reliable sources that compiled (and add to) the list. The experienced Wikipedian's instinct sees the tell tale potential for synthetic original research. A subject area expert may be able to verify, but how can the general community verify, fresh additions from anyone-can-editors?
Listifying introduced potential for Synth OR, agreed by all (I think). Solution: delistify, articlify and renamify. Oh! And deletify the evidence of the original listification to protect the well intentioned but guilty: i.e. good-faithify. Hmmm, all this ifying seems a bit ify to me, but it's fun. I'm learning Wikipediese. :) Err, not 'pedifying myself though. <blush for that one> Alastair Haines (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, I've declined to host userfication. However, what I can do is accommodate this proposal into our consensus by accepting nomination to take responsibility for maintaining the article on our behalf. I'll add the maintenance tag to Universality of patriarchy, so parties interested in expanding the article can contact me for sources. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Silah Sulahian[edit]

Lucy Silah Sulahian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reasons for deletion:

This article had been deleted twice before on questions of notability. [22] [23]

The topic still does not meet the standards of notability. [24]

Sources and citations were requested but never provided. There has been no "significant coverage" or reliable and independent sources at all. The article's creator, rovasil, is biased in that he is Lucy Sulahian's son, Robert. [25]

This appears to be a vanity page and does not warrant inclusion here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by XenoJov (talk • contribs) — XenoJov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Solis[edit]

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

Lack of notability. This is a reporter for a local ABC affiliate. Nothing notable about his bio. Nothing that seperates him from the thousands of other local reporters on local affilates. This would have been handled with wp:PROD, but an IP editor removed the tag, not to contest it, but to put a tag in about American English. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried speedy delete first, but an admin refused is becuase there might be notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Airlines Flight 1726[edit]

Northwest Airlines Flight 1726 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a one time event that really isn't all that notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would actually interpret "blown engine" to mean "uncontained engine failure", which is technically an explosion (although not normally of the flames and smoke variety). It is a bit ambiguous though; I wouldn't draw any real conclusions for actual use in an article. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I won't withdraw the nomination. I did that recently on another nomination, but this one is clearly not notable on its own. The info can easily be added to another article without a redirect. Do you really suppose it is that common that people look up a specific flight number of a mishap that didn't even have serious injuries? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observation of a Waiter[edit]

Observation of a Waiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film, possibly even a hoax as I get zero hits on google for "Observation of a Waiter" which for an existing or even planned film is highly unusual. Passportguy (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with salting the page. It is possible that someone, sometime, somewhere, may use the same title for a project that on completion will satisfy the usual requirements for verifiability and notability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space Cowboy (Australian Circus and Freak show performer)[edit]

Space Cowboy (Australian Circus and Freak show performer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable circus performer. A search for results is going to get confounded with at least one Hollywood film, but I think this falls short of WP:N. Also, though I'm not willing to outright declare a hoax at the moment, this at least feels like a Tall Tale. Tyrenon (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please do not delete this; this person is already referred to in the Disambiguation page for "Space Cowboy" but unlike the other entries there he does not have a page. He is Notable in that he holds several world records, competed in Australia's Got Talent, and has a notable collection of freakshow material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnicyclingJugglingGOD (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - Wikipedia guidance on Notability includes the following criteria for Notability for Entertainers:
"Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.....has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."
Without a doubt the Space Cowboy can be said to have a significant "cult" following (as evidenced by 2,970 friends on his Myspace site) in a specialised and often dark area of the entertainment world. He has also made many "prolific and innovative contributions" in his field:
1. He has assembled a collection of historical and unusual 'freakshow' material that is Notable in its own right.
2. He has won the Street Performance World Championship three years in a row, the most of any one person or group.
3. He has broken three world records.
4. He has many "world firsts" such as first double sword swallow, first sword swallow underwater, and the "The Black and Decker Digestion Wrecker" a power drill with sword attachment which he swallows.
5. He has performed in 30 countries around the world.
This is even without his performance on "Australia's Got Talent", for which appearance on such reality shows seems enough to gain Notability and a Wikipedia page for other people (e.g. Susan Boyle, and the even less significant "performer" known as DJ Talent).
Peteinterpol (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide references for these? There were three refs on the article when I looked, all largely the same - 2 were pictures of him sword swallowing, the 3rd went into more detail (The PDF stated "Australian sword swallower 'The Space Cowboy' attempted to break the current Guinness World record in Dublin yesterday by swallowing 27 swords decorated with the flags of each of the countries in the EU to mark the vote on the Lisbon Treaty"). The latter strikes me as most useful: if he broke the record that seems (to me) to imply notability. If you could provide refs for the other 2/3 world records he's broken, and maybe some of the "firsts" he's achieved, then I'd be happy to !vote keep on the basis of notability. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defence of this page

I would argue for retaining this page. I have been considering starting a page on this person myself, particularly since his fame in his native Australia after appearing on Australia's Got Talent. Even Susan Boyle has her own page after appearing on the UK version of the show but with fewer other claims to Notability.

This is also not a Tall Tale or hoax. A search of Youtube will reveal the veracity of the subject.

Peteinterpol (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Susan Boyle's notability isn't derived from performing on Britain's Got Talent, it's derived from the international media exposure she subsequently got. Performers on Britain's Got Talent wouldn't normally satisfy notability requirements for their own article. No comment on Space Cowboy's notability, except to say that I'd normally expect it to extend beyond Australia's Got Talent to justify an article. I've not yet looked at Space Cowboy in any detail though, so not !voting at this stage. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Striking part of comment, because I've started to look at Space Cowboy and it looks like notability could be established. Need more refs, however. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's useful This flag was once red. Interestingly though, the following former Britain’s Got Talent contestants all have Wikipedia pages despite not having had amything like the media coverage that Susan Boyle has had:
Connie Talbot , Damon Scott, Jake Pratt, The Bar Wizards, Escala, Charlie Green, Andrew Johnston, Kate and Gin, Faryl Smith, Greg Pritchard, Julian Smith, Hollie Steel, Shaun Smith, Shaheen Jafargholi, DJ Talent, Neil Horan, Manjit Singh, Mr. Methane.
These are hardly household names. It seems their apprearance on Britain's Got Talent is the sole criterion for Notability used in many if not all of these cases. If appearing on Britain’s Got Talent” is not sufficient grounds for Notability, these people’s pages should also be deleted.
Peteinterpol (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point - some of those are fair enough - Connie Talbot, for example, was a finalist, if I remember correctly. Others... not so much. My point was more that Susan Boyle satisfied notability requirements, not that some other contestants didn't deserve to be WP:AFD'd into touch ;-)
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, noted.
Cheers
Peteinterpol (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue for the retention of this page because he has broken possibly 5 world records, is one of the last remaining sword swallowers on the planet and the media has spent over 325,000 australian dollars on him. He is founder of one of the last, perhaps even the only legal travelling freakshows on the planet. He is extremely famous at festivals, for instace the Edinburgh fringe festival, he has performed there 13 years in a row. He has won Street Performer world championship 3 times in a row. He is so famous and intriging that someone got a permanent tattoo of his wings and the words "space cowboy" on their leg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnicyclingJugglingGOD (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Citations for World Records

The following refers to a Guiness World Record he broke in 2008:

http://www.swordswallow.com/records.php

Where it states that:

"Chayne Hultgren, the Space Cowboy of Australia holds the official men's * Guinness World Record for swallowing 17 swords at once at Calder Park in Melbourne, Australia on March 28, 2008"

Will see if I can find a copy of the Guinness book itself.

Peteinterpol (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC) (I just fixed this comment Drawn Some (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]


Have added a citation on the page from the Times demonstrating his popularity compared to other street performers.

Also a citation referring to his being the first person to ever swallow a sword in a tank of live sharks.

Peteinterpol (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have now added a citation for a second world record, heaviest weight lifted while swallowing a sword - 22.4kg

Peteinterpol (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep, edit the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chinese Veterinary Medicine[edit]

Traditional_Chinese_Veterinary_Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

As far as I know, we (those who have contributed to the creation of the wiki page Traditional Chinese Veterinary Medicine) have 5 days to debate the deletion of this page.

I was the main writer and creator of this article. I simply want to delete because I feel we can all write and create a better article for this subject. It will be simpler to delete the page and then start over, rather than try to edit, change and add to the present article.

I feel this subject is important, relevant and compelling, and it deserves a better article than the present one on wiki.

To the other 2 persons who have edited it and to all who are interested, please feel free to add your comments to this discussion.

As far as I know, only a Wiki administrator can actually delete an article.

Thank you.

relax777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relax777 (talk • contribs) 2009/06/01 03:08:37

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Very few, if any, "votes" are policy-based, and as such I can see no clear consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Pritchard[edit]

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

WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS, also fails WP:MUSICBIO. Otterathome (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vasse Felix[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability as per WP:N; articles reads like self-promotion as per WP:ADVERT, and article author's edit history shows other self-promiting edits to related articles BodegasAmbite (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Halliday is as big as it gets when it comes to Australian wine journalists/critics. He should definitely be considered a reliable source. Camw (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The very first point in the section "Before nominating an article for deletion" states "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." - This page did merit improvement and it should have been done via the regular editing process. It is not spurious to suggest that taking an Article to AfD is not the appropriate way to improve an article and that articles on notable subjects should be deleted until they are of a particular standard is something I (and I believe our policies regarding deletion and notability) disagree very strongly with. Camw (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States government electronic data provider[edit]

United States government electronic data provider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

My vote is Delete. I am behind the deletion of this article. User:ZabMilenko tagged this article for deletion claiming I do not see an actual article here. To be honest I don't know what this is about and I almost tagged with hoax. However, even if not a hoax there is nothing that constitutes a full-on article.

I also propose its deletion because it appears to lack:

I say the article is meaningless. --Sky Attacker (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see a way to improve it as an article and there is nothing useful there, but I already voted when I added the prod. Zab (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZabMilenko 10:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Polemic Neologism. --Pgallert (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No content in the article, just several wikilinks.DonaldDuck (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what little there is! Eddie.willers (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no problem with it. I think it would be useful to see a list of sources of electronically published information from the US government, but it makes sense that WP may not be the place for such a list. RayKiddy (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlie Beck[edit]

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

Woman who gained media attention after she was fired from her cheerleading coach position at a high school for posing in Playboy Cyber Girl. Outside of that there is nothing notable about her. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Showtime2009 (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nja247 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Physics of the Impossible[edit]

Physics of the Impossible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a book, which does not meet WP notability criteria, WP:NB. In particular, Refs. 1=11, 2 and 12 do not qualify for reason 1. As to reason 5, even if the author was a prominent scientist (which is a separate issue) it does not mean this book is notable. Materialscientist (talk) 09:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #1: There is serious discussion of this book in at least three major news channels (NYT, Seattle Times, Radio 4). Just why isn't that conferring notability on it, according to WP:BOOK #1?
Comment #2: Lousy article, padded like crazy. So we fix that by editing, it's no grounds for deletion.
I heard the Radio 4 broadcast, didn't like this book and hated Michio Kaku as an interviewee. That's all just WP:IDONTLIKEIT though, and we should be careful not to go there. Clearly some editors don't want this article, but I'm not seeing strong policy-based arguments for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These responses from Materialscientist and Fuhghettaboutit reminded that I want to propose that there be a set of notability requirements, at Wikipedia, for non fiction books, in the popular science category. I can't speak for other disciplines, but non-fiction science rates some sort of notability category. For example, who is going to make a dramatic feature film from popularized non fiction physics books. And, these science books are probably not going to end up in a literature course at a university. There is no plot to summarize, and is not likely to win a major literary award, etc., etc. I am surprised that this has not been brought up before. The current notablility guidelines are stacked against these types of books. On that note - if anyone has any ideas about what these proposed notablility requirements should be, I am open to suggestions, so I can present with something in hand. Feel free to leave suggestions at my talk page. Ti-30X (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BK is intentionally written in the disjunctive, i.e., the criteria are prefaced by the language "one or more of the following criteria".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. thanks. So, you are saying there is no need for such guidelines. Got it. Ti-30X (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Hannon[edit]

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

The article seems to fail WP:BLP. GNews returns nothing relevant for at least a couple dozen hits (all hits involve mix-and-match names or unrelated people), while nothing leaps out on Google. IMDB offers one unnamed part in one movie which appears to be an indie production and nothing else. The IMDB links provided mainly link to other actresses. In short, I suspect we may have a complex and decently well-orchestrated hoax, but it isn't blatant enough to pull a speedy. Topping it off, I also now see that the editor who made the article has an ID rather similar to the article's title, suggesting WP:COI also comes into play here. Tyrenon (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Genevieve Hannon is a well-respected and known voiceover artist and actress in New York, a client at one of the leading talent agencies in the country and has earned a six-figure living as a full time actor and voiceover artist for over a decade (remember: 3% of actors are working actors, and she is among them). She has held leading roles in dozens of national ad campaigns for companies like Wendy's, Burger King, Verizon Wireless, Morgan Stanley, and has performed over a thousand voiceovers for television and radio, including for networks like MTV and Lifetime. She is a recognizable actress, both by look and sound, and has a solid reputation in her industry, as evidenced by her income, her reviews and her professional reels on her website and other databases and voice banks. When using the Google test, with quotation marks, she turns up 331 results, most of which are professional theater reviews, databases, voice banks containing her professional voiceover reel, and professional websites. The film listed on IMDB was written and directed by one of the head writers of one of the most watched TV shows in the country, The Daily Show. IMDB is not the Bible of the acting industry. Do your homework. Look a little deeper. It is possible you aren't familiar with the acting and voiceover industries, Tyrenon. She is not only notable for her professional achievements in a highly competitive field, but she is relative to a historic figure and has worked professionally with many people with Wikipedia pages. This is definitely not a hoax, and should be considered as a notable living person, and not subject for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genevievehannon (talk • contribs) 08:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

— Genevievehannon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Doesn't fail WP:ENT See following: Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. 3 major TV shows, 3 notable plays/musicals with reviews from major publications Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Prolific: over 30 national commercials and over 1,000 voiceovers See other notable Voiceover Artists like colleagues Blaze Berdahl and Sarah Hamilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genevievehannon (talk • contribs) 09:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Genevievehannon, could you please sign your comments? To do that, use four tildes (~) in a row after your comment, the Wikipedia automation will add your name and other info. As for the article, making a living as an actor is respectable, but not necessarily notable. There's no real evidence here that Ms Hannon is notable according to any applicable standards. Delete Kate (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't fail WP:RS either. See 17 references and 6 external links, including the New York Times, Time Out NY, Artezine, IMDB, Voicebank, all surely "Reliable Sources". What more does one need to show to be defined by Wikipedia "critics" as "Notable" for an entertainer who is clearly prolific and has had several significant roles in plays reviewed by the NY Times and other notable publications, and has been a leader in her field of voiceovers, holding national ad campaigns for Wendy's, Verizon Wireless, Gillette Venus, etc? I highly disagree with the negative speculation and question if those who are commenting truly understand the business of acting in advertising or the voiceover business. Again, see other "Notable" colleagues making a living as actors, Blaze Berdahl and Sarah Hamilton, who have had far fewer notable works recorded yet have Wikipedia pages.--129.85.25.133 (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)— 129.85.25.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Do not agree with Edison on comment about references. As a casting director for national commercials for 20 years, I have to say that there are very few references to actors featured in individual commercials unless an actor is featured in series of spots for a single capaign such as the actors in the currently running Progressive Auto Insurance ads (ie, actor Stephanie Courtney). To date Hannon has been principal actor in over 30 national campaigns and I am well aware of her work as a leading actor in the industry. Commercial actors generally do not get reviews and their spots are open for watching mostly on advertising websites available by subscription, and even there the actors' names are not listed normally. Judging from her profesional resume distributed and stamped by her agency (which is one of the leading talent agencies in the U.S.) and her reel, she is most certainly a leading actress in tv commercials and voiceovers. There is no resource to back this up other than Voicebank and CESD's website, plus some ad industry websites showing her spots. She should list these in external references. I see she already has Voicebank. Besides her acting and performing in dozens of commercials since 1996, and voiceovers since 1999, she has had a legit acting career but no fame (kind of a blessing for actors to work steadily but retain anonymity). Her refernces do in fact mention her and are reiable sources. She is mentioned in Theatre World 1997-1998 for her role of Young Elizabeth in ""Richard III"". She is also mentioned in Artezine's review of her performance as one of the Andrews Sisters in ""Angel Mountain"". The critic wrote, "In the background", which doesn't translate to background actor, but instead refers to the physical position of the actors on the stage - they performed on their own stage to stage right of the main stage where the play was enacted. I saw the show in its run off Broadway as did roughly 1600 theater goers in its 16-performance Equity run. The critic goes on to remark after indeed listing Ms. Hannon as one of the Andrews Sisters, "They are wonderful, capturing the swing style of the '40s' music without outright mimicry, a real ""coup de theatre"". NY Theatre did not mention the actors' names individually, but critiqued their performance to write that their singing sets the period and, "I liked having them perform a few songs in the lobby, before the show proper begins". Gothamist also does not spell out the actors' individual names but describes the Andrews Sisters as sing at the side of the stage and wavered between appreciating it and seeing it as gratuitous period color. These are all well-respected and reliable sources for theater goers in NYC, and I would be careful to understand this article does not in anyway fail the Source Reliability requirement I would also be thoughtful to decide Ms. Hannon's notability as an established and prolific commercial actor and VoiceOver artist. --Publishernyc (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Publishernyc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia and Papua New Guinea[edit]

Indonesia and Papua New Guinea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This doesn't fall under any clear CSD criteria, so I'm just punting it in here. There are articles on both countries, etc.; it looks like a new user putting their feet in the water, but I don't think it quite meets with the "test page" guidelines. Tyrenon (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, actually, bilateral relations between PNG and Indonesia are clearly notable enough to warrant an article of their own (see above). But not in this form. The article we're voting on doesn't actually mention their relations. Aridd (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand about the proximity, and the potential importance of this case, and that an article of some kind is needed. I still think that the correct approach is via developing the articles of the countries involved. Certainly a list of arbitrary facts is not helpful, and this particular article is definitely misguided. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see my comment in response to Cdogsimmons below. Aridd (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not disputing that there should be an article on bilateral relations between Indonesia and PNG. There definitely should be. There would be quite a lot of relevent material to put in such an article, as I indicated above. But the article in its current form is essentially worthless (no offence intended to its creator, who was making a laudable attempt to contribute). At best, it should be turned into a redirect once an article on PNG-Indonesia bilateral relations has been created. (Which I would create myself if I had time to go looking through all my collected data on the Pacific, but I haven't.) Aridd (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're actually quite right. This article should be moved to Indonesia-Papua New Guinea relations]]. That's what I think the creator meant. No need to delete. Just move.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nja247 10:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Acid Christ[edit]

Velvet Acid Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not appear to meeet Wikipedia standards for music notability as described in WP:MUSIC. A proposed deletion tag was removed by a user who argued that they know of and like the band and thus it should not be deleted; however this in no way addresses the notability concern. This article's sources consist primarily of links to the band's webpage and fan pages. Drelusis (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are individual album pages, none of which seem to meet notability guidelines. If the vote is to keep the main article, these should each be merged into the main page as they are generally only track listings:

Velvet_Acid_Christ_Vs_Funker_Vogt:_The_Remix_Assault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lust_for_Blood_(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Neuralblastoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Church_of_Acid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Calling_Ov_the_Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fun_With_Knives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twisted_Thought_Generator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hex_Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fate_(Velvet_Acid_Christ_album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dimension_8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oblivion_Interface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


To add the text I put on the article's talk page as a response to the user who removed the prod tag:

Notability standard #1 for musical acts is the only one that would seem to offer any possibility for this band. However, this page consists primarily of material sourced from the band's own pages. The only two external sources are 1) "Last Sigh Magazine," which seems to be online only, and whose reviews page was last updated in 2000 and interviews page, in 2001, and 2) "Sonic Boom," another online-only source that published e-mail interviews from 1995 to 1998. I believe neither of these sources qualify as "reliable" according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources or non-trivial, and may qualify as self-published sources. Unless reliable, non-trivial sources of coverage can be accessed, that would leave this band without a notability leg to stand on as far as I can tell. If the article is not deleted, it needs a major re-write as eliminating all information from the band's own website would essentially leave it without content.Drelusis (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have you tried searching for the subject using a search engine?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding – it's not that a mention in Allmusic demonstrates notability, but that it demonstrates that they have the "two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" which means automatic notability in Wikipedia per WP:MUSIC #5. – iridescent 15:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On these sources: Neither side-line, Re:Gen, nor inmusicwetrust are blogs - all three sites have a staff as listed on those sites - whether all are acceptable as reliable sources is debatable. Release magazine is a web magazine that previously also appeared in a print version [44]. Allmusic, contrary to what many believe, does not have coverage of every band in existence - many bands have nothing there whatsoever, and plenty of notable bands have nothing more than an index entry with no bio or reviews. A band that has a substantial bio and two substantial reviews at Allmusic is going to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article.--Michig (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, new organization with no indication of significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood Amateur Radio Club[edit]

Redwood Amateur Radio Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

CSD moved and contested. May as well get the nomination over with: It's a local group with no particular notability asserted. Fails WP:ORG. Tyrenon (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep with rename. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Seems that there are no issues after renaming anymore. Tone 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Shaanxi dog massacre[edit]

2009 Shaanxi dog massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No English-language sources are provided. While this does not mean that the incident in question is not factual, it does make verifying it exceedingly difficult. The term "2009 shaanxi dog massacre" turns up a batch of hits on Google, but these primarily stem from various terms combining with discussions of the Nanking Massacre. Furthermore, the article is exceedingly poorly written and seems to have a definite bias against the government's actions. At the very least this article needs a massive rewrite and the provision of a more NPOV title, and even then I'm not sure if a government initiative by a single county in China meets with notability. Tyrenon (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I began fixing up the article a bit. Now the title, I was thinking maybe 2009 Shaanxi rabies wave or something. ViperSnake151  Talk  11:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems like a better article title. "dog massacre" may come across as POV. If the government is handing out vaccinations for pet owners, and culling stray dogs, it is a "cull", not an "extermination" or "massacre", regardless of the numbers killed, and as per WP policy, regardless of popular branding and what the media says. Such words can be taken in the wrong way; it would be like comparing the incident with the Nanking Massacre. There is no wrong in culling if it is done in an appropriate manner, refer to the 2009 Canberra, Australia Kangaroo culling. Also, be wary of exaggerations and personal influences in media sources. It is best to refer to a report which provides the information without a strong POV. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 13:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with User:benlisquare, the title and the text in the article give the appearance of op-ed and not NPOV, so the article needs editing, but as far as the AfD goes, it's a keep. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice is to rename to something more neutral, because it's questionable that the term "massacre" meets WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & rename If rabies is the most deadly thing going, then this needs to be reported like the swine flu. Now I am not saying it doesn't currently sound at least a little biased. It does. But the original articles available yesterday called it a "massacre" in chinese news. Today there appears to be more english sources appearing if you need more references. To make this more encyclopedic, please dig up similar 2007 events. Maybe people should research the national four pests campaign to see how those got started. Please rename the article. Benjwong (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'd agree if it were on more than a local scale. The problem is that per the article (and as I said, English-language sourcing is hard to find Well, we got one source that's solid), it's just one county. Though it is a lot of dogs, this is no more notable than my old neighborhood holding a deer cull every few years to prevent car crashes.Tyrenon (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If kept, the POV title should be changed to 2009 Shaanxi rabies outbreak, since the cull was just one measure taken, along with mass vaccination, after 8 people died of rabies in a few weeks. Edison (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Benjwong Ngchen (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to keep, perhaps merging with similar articles (after the Great sparrow campaign I'd presume it happened in other regions of China too). 20 thousand pests in a 4-million city, IMO, don't count as a massacre and the article says that leashed domestic dog were not hurt, so rename as suggested above. NVO (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider a rename We cover all major disease outbreaks, but the title is POV. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not about the rabies outbreak but about the killing of the dogs. This happens in China often, not rarely, and the article can be about that. Rabies is endemic in rural China and an article about rabies in China, where fatal rabies cases are traced to dog bites 95% of the time, could be written, even an article solely about dog rabies in China. This article is about the dog killing, though, not about the rabies outbreak. I think it would be better to have a general article about dog slaughters in response to rabies outbreaks in China rather than an article about each specific episode. In Beijing over 200,000 dogs were killed over a period of years in the early 90s in response to rabies cases. "Culling" implies removing something but leaving something behind. As the stated goal of the county government is not to leave any dogs behind it can't properly be called "culling," but must have a title to reflect the killing. It seems like just as much a POV to attempt to call the killing of 50,000 dogs something nice as to call it a massacre. I suggest slaughter. Although usually used to imply both the killing and the butchering, it can also mean just the killing. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of numbers, culling is culling. 4,000 Kangaroos killed in Australia is a cull. 50,000 dogs killed in Shaanxi is a cull. An argument over the English definition of "cull" is null, void and pointless. Culls are any "killing" of an animal in significant numbers due to a credible reason by those responsible. For example, the Department of Defense in Australia culled kangaroos because they were taking up defense property, and that the winter would have killed them off anyway due to cold and starvation. Culls are perfectly normal occurrences when done by local governments. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 09:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, discussion about wording meaning when writing an encyclopedia are never "null, void and pointless." While debating whether or not to delete or rename this article is the perfect time to debate and make certain of the meaning of words used in the article. However, I'm not arguing with you. I'm simply offering some points for consideration. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 2009 Shaanxi dog-free zone[edit]

  • Agree: I am supporting this name because that is the goal. If they succeed, every other province will follow them. "Culling" here is a total contradiction. The government is claiming to protect the people. Meanwhile they are sending ordinary citizens out to do the killing, exposing them directly to the dogs. Culling is very systematic, and does not attempt to wipe out an entire species in a region. As a "rabies outbreak", not one source has mentioned bats, wolves, foxes. Is dog the only animal in shaanxi?? This is basically a very cheap extermination process. The government is saying they have free vaccines, but encourage people to go out with bats. While I don't want to see people get bitten, and most netizens are fed up with the process (like another 2006 repeat). This is a less POV pushing name. Benjwong (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still about the killing of the dogs not about the "dog-free zone" goal of the county, and the title should reflect what the article is about. Maybe "eradication?"
China has a comparatively high incidence of rabies bites and deaths, and 95% of the bites are from rabid dogs, and 95% of the deaths due to rabies in China are from dogs. Past campaigns in China that have vaccinated and killed dogs have drastically lowered the death rate from rabies in China. In addition, the death rate has risen coincident with increases in dog populations. I wish some of the articles had discussed the humans handling potentially rabid dogs in this manner, because 2 of the deaths I read about were victims who had butchered, cooked, and eaten infected dogs. Others who ate the dog meat they had prepared did not come down with rabies, just the two had actually killed the dogs and butchered the meat. But I could not find any news articles or sources that discuss the risks associated with handling of dogs while killing them in such a manner. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am just not going to touch the article until there is a final name change. Isn't calling it a "slaughter" abit POV like "massacre". Do you have another name in mind? The article will mention more about the rabies, though that view is coming more from delayed western reporting IMHO. I was thinking the concept of dog-free county is what is unique here to make this notable in the first place. Benjwong (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page was moved to less POV name 2009 Shaanxi dog-free zone after no more complaints for 3 days. Benjwong (talk) 05:05, 7 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Per A7 - no credible claims of importance or significance. SoWhy 11:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supratalk[edit]

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

Nominated for a speedy but the speedy was declined and objected to. I feel going to a Prod from a speedy would simply result in us being here soon enough, so I'm putting this up now. The website appears to be highly non-notable except as a commercial promotion. As it stands, the supposed footware icon/iconic company does not even have an entry here on Wikipedia. Therefore, I think this may well be commercial spam on top of failing notability. Tyrenon (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nja247 10:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus – Saudi Arabia relations[edit]

Cyprus – Saudi Arabia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination, non resident embassies. complete lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations only multilateral [45]. the only article I found was this which would make an amusing bilateral article. In over 40 years of relations, they can only come up with 1 minor agreement, tells me the governments rarely speak. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please some find some sources then rather than saying there probably will be sources. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stage-Gate friendly organization structures[edit]

Stage-Gate friendly organization structures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research from a student's research paper. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Torres[edit]

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

Non-notable artist Madcoverboy (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Many of the keep votes simply stated that Mr. Figueroa was notable, yet failed to expand upon why he was. The delete votes on the other hand were much stronger, and examined why the subject failed Criteria 1. There were one or two valid arguments for keeping the article, but not enough to sway the consensus. I'm happy to provide a copy of the article to anyone who wants it after deletion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enectali Figueroa[edit]

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

Deprodded, as academic has h-index of 8 or 9, as astronaut "applicant" I am pretty sure he has lots of company. Joey the Mango (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, but maybe his published work:Title: "Position-sensitive low-temperature detectors"; Author: Figueroa-Feliciano, Enectali; Publication: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics; Research Section A, Volume 520, Issue 1-3, p. 496-501; Publication Date: 03/2004; Bibliographic Code: 2004NIMPA.520..496F; can provide an insight as to why he is pioneer in the development of position-sensitive detectors in NASA. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One paper with a title is hardly more evidence for academic notability than one paper without a title. Every academic has a paper. Most notable academics have many. Most of their papers have titles. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now let's take an objective look at matters. The only substantive argument I've seen made so far, albeit without any explicit supporting information, involves his work on detectors, i.e. we are evaluating whether WP:PROF #1 is satisfied or not. Indeed, a cursory glance conclusively shows that none of the other criteria are satisfied – they essentially never are at the asst. prof. level – so, it has to be criterion #1. How do we evaluate #1? In his case (physics), we check his research record – readily accomplished using Web of Science. This will allow us to determine how many publications he has, how significant they were to his field of study (via citations), approximately how he contributed to each, etc. Initial findings do seem promising: 54 articles in mainstream journals, e.g. Phys. Rev. Let., Atrophys. J., etc. A few stand out with 136, 32, and 28 citations, but the count drops off rapidly from there. Now, this would probably be passable, if this were primarily his work. That is, if he were the lab head, principal investigator, sole contributer, etc. But unfortunately this is not the case. When you start checking these articles in more detail, which WoS readily allows you to do, you find that practically all of them are "big science" projects having oodles of authors, with his name mostly not in one of the key positions (7 exceptions, see below). This implies that he, like most of the other people listed on those papers, played essentially a supporting rather than a primary role. Note that these sorts of projects and the corresponding observation I just made are very typical of all the mostly-experimental hard sciences: biology, chemistry, physics, etc. This is an unfortunate aspect of the prevailing "authorship culture", for example it is easy to find research technicians with high h-index. Again, I'm not disparaging his character or knowledge here, but I am critiquing what we can reasonably discern as his contributions (which is what must ultimately satisfy #1). He did have 7 articles where his name appears first. While 5 of these are again "big author list" publications, we can still reasonably assume he made significant contributions. The remaining 2 are sole author papers, so these are entirely his work. None of these are the three relatively highly-cited papers mentioned above. (2 have 7 citations, 1 has 3, 1 has 1, the rest have 0).
The picture that all these observations paint is one of a young, promising researcher, who has done work roughly commensurate with his peers who are also early in their careers. My very detailed, albeit long-winded analysis simply underscores what David Eppstein already succinctly pointed out above. We almost always reach the same conclusion for articles on assistant profs because they are at the "entry level" of the academic profession and simply have not had the time to establish a notable record. In closing, we can all speculate whether he will do so in the future (it's likely he will), but WP is not in the business of fortune telling. I hope this clarifies the process for those of you who are not regular commentators on WP:PROF cases. Again, be assured that there is no intentional disparagement here, but I would say that, given the facts that we now all have, it is likely this case will end in a deletion. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
On the matter of trolls, feeding them is not really kindness, nor really necessary.We kindly ask you refrain from doing so.
  • Comment. Sir. First, I'll thank you not to put words into my mouth. "Puerto Rican" and "bias" are your words – your back-handed accusation is way out of order here! The wording of your post suggests you are the one who has WP:NPOV issues. So how about an example of the canvassing I'm talking about. Are you aware that Tony the Marine and Antonio Johnny Torrio Martin are father/son? Their entries create, at the very least, the perception of vote-stacking, i.e. attempting to "sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion". Instead, you are looking for racism in my comments where there isn't any. Please cease and desist. Second, your "keep" also has little substance to it: "NASA is starting to use him as a spokeperson" is speculation on your part. The link you furnish is actually to an article on Brain drain. There are only 3 sentences that actually apply to the subject and the extent of his single actual quote is precisely 5 words, "going into space and beyond". This hardly makes him a spokesperson. Third, your assertion that he meets WP:PROF #1 is WP:JUSTAVOTE, unless you can furnish some actual evidence. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I was responding to this comment, " I expected a wave of Keeps when this AfD was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Puerto Rico, and now I hope to hear from the Wikipedia community-at-large". My vote is also based in WP:BIAS, "The Wikipedia project suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting as imbalanced coverage of a subject." I suggest to take a breather, and stop making accusations of NPOV and canvassing if you don’t have evidence. Comment on content, not on the contributor(WP:No personal attacks).--Jmundo 20:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My apologies, though I will point out that if you follow the convention of responding to specific, earlier comments by placing them within that thread, then we would not have such regrettable misunderstandings. Again, apologies. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Please look carefully at my wording: "Their entries create, at the very least, the perception of vote-stacking" (emphasis added). Are you contending that these don't create perceptions? In my experience, when such perceptual risks are possible or are likely to occur, people will go out of their way to disclose/disclaim in order to defuse any subsequent problems, such as we now appear to have. It is a fact that nobody in this discussion, including yourself, did so prior. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]


Comment "Notable" - He may not be notable as an MIT professor as has been pointed out by the majority of the delete votes here, however new evidence provided by User:Ercheck in his restructuring of the articles introductions shows that Dr. Figueroa had a featured piece on the PBS show NOVA - "Dark Matter" talking about his research. He is also the Principal Investigator on an NSF grant which adds evidence that his research is noted. Updated intro.:

Enectalí (Tali) Figueroa-Feliciano, Ph.D., (born 1971) is an astrophysicist who pioneered the development position-sensitive detectors and is an expert and researcher on dark matter.[1][2] Figueroa is a researcher with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and a professor of physics MIT.[3][4]

  1. ^ "Dark Matter". NOVA. PBS. June 5, 2008. Retrieved 2009-06-06.
  2. ^ "NSF Award #0847342L Increasing the Dark Matter Science Reach of the SuperCDMS Experiment". National Science Foundation. February 1, 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-06.
  3. ^ "Dr. Enectali Figueroa-Feliciano". Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  4. ^ "MIT Physics Faculty: Enectali Figueroa-Feliciano". Physics Department, MIT. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
Not so. Each of the hundreds (thousands?) of grants issued by the NSF routinely (this is a continuing grant) has a "Principal Investigator" who is the contact person responsible for using the grant properly and who usually plays a large part in the research that it funds. Essentially anybody who applies for a grant and gets it becomes a Principal Investigator. Xxanthippe (talk).

Keep, per Tony the Marine, he has put forward the strongest argument. --Vintagekits (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark–Mexico relations[edit]

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

whilst noting the 2 countries have embassies, there is a distinct lack of coverage of bilateral relations, only in a multilateral and of course football context. [47]. Danish foreign ministry site only really talks about swine flu. There's this article but hardly forms a notable relationship. LibStar (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your are doing the strawman fallacy again, pointing to one article in Google and declaring the topic not-notable. I ran the same search and found enough information for an expanded article. I have to question your skills in research if all you found was an article on Lego. A serious researcher doesn't look at the first 10 of the 13,300 results of a search and declare defeat. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate your tone. you seem to enjoy doing this to anyone who supports deletion in an AfD. I did find other things but seemed trivial here. My opinion will be considered with all other opinions here. We are here to discuss if people think there is enough coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My job isn't to flatter you, it is to improve Wikipedia. If all you found was the article on Lego, and I was able to find 10 references on state visits, trade statistics, and treaties, then there are two choices: You are skilled at Google but resorting to the strawman fallacy, or your skills with Google need improving because you only looked at the first page of over 10K hits. I have the same tools as you, a computer and access to Google. Cheers.
Yes. Most importantly, in case you haven't noticed, a number of these international relations articles nominated for deletion by Libstar were insufficiently researched and turned out to be worthy of inclusion. (Austria–Georgia relations, Russia–Seychelles relations, Iceland–Latvia relations, Angola–Bulgaria relations) In addition, LibStar has refused to notify the creators and significant contributors of these articles that they are being considered for deletion in accordance with with Wikipedia's policy on civility as explained at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion, even after being reminded of the issue.[48] The short shrift that has been given to researching these articles thoroughly before nomination for deletion should be enough, but I will also point out that there are many editors who believe that these articles qualify as being inherently notable (something akin to populated places).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
good stuff, cdog simmons, the majority of bilateral articles I nominated have been deleted. care to list those? there's at least 150 of these deleted in the past 2 months, not just nominated by me. you're using the strawman fallcy. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen 150. If you want to list them I would be interested in seeing them. But I will say that pointing out that the four above that I have been involved with in the past couple of weeks show that all these articles should not be nuked by Admin action. Would that really be what you would want anyway LibStar? I've found that you have contributed significantly to several of these articles bringing them to the level where their benefits are quite obvious.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of these were created by an eventually blocked troll. Some x-y are of course notable. What really needs to change is wikipedia's minimum standards for what constitutes a stub (at least 2 reliable sources should be the min for new article creation, but that unfortunately isn't going to happen.) At least you know now how we got here.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article under discussion has had new information added that addresses concerns raised in this AFD at this point in the discussion.
One man's "blocked troll" is another man's "martyr to his cause". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDIR prohibits "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." This is neither quotations or aphorisms. The article is in prose, and is not a list at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By your definition, what would make information notable? The Wikipedia rule is that when the info appears in a reliable source, it is notable. Which of the sources do you think are not reliable? If you go to any almanac the headings for each country are trade, diplomacy, and even sports. How did you come up with "unrelated"? The last time I looked at a directory, a phone book, it was a list of names and numbers in alphabetical order. This doesn't look like a directory at all, it is written in prose, not a table. It looks like a standard almanac entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 04:22, June 4, 2009
Facts in reliable sources are verified. To be notable, something extra is needed. Since there is no specific guideline for assessing country relations, we have to rely on WP:GNG. For example, we don't need common sense (aka WP:OR) to tell us that relations between Greece and Turkey are notable because there are plenty of reliable sources that discuss interactions between those two countries – having a secondary source with an analysis of relations between X and Y is evidence that the relations are notable.
Consider countries X and Y: Facts on the relations between X and Y might include the existence of recognition/transport/agreements/visits/trade and more. But such relations apply between the vast majority of countries. They are only notable if WP:GNG is satisfied. If no independent sources have bothered to discuss the relations we should not conclude the relations are notable.
The article we are discussing is a list of facts that mention "Denmark" and "Mexico". There is nothing more because there is nothing notable to say about the relations. Take a look at Cuba – Soviet Union relations for an example of an encyclopedic article (and it could say more, for example, re Cuba's intervention in Angola). Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing subjective importance with the Wikipedia definition of notable and verifiable. It is notable when the media takes notice of it and publishes the account, Wikipedia requires at least two independent sources to be published to be considered notable. What is important to any individual Wikipedian doesn't matter, it is a reference work for all users, not just you and me. I am sure if we were to rank all bilateral articles by their press coverage, Cuba – Soviet Union relations would be in the top third and Denmark–Mexico relations would be in the bottom third, but it is still notable by Wikipedia standards even if not important to you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia defines foreign relations as "the study of foreign affairs and global issues among states within the international system, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corporations (MNCs)." This cleary is about relations, even if that specific word does not appear. Any synonym can be used. The article on the War in Iraq contains information discussing the "conflict" the "diaspora" the "sectarian violence" and the "humanitarian crisis", we all recognize that they are discussing the same concept, and no original research is required to connect the dots. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive" Can you point to the original research in the article? Every sentence is tied to a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said there was any original research involved. Yilloslime TC 01:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are implying that coverage "isn't significant". The Wikipedia litmus test for that is "original research is needed to extract the content" What original research is required to "extract the content"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 21:25, June 8, 2009
I'm not implying that the coverage isn't significant, I'm saying that the coverage isn't significant. Here's how WP:N defines "significant coverage": "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1]. All I'm saying is that the sources do not "address the subject directly in detail," and amount to only "trivial" coverage. Yilloslime TC 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no concept of trivia. It is a subjective concept. For me all sports statistics are trivia. "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. I would say with more than 10 references the topic has been covered in detail, and I do not see any original research. It meets both tests. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be getting hung up on the word "relations". See international relations for the breadth of topic covered. The word itself doesn't need to appear in a media report, it is the concept. A state visit, trade, treaties, international crime, kidnapping of citizens are relations, even if we use one of the previous synonyms. The topics covered by the US state department on their website gives you a good idea of the topics involved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Denmark and Mexico have had bilateral treaties between them for at least 178 years. I've added the sources (independent and reliable).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a red herring argument. The lack of interpretation of the treaty in a book or journal only means that there isn't sufficient information for a standalone article on the treaty itself. Every article in the bilateral series contains information on treaties, that is the definition of international relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you are now asking that the sources need not only be for the topic, but for the exact same way the topic is being presented? There are someways in which Wikipedia presentation of topics is unique--shall we give up NPOV, for example, because we are better at it than almost any print source? If people in Denmark are concerned about their relations to Mexico from their POV , and people in Mexico with their relations to Denmark from theirs, then people are concerned with their relationship between each other, and we collect the two. . They may not have put them together in an encyclopedia, but we do. An encyclopedia is, among other things, a place to gather and collect and organize information. There are many ways to organize it, and if we have people to do it, we should follow as many as possible. The real fault of the making of these articles is that they were made faster than people could properly improve them. If, indeed, nobody had been willing to, there might be a case for rejection. But if enough people are, it builds the encyclopedia. For every person who places an argument at one of these, an opportunity to improve the encyclopedia otherwise has been passed up. DGG (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, what you are proposing is specifically forbidden by WP:OR especially WP:SYNTHESIS. "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." If you search for information about Canada/US relations, there are books and articles about it. If you search for information about Denmark/Mexico relations, there is information on Mexican restaurants in Copenhagen. The topic itself has to be notable. Just because bricks are notable doesn't mean that a particular building is. Drawn Some (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your theory that no relationship exists between the two countries, and that by creating the article we are synthesizing a relationship where none exists? Then why do reliable sources continue to write about the events, and why are there state visits, and why is there trade between the two countries. Why do Danish companies invest in Mexico and why did President Felipe Calderón "[hail] the fact that Denmark is Mexico's largest investor among the Nordic countries." It is a stretch to call the relationship synthesized by a Wikipedian, and silly to write that no such relationship actually exists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not my contention that no relations exist between Denmark and Mexico. However, the topic of Denmark-Mexico relations does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, which are consensus. Just because hands and feet and livers and necks exist and are verifiable doesn't mean we can create an article about the body that we might imagine that they constitute if the entire corpse itself isn't notable. Drawn Some (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia isn't defined by Wikipedia, it is a subjective concept. Things that aren't of interest to you or to me are trivia. All the sources used are reliable sources. The topics covered are the same as those discussed in international relations and in the articles created and edited by LibStar. No Wikipedia rule says that the word "relations" has to appear in the source article, the article is about the concept, not the word. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of factoid isn't a Wikipedia concept. It is a subjective designation to denigrate what you personally don't have an interest it. All Wikipedia cares is if the information came from a reliable source to be verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what you seem to believe, we have a higher standard for inclusion in the encyclopedia than mere verifiability, we require notability. You really should think about starting Verifipedia where anything verifiable is included whether or not it is notable. The consensus here at Wikipedia is that topics of articles must be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the reduction to absurdity and the strawman fallacy combined. Please try and avoid logical fallacies and stick to Wikipedia policy. I never said every fact belongs in Wikipedia. Quotes and aphorisms, and lists of non notable names don't belong here. The Wikipedia notability requirement is met with excess. "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive" Can you point to the original research in the article? Every sentence is tied to a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a bunch of factoids and synthesizing an article doesn't make the topic of the article notable. Please show significant in-depth coverage of Mexico and Denmark relations. Stuff like this: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf or even an oped like this: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dresser11mar11,0,1937443.story Not silly factoids. Drawn Some (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are demonstrating "relative importance" not the definition of Wikipedia notability. If we were to rank all the country relations by the amount of press coverage, Mexico-US would rank in the top third and Denmark–Mexico relations in the bottom third, yet it still meets the Wikipedia requirement of notability and verifiability. The Wikipedia litmus test for notability requires "no original research is needed to extract the content". What original research are you referring to? Is it original research to claim that a relationship exists between the two countries? Is the trade imaginary? The Danish companies non existent, the treaties a lie? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Denmark-Mexico relations are relatively unimportant. Because they are unimportant they do not have significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Because they lack that coverage, they are not notable. Because they are not notable, they don't get an article in Wikipedia. I think you finally understand. Drawn Some (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive" Can you point to the original research in the article? Every sentence is tied to a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please examine the sentence you have now quoted twice on this page: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". You have steadfastly ignored the clause I have bolded. You have instead focused your attention on the part that I've put in italics, but notice that the two clauses are joined by the word "and". The argument that I and I think Drawn Some are trying to make is that the standard defined in the bolded clause is not met. I have never contended that OR was needed to interpret the sources in the article, and don't think anyone else has suggested that either. Trying to turn the discussion to WP:OR is a strawman argument. Yilloslime TC 01:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958-, those individual factoids are verifiable but please read WP:SYNTHESIS. Seriously, go read it. It's part of WP:OR. Re-read this entire discussion and try to understand what we are trying to get through to you. If you truly don't understand at this point, I'm afraid I can't explain it to you in any simpler way and you may just not be able to understand this. Alternatively, someone else may have a different way to explain it that you may be able to understand. Either way, don't be too hard on yourself about it. There are some complicated ideas that I don't understand, either, and I accept that everyone can't understand everything and don't beat myself up over it. Drawn Some (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have it says: "Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. ' and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Can you please point out the original research in the article text, and tell me the conclusion that was reached. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Country A trades $xxxx annually with Country B. Country A and Country B have a tax treaty. An explorer from the region where Country A is now located made first European contact with the natives of the island where Country B is now located. Therefore Country A and Country B have notable bilateral relations. Drawn Some (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are arguing "relative importance". I agree that if we were to rank all the world's bilateral relations Denmark–Mexico would be in the lower third, and Iraq-US would be in the top third by press coverage. But the article meets the definition of Wikipedia notability, in that reliable sources have covered the events and statistics listed to the point that "no original research is needed".
"Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." I sent a neutrally worded message to a nonpartisan. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we're here to assess this bilateral relations on its own merits. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supaman89, since Richard Arthur Norton (1958- specifically asked you to look for Spanish language sources on Denmark-Mexico relations and to comment here, we can take your comment to mean that you, too, were unable to find any? Drawn Some (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the question here is not if a relationship exists but a notable relationship exists. you say "they won't increase in the future", that's WP:NOTCRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." There are over 10 references in the article. And prophylacticly if you are going to call them trivia per the new talking points, Wikipedia doesn't recognize the concept of trivia. It is a subjective concept that differs from person to person. For me all sports statistics are trivia, yet every team article contains them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such concept as quasi-canvassing. A neutrally worded message was left asking to help find references, since he had contributed to articles on diplomacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there is such a thing as WP:Votestacking, and the above user have always voted !keep in the previous AfDs s/he's participated in. And as far as I can tell, his/her only contributions to articles on diplomacy are vandalism fighting and some minor link fixing.This comment is enlightening. Yilloslime TC 16:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And he should consider starting Viagrapedia for articles with staying power that lasts for years and years because that's not the criteria we use at Wikipedia. We require articles to meet our standards of notability. Drawn Some (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break[edit]

There are plenty of references but none of them discuss the topic of the article. Drawn Some (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be getting hung up on the word "relations". See international relations for the breadth of topics covered. The word itself doesn't need to appear in a media report, it is the concept. A state visit, trade, treaties, international crime, kidnapping of citizens are relations. The topic as covered by the US state department on their website gives you a good idea of the types of information involved when describing the US relations with other countries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not hung up on the particular word "relations". But I am hung up on topics meeting our notability requirements. The sources can use any terminology or be in any language as long as they provide significant in-depth coverage of the topic of the relation between Denmark and Mexico and are independent. Here are some suggested alternative terms for the topic: [50]. Drawn Some (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am seeing part of the problem here. If there are a lot of in-depth references on football games between Denmark and Mexico, then that is a notable topic. If there is also in-depth coverage of trade between Mexico and Denmark, or even avocado or butter exports in particular, then that topic is notable. If extradition treaties between the two countries have been controversial and have been discussed in-depth, then that is a notable topic. But you can't say, well, all of these little topics are notable so Denmark-Mexico relations is a notable topic. We don't grant notability that way, it's a form of inheritance from the parts to the sum, maybe that is an explanation you can understand. Butter, flour, milk, raisins and baking powder are all notable but that doesn't mean raisin scones or raisin bread are automatically notable. Some of the things you can make from them are notable and some arent' and each has to be judged on its merits, not inherit notability from certain aspects or ingredients of the final product. Drawn Some (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No real progress was made on getting rid of all these articles on non-notable topics. I was for some way of dealing with them as a group but the reality is some of them need to be kept and some need to be gotten rid of and somebody has to decide which ones fall into which category. The problem is that a few people believe anything verifiable belongs in the encylopedia regardless of notability so they try to insist that all 20,000 bilateral relations articles would be notable if any aspect of a relation between two countries is verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We had and agreed position (more or less) regarding these articles and their (scant, individually un-notable) information being merged into other articles. Talk to User:Ikip about that. None of it precluded continuing to get rid of what was still poor articles. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beqanna[edit]

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

Contested PROD, PROD tag was removed by an IP editor with no explanation and no edits to improve the article. Original prod reason: No evidence of notability. A Google search yielded 152 distinct results, but nothing that approaches "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - most of them are internet forums, blogs, and posts at deviantart. The sources provided by the article's author are all internet forums. Nothing relevant in an all dates Google news search. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn NAC Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Rosenberg[edit]

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

While Mr. Rosenberg is associated with the Attica riot, I suspect this is a case of notability not being contagious; at best, it's an instance of WP:ONEEVENT allowing for questionable notoriety; also WP:NOTMEMORIAL seems to apply. While simply being incarcerated for a particularly long time and being associated with Attica IMHO don't convey notability, the other things he has been involved in do combine to grant it. Therefore, this is withdrawn. Tyrenon (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Dravecky (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as a copyvio. Non-admin closure. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacagawea's people exiled in 1907k (Idaho)[edit]

Sacagawea's people exiled in 1907k (Idaho) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article reads like either an ad or a news release. It's probably a CSD, but I really do tend to err on the side of caution there insofar as I don't know if there's some notable lawsuit or lobbying going on here. As it is, though, I can't really make heads or tails of it. Tyrenon (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, copyvio of [52]. Still not sure exactly what it's saying. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercury Cycle[edit]

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

Article with same name was previously speedily deleted. This article was prodded but prod was removed by sole author without significant improvement. Author admits COI. This is a non-notable film which is not released. It is the effort of students at Quinniapac University. Porturology (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Secondary sources from something besides the school paper. News coverage. Magazine coverage. Significant coverage in a reputable book. Read WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is a Ebook OK? Unbordel (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the Ebook. An Ebook published by a recognised and reputable publisher might be okay, but not many qualify. Can you link this Ebook?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Not exactly WP:SNOW but I doubt that someone's going to pop in in the next three hours with a good argument for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatalities from aviation incidents[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fatalities from aviation incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Note: User is blocked for 72 hours for abusing multiple accounts. Tavix |  Talk  17:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say no as the list already applies that. For example, List of pigs could have millions of entries, but only the notable ones are listed. Tavix |  Talk  21:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW; probable bad faith nomination. Tavix |  Talk  22:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musaylimah[edit]

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

Sorry I accidently deleted the header and added it again. Still keep my delete though. Unbordel (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Nja247 10:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct to garment printing[edit]

Direct to garment printing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spam magnet with only primary sources--no third-party references, no incoming links. I tried to get WikiProject Textile Arts to take this on, but didn't get a response. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article probably needs serious help to be less spammy and better sourced, but I don't think it has any fatal flaws that can't be overcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I suggest renaming to Digital textile printing (currently a redirect I just created), which seems to be used a bit more often in "serious" links and less often in spam links. I don't know the AFD etiquette for moving pages during an AFD, and anyway I believe I screwed up the possibility of a non-admin move with my clumsiness creating the redirect, but if the article is kept I'll suggest this at WP:RM. Digital textile printing now has two incoming links, btw, from Textile printing (new link, created by me) and from Dye-sublimation printer, a pre-existing red-link in an established article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta–Pakistan relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Malta–Pakistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nominating a 2nd time because the first time was very borderline. no resident embassies and my own subsequent searches reveal a lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations. [55] There's this meeting with the usual "we'll agree to cooperate" and I note in the first AfD a few others but they're mainly little bits of news rather than real evidence of bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I've added the sources.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should be careful. Accusing people of "lazy editing" is hardly productive, and while to you, laziness might "clearly" be the root cause of this AfD, that's just your biased opinion. One could just as easily say this debate is a result of people not understanding or choosing to ignore WP:N. And there's nothing wrong with reopening a debate that was closed as "no consensus". No consensus means that there was no consensus, and so presumably with more discussion (i.e. a new AfD) it just might be possible to reach consensus. The closing admin even noted that there was almost consensus ("no consensus, bordering on delete"), and so now that 7 weeks have passed, relisting seems especially appropriate in this case. Immediately relisting an AfD closed as keep would be entirely inappropriate, but this is about as far from that as possible. Yilloslime TC 01:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This debate is a result of the page being nominated for deletion. It was nominated for deletion because it was inadequately sourced. That issue has now been resolved in my opinion. I have no problems with articles being listed for deletion that deserve deletion. The problem with this article is that a bunch of people took the time to debate deleting it, took the time to find sources for the article, but didn't take the time to add those sources. It would have been just as easy to add those sources as nominate it for deletion again. That's the problem. The notability of these relations is not an issue anymore since those sources have now been added.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of these relations is not an issue anymore that is purely your opinion. your "added sources" includes 2 articles with the usual "we want to cooperate" without concrete evidence of notable relations such as significant, trade, investment, actual bilateral agreements. It still fails that in consideration of these added articles. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the article again. It has multiple, reliable, independent sources.[60][61][62][63][64]. It doesn't lack these "utterly".--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there's as much text in the references than in the actual article. LibStar (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the sources above. You and I might disagree with the meaning of the word "trivial", but these independent sources thought these relations were notable enough to write about.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of female american guitarists[edit]

List of female american guitarists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is not exactly as advertised. What I think happened, if I might conjecture, is that someone decided to try and dodge the notability requirement by putting in what looked like a list in the new article log. This isn't a list, it's an article on a single person, and there is no particular assertion of notability on top of that. Tyrenon (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete NAC Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pump Of South Philippines[edit]

Pump Of South Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A CSD was made by another editor and declined. I tend to agree that this is a likely speedy under WP:NOT, but as the speedy was declined, here it is. Tyrenon (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MATTY CRANMER[edit]

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

While his brother is notable from all appearances, Scott's younger brother doesn't pull in all too many hits on Google, and a lot of those are mostly closely related to his brother. A sub-heading on his brother's page might be more appropriate if anything is, but WP:NOTINHERITED comes to mind here. Tyrenon (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blakey Vermeule[edit]

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

Non-notable professor. Previous prod ignored. Joey the Mango (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You should know by now that, if you want support for your proposal, you should come up with Google Scholar and Web of Knowledge (if it is available to you) numbers for this candidate. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. My search of Google Scholar gives 8,8,1,1,1 cites. If that is all then notability per WP:Prof is not achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • google scholar is not a very good source. She's a pretty significant up and coming star in evolutionary psychological approaches to literature (which I have a fair amount of expertise in). If you want to use google, then note that googlebooks has 50 cites for "Blakey Vermeule" and another 26 (no doubt with some overlap) for "Vermeule Blakey." My vote is: keep. Nightspore (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore[reply]
Thanks for your enlightening contribution. I agree about the severe limitations of Google Scholar. The hits on Google Books would not all be considered to be scholarly citations, but are indeed more than on the former. Web of Knowledge could be better. For the time being I shall leave the discussion to the experts in this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
As I recall, HCI was incorporated intact into WoK. Not that I generally used HCI after the first few tries, for there were never enough references worth the botherDGG (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agreed. Each case should be reviewed strictly on its own merits. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • This is the first I've heard of a books-for-tenure rule. How are you supposed to write two books in 5 years as an academic? That's a typical tenure clock, unless you do multiple visiting assistant prof gigs. Hairhorn (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, relatively few people are able to write 2 books in five years --and it's not just books, but books by major academic publishers. That;'s why anyone who meets it is notable in the humanities. The sciences work differently, of course. For data ,see any issue of Chronicle of Higher Education., or better, look at some CVs from the best places and compare them with the CVs at the 2nd rate places. DGG (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see it. Where's the "significant impact"? Hairhorn (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If she's important, it's not reflected in the article; in its current state it could easily be an A7 speedy delete for claiming no significance at all. Hairhorn (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the assertion that one has published a single book, of any sort, other than self published, is generally considered enough to defeat A7 speedy. DGG (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
actually, that's not what we do here. All editors are equal. If you;'re an expert, your arguments will show it without your having to announce your expertise or make personal comparisons. When there are equally supported views on an AfD, we close non-consensus. DGG (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, and so wasn't trying to assert authority, except w/r/t whether WoS was a good source, which it isn't (as you yourself have pointed out). What I can shed light on is why the acknowledgements in so many leading books matter. Who gets to say they're leading books? I guess I could go listing their authors and their entries, but this gets to be a real time-waster. Ok, maybe I will when I get an hour or two.Nightspore (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore[reply]
I've got to agree about tributes of this sort. I consider them puffery, except if in a signed published review. And I agree that "Rising star", though sometimes well meant, is reasonably to be interpreted as "not yet risen". I take a very cynical view of our ability to judge anything except publications, publisher reputation, published reviews, citations, and quality of the university. One book is admittedly borderline. The question is how much to weigh the quality of the university. My feeling is that at the level of Stanford, the judgment that they make in awarding tenure is to be respected. They can evaluate one thing which we cannot, and which does make all the difference: the quality of the work. DGG (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Παπανικολάου Κωνσταντίνος[edit]

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

Declining speedy; Can't make sense of this (click on "Google translation"), can't say that it's an A7, taking to AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Greek, and don't know how to speak Greek, but I will babelfish it and edit it as I go along. Eurovision 2009 and 2010Sasha SonSakis Rouvas 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done. The article can now be found as Papanikolay Konstantinos and he can now be establised as a notable Greek journalist, so I say keep. Add external and internal links and this could be a really good article. Eurovision 2009 and 2010Sasha SonSakis Rouvas 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some copy edits to attempt to make the text clearer. Neutral on AfD though. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the given name is Konstantinis and the surname should be Papanikolaou (this is the only combination/spelling which yields results) Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest waiting until the page has been fully translated until we reach a consensus. Eurovision 2009 and 2010Sasha SonSakis Rouvas 12:02, 30 May 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 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Kyle1278 01:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People's Political Power of Canada[edit]

People's Political Power of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

People's Political Power is another microparty. In this particular instance, the party only nominated two candidates, who received less than 200 votes between them. The party's press coverage is negligible at best, but sorting it out from other uses of the phrase border on impossible (the phrase "People's Political Power" has been used by a number of regimes over the years). In short, though, it's a non-notable party with a minimal electoral showing in a lone election. Tyrenon (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked as a sock of a banned user - doesn't get to vote anywhere. DreamGuy (talk) 20:05, 31 May 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 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info on the party could be given in one sentence in the article on the election.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Warren[edit]

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

No reliable sources found, questionable notability. I found this article via a link from 1975 in country music as there is a Canadian country singer of the same name who might very well be notable given that he had a #1 country hit. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weird, where was all that stuff when I googled? I got like 250 hits on him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reform 2000 Party[edit]

Reform 2000 Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another of the numerous minor political parties that I would recommend either be deleted for non-notability or merged into a single article on extremely small political parties in the UK. This particular example ran five candidates for Parliament in 2001, received about 1400 votes, and has not run for anything since.Tyrenon (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I'm not entirely convinced by this article's notability, this Google search did return some results that I would consider notability-making! JulieSpaulding (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rivkin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Andrew Rivkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to be notable enough for inclusion. Brianga (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Lorne Abony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), another manager at the same company. He's even less notable. Hairhorn (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually didn't notice it either. It probably can, but I'll let another admin do that. Brianga (talk) 21:36, 27 May 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 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Boldly redirected to Goosebumps HorrorLand. After two relists, I don't see any objection. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Blood for Breakfast![edit]

Monster Blood for Breakfast! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails WP:BOOK Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 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, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terese Svoboda[edit]

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

Delete author, one of whose books won a minor literary prize does not rise to the level of notability; fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:56, 27 May 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, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whers[edit]

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

This article is primarily original research which can not be fixed since I have found no adequate sources that discuss this. Under our verifiability policy, Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A google search, and a google news search each show a lack of the reliable sources needed to back up the article.

Furthermore, the topic "Whers" doesn't meet our notability guidelines as it has not been significantly commented upon in reliable, third-party sources. Without this we cannot ascertain the significance of the subject matter. This follows from WP:V as it's impossible to have a notable article on a topic which can not be verified.

In accordance with our deletion policy, this article should be deleted because it is an article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it has failed, it is an article whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, and it is an article with only content not suitable for an encyclopedia (see WP:NOT#OR, and WP:IINFO)

To summarise, this article should be deleted as the topic doesn't meet WP:N and the content shouldn't be merged anywhere unless it has been verified through reliable sources. ThemFromSpace 20:40, 27 May 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, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The topiic of this article is Whers; as that's the subject. Subjects can only be spun-out if they themselves are notable apart from the parent topic. Notability is not inherited. WP:WAF forbids in-universe plot summaries, which is all that this article is. There is no out-of-universe material to build a verifiable article from. ThemFromSpace 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
??? I just read the article 2 more times to double-check, as maybe I missed something the first two times. Nope. Sorry. It not a summary of the plot of either the series or of an individual book. It is rather a spinout descriptive of an important series element. A plot summary would say "Joe took his car into to town to meet Sally. Sally was in a park and Joe did not see her. Joe drove home alone". A descriptive says "Joe's car is blue with new tires and a scratch on the hood". A element descriptive is not a plot summary. They are not the same.
Further, only the article's title is "Whers", as a proper and guideline encouraged spinout from the notable topic of the entire "Dragonrider series"... just as the very first sentence of the article asserts. Stating it is something different from what guideline instructs, does not make it so, and with respects, feels just a tiny bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If it makes you happier, you can always discuss changing the article title to "Dragonrider series: Whers" so as to address any confusions of just what is the notable topic of which it is a proper spinout. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but the subject of the article is its title which is Whers, there's really no other way you can Wikilawyer your way around that basic fact. Each spinout must have the title be notable per our policies; we could have the verification of a subject to make it a spinout but it must also have notability in itself, as notability isn't inherited. ThemFromSpace 06:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WIkilawyer? Your assumption of bad faith is incredibly incivil. You may retract and apologize. Changing the title is for a discussion on its talk page, not a reason for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the 'parent' topic isn't Dragonriders of Pern, it is Dragon's Kin, which is certainly not overloaded with information. That book is the principal one in which the creatures are involved. The book is also what the sources are talking about. Since we are into quoting from WP:WAF, how about Very rarely should such spinout articles be about a singular topic (e.g., character, plot item); either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing spinout articles. Quantpole (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. A "Wher" or "Wher Watch" is an item that permeats the entire Dragonrider series... and not simply limited to Dragon's Kin. This is made quite obvious by the assertion made in the article's very first sentence. Feel free to pick up any one of the many novels in the series. EACH has Wher or Wher Watch as a major element of the series. This makes the article a proper spinout of the entire notable series, not just of one book. Its existance as a spinout is exactly as guideline instructs and condones. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the official website of the author, they are featured in more than just that one book. The series is parent article, not the book. Dream Focus 22:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they weren't featured in another book, I said that Dragon's Kin is where they are principally found. Just becuase they are mentioned in other books are they even approaching a notable element in them? The only reason you could possibly have an article about Whers is because they are the main feature of this one book. And as such, they should only be 'spun out' if there are good reasons for the info not to be included in the article on the book. The sources that mention the creatures are talking about the book. Why not use those sources to make Dragon's Kin a better article (which can include info on Whers)? Quantpole (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Scouts (band)[edit]

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

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral on the matter. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Provided that verifiable references can be found, based on the article, it is clear that it satisfies #4 of the criteria and is therefore notable. Dan arndt (talk) 02:12, 28 May 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, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terese Nielsen[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:GNG, nothing to show how she differs from zillions of other freelance artists Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:54, 27 May 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, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball (band)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable band, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Provided that verifiable references can be found, based on the article, it is clear that it satisfies #4 of the criteria and is therefore notable. Dan arndt (talk) 02:13, 28 May 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, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as NN. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Romano[edit]

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

Completing unfinished nom that nobody else could ever be bothered to fix. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:19, 27 May 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, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion besides the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. No prejudice against a speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Are Not Stealing Records[edit]

You Are Not Stealing Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable media/music related article on a record label. Speedy-deleted twice, now a AfD to finally establish consensus. SGGH ping! 10:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 2 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.
  1. ^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
More