< 6 May 8 May >
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 delete.  Sandstein  05:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Apps[edit]

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

Disputed prod and then an attempt to list at AFD by someone else didn't work. I am trying to fix this. Reason for deletion given was "This article is about a non-notable musician. It's only links are to disambiguation articles on non notable webpages and commercial RP releases. The subject is not notable enough to merit an article and does not meet general Wikipedia notability guidelines. The article does not link to notable sources. The artists has not release any material on any notable record label, publishing house or achieved any record sales or chart success. The article claims that her notability come from her video being banned from Youtube.com. Inappropriate sexual content postings on youtube are not a criteria for a wikipedia article. The article has clearly been created by the artists as self promotion." I agree that it should be deleted, so count this as my delete too. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 8 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 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premium Outlets[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Premium Outlets is part of the unquestionably notable Simon Property Group, but I do not believe Premium Outlets has standalone notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester Braithwaite[edit]

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

I originally nominated this article for deletion in September of last year, with notability concerns. I still have them, particularly as the article has been mostly untouched since the AFD closed (I see two edits that weren't by a bot or a user using popups). The COI, which I was wholly unaware of last time, seems to still be an issue, and that user has exactly three edits since the last AFD closed. He (and others) have had plenty of time to improve the article, and it hasn't been. I just feel that this article really shouldn't be. Nosleep break my slumber 23:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Conspiracy of Colonel Alfonso Plazas Vega[edit]

The Conspiracy of Colonel Alfonso Plazas Vega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Direct copy of Alfonso Plazas Vega Conspiracy, currently being discussed for Afd, created by confirmed sockpuppet of main author the first article. RolandR (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability or existence. SilkTork *YES! 21:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Ludovika Borghese[edit]

Tatiana Ludovika Borghese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Likely hoax Can find no trace of her, or her purported husband Prince Friedrich of Hesse-Homburg (1802-1879). Even if this is true - just being the wife & daughter of someone does not constitute sufficient notability be justify her own article Passportguy (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be the same person. All of the created articles are hoaxes. The username is inactive. Drawn Some (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Merge or redirect was considered, but as people have said, there is no worthwhile content, and search term is unlikely. SilkTork *YES! 21:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria Town Phase 8[edit]

Bahria Town Phase 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertising for likely non-notable building project Passportguy (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. As noted, there are no reliable sources. SilkTork *YES! 21:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atilla Demiray[edit]

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

Article has been flagged for notability issues and lack of reliable primary sourcing pretty much since its creation. Subject does not seem to have received significant independent coverage. See talk page discussions. Nothing substantial has been able to be added to address concerns, leaving the subjects notability and some of the claims made rather tenuous or unable to be substantiated. Mfield (Oi!) 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. While sources are provided, they are not substantial enough to prove notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chako Rescue[edit]

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

Procedural nom on behalf of User:Evangeline.a, who added the AFD template to this article but didn't complete the nomination. On the talk page, she wrote 'This is not an article. This is a promotional piece and has to be deleted.'; I take it that's the reason here. Robofish (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing's for sure, A LOT of other stuff definitely exists: Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States. And I think that in cases where there is uncertainty or debate about notability we should default to keep due to no consensus. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 01:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The last two keep !votes were based on WP:USEFUL, but the delete !votes were not convincing enough to establish a consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of soft rock musicians[edit]

List of soft rock musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and unreferenced list that does not show why the bands listed are considered notable (aside, presumably, from their inclusion on wikipedia) and is entirly subjective as to what someone would consider "soft rock". BlueSquadronRaven 21:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it becomes the POV of Allmusic. Any way you look at this, it does not satisfy WP:NPOV.--BlueSquadronRaven 22:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong test; AllMusic aren't necessarily definitive, but there are plenty of other sources around, e.g. Rolling Stone, Q, and others. However, whereas multiple reliable sources are regarded as requirements for notability, when it comes to opinions, neutrality policy suggests we cite those available from the reliable sources and leave it up to our readers to make up their own minds. To do otherwise might be considered as an assumption that our readers are lacking in that faculty, and that is not the function of an encyclopedia. Rodhullandemu 23:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I think you have misinterpreted WP:NPOV. The exact quote you are referring to is "Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide." The problem here is that there are no facts. There is only the editorial POV of whatever source you are using to decide what category to pigeonhole a particular artist into and/or the whim of an editor who might put Def Leppard in this category based on the notion that many of their biggest hits are ballads, and found one site to back him up on it. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV has little application here; that policy relates to opinions, not definitions; a list, which is what we are talking about here, is not a debate. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of such debates. We report what reliable sources say, and contrary opinions, if they exist, giving due weight to the balance of opinion. In a list, we don't do that, particularly in a list such as this when a band has either been reliably described as soft rock, or it has not. That's the bottom line, and I see little scope for negotiation. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, the criteria for inclusion in this list is far too subjective, even among sources. Just as the list stands now I can imagine plenty of debate as to whether or not John Denver belongs here. If a particular band has been categorized as soft rock, that's for inclusion in the article about the band (along with whatever else that band has been categorized as), not a PoV based list. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If a particular band has been categorized as soft rock", there should be a reliable source for that; if so, why should the very same source not be used in this list? Please try to retain intellectual consistency here. Rodhullandemu 07:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because (a) this particular list adds NO content and serves NO purpose beyond what can be handled by the category. Some lists, for example, tables of cities in a region with a table of population, are useful for sorting. Other lists might be sorted/arranged in useful ways, such as by Taxonomy, e.g. Chat (bird). This list is just a list. (b) now we have duplication of purpose by list and category and both must be maintained, and are not done so automatically...leading either to inconsistency, or more work to maintain them. In short, nothing is gained and a lot lost, by keeping this page. Cazort (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk:DunkinDonutBoy|talk]]) 04:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. As pointed out by Kim D. Petersen, of the article's two references, one calls the other a hoax. SilkTork *YES! 21:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Effect[edit]

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

Neologism. This has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. (A good example of selection bias.) Atmoz (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be sourceable (sure looks like it), but that doesn't defeat WP:Avoid neologisms. Note that WP:Avoid neologisms states the following:
"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)
Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.'
An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)."
You appear to be asserting that the article you linked to above is about the "Gore Effect" as a term. At first glance that might appear to be the case, but after reading the article, I would tend to disagree. Same with the articles linked from the article itself. I believe the article to about the ironic events themselves, not the term coined to describe them. Stated another way, I believe these articles are establishing the neologism, not discussing its existance as a term/phrase. As such, they would not defeat WP:Avoid neologisms as secondary source coverage, but would rather be primary sources. Since you turned up those sources it is a MUCH closer call, but I still support deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see what you are saying. You are correct about the source I provided. However, this source: [6] appears to be written about the gore effect in detail. The other article cited on the page simply uses the term. That gives only one source written about it in detail (are there more?). I am changing my recommendation to a weak keep. Cazort (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Politico source is very similar to the Herald-Sun article, and although the wording sets out a stronger role of the term than in the HS article, I think it is still a primary source document, rather than a secondary source. This one ended up being a lot more technical than I originally expected. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a pair of articles in the Washington Times [7] and the Telegraph [8] which assume that the Gore effect is a known term. However I have also turned up evidence of an earlier meaning [9] which confuses matters slightly, and the references I could turn up in academic papers mostly seem to use that meaning. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But aren't those also primary sources, sources which use or establish the term, but do not discuss it specifically AS a term? The secondary meaning weakens the case for keeping the article, because it shows the term isn't as strongly established as originally thought. Jo7hs2 (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first two articles assume that the meaning of the term is well established, at least in certain circles, raising the question of whether it really is still a neologism. But my discovery of other competing meanings is indeed weakening my case considerably. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No reliable sources. I will userfy on request if somebody wishes to work on finding sources. SilkTork *YES! 21:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GemFireEDF[edit]

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

Contested prod. No non-trivial coverage found ... only sources found in Yahoo and Google appear to be press releases. Blueboy96 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one that created the article. It's largely based off of GemStone's technical white paper. This paper has some great information on distributed caching in general that I believe adds to the value of wikipedia. It gives an example of a distributed caching solution that fixes the scalability issues most IT architectures have, and how exactly that solution goes about solving them. In my searches on wikipedia I couldn't find any other documents that even attempted providing coverage of this area like mine does. I know there isn't really any unbiased information on the web to counteract the two references found within the document, but that's just the nature of this industry. Along those lines, I will attempt to find some objective links I can throw under an external links header. If there is certain language you'd like me to remove, please let me know. I would really appreciate it if this document was allowed to stand. Thank you for your consideration.

I tend to be HIGHLY skeptical of using white papers as sources unless they are originating from a source that has a very strong reputation for putting out quality work. Cazort (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the whitepaper wasn't being used as a source. It was copied verbatim into the article. It was removed as copyright violation multiple times with the author putting it back each time. He is curtrently blocked for repeated violation of copyright policy. -- Whpq (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I threw in all of GemFire's competitors at the bottom. Also note that I used microsoft/windows entry on wikipedia as a guide for writing this. plamb85 —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was Nominator Withdrew - thinking back, definite conflict of interest, due to my extreme dislike of mormons and feminists.--Unionhawk Talk 00:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Mormon Housewives[edit]

Feminist Mormon Housewives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable blog with practically no third party sources. Unionhawk Talk 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Brothers[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources neon white talk 20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are verifiable or known to be relaible sources. A lot of non-notable self-published sources doesn't amount to multiple reliable sources. --neon white talk 12:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think Resident Advisor isn't reliable? They have various staff writers with editorial oversight. They're a relatively well-known site (they apparently won a People's Choice Webby). It's not the New York Times, but it doesn't need to be. It's a third party published resource which whose "authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Wickethewok (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of which are 'independent' and all are self published. Again reliable sources are needed. --neon white talk 12:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google news hits is not a notability criteria even if your claim was correct which it isnt. [[19]]. --neon white talk 12:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try searching for all dates rather than just the past month. Number of hits is not a notability criterion but the coverage evidenced by those hits is.--Michig (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn when sources were found DGG (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don Nottoli[edit]

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

Notability questionable under WP:POLITICIAN. Position on County Board of Supervisors does not confer automatic notability as a legislative position would have, so issue falls on sourcing. In this case, I have been able to turn up three mentions in the Sacramento Bee discussing votes or quotes from him, but I do not feel any of the three sources cover the subject in sufficient detail to meet WP:GNG. A fourth newspaper source covers the death of his father, and I feel it is insufficient to prove notability as well, as the subject of the article is his father, and the coverage of him is only in that context. There are numerous career listings and a few public documents that confirm his position, but no significant biographical coverage was located. I am nominating for AfD with the personal recommendation that the article be deleted. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that an article producing an error means that the article cannot be used to establish notability. If it's indexed in Google news, the article exists. And it's a print article--it always exists, even if the web article is later taken down. Cazort (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo games created by Shigeru Miyamoto[edit]

List of Nintendo games created by Shigeru Miyamoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Purely unsourced information pertaining to a biographical subject, and therefore fails WP:N and WP:BLP. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn. While I still stand by my point that this list needs urgent sourcing, even I'm going to admit this was a bit rash. For now, I'm going to agree with the unanimity in keeping the article for now to give time for sources to be added. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand your concern. Yesterday I added references to an almost-15,000 byte biographical article that was started on April 3, 2003 and still didn't have a single reference. I suggest that you could better spend your time trying to find references than trying to get something deleted that you must know won't be. Drawn Some (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is the material potentially libelous? Drawn Some (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's unsourced, and that's enough. We shouldn't keep content solely on the basis that we think it's verifiable. If it is, then the necessary sources should be presented here and now to prove that it's verifiable; i.e., to verify it. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. One (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–Indonesia relations[edit]

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

Contested prod. This article fails WP:N; there are no multiple, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the topic, and the embassies are already recorded in the Diplomatic missions of Indonesia & Bulgaria lists. Biruitorul Talk 19:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including [28] , [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] LibStar (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to read the rules, not just point people to them and say its in there somewhere. Wikipedia rules state at GNG that: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." (my emphasis added) I don't see any misconstrued original research resulting from these primary documents. What original research are you witnessing? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there aren't 37K of them written, right now there are a few hundred where info is available. Even at the full 37K that would be less than 2% of all English articles. That number, 37K, is fixed and as Wikipedia doubles it will be less than 1%.
Wikipedians don't determine what is worth writing about. The media do in what they cover. Your comments are a perfect example of your personal subjectivity. In the end, if it is covered by a media outlet in Google News, it is a reliable source of what was deemed important enough to record. You are also showing a hefty regional bias. What was important enough to cover by Indonesian media outlets may not be interesting enough for you personally, but Wikipedia isn't just for you. There is also no rule excluding info from multiple articles. We have hundreds of articles with biographic information on the recent presidents of the US. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but: Wikipedians also don't determine what constitutes a particular topic; reliable sources do that. We can't declare "technical agreements" to be evidence of "Bulgaria–Indonesia relations"; we need sources dealing with "Bulgaria–Indonesia relations" to do that for us. - Biruitorul Talk 13:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the dictionary is available for people who don't know what a relationship is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a remarkable misinterpretation or avoidance of a point, Richard Arthur Norton. The issue is not "defining a relationship", but appealing to secondary sources which discuss said relationship as a notable phenomenon, not synthesizing various pieces or trivia or primary source statements to say "they exist". We all, know that they exist, but not everything that exists need have a separate entry on wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out where an original idea is being synthesized from the primary sources? That is the reason they are to be used with caution. All almanac entries use primary sources. We eschew secondary sources for almanac entries. All the economic data used in every article on a country comes from the IMF, World Bank, and CIA, all are primary sources. When writing about governments we always turn to primary. Almost all the articles on Senators and Judges come from their official government biographies. Take a peek here and count how many biographies are based on the primary source of the official congressional biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What were they like?[edit]

What were they like? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested prod, no indication of how this poem is notable. RadioFan (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The poet Denise Levertov certainly meets our notability requirements herself. However, the notability of this poem has not been established. The article on the poem itself does not mention that it is "the main reason Denise Levertov went to jail"; indeed, it makes no argument for notability beyond 'a famous poet wrote this poem'—and Levertov's article does not even mention an arrest. The missing piece of the puzzle here is that as yet, we have no evidence of significant coverage of this poem in reliable sources.
As to the copyright issue: the article does not state how and when the poem was published. I think it was in 1971 in To Stay Alive, which would absolutely still be under copyright in the US. Maralia (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *YES! 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is hoped to be gained from relisting this? To date we've got 3 !votes for deleting citing notability issues and some concerns about copyvio and 1 !vote for keeping it from the article creator. --RadioFan (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Syrinx#Syrinx_in_popular_culture. Merged content to Syrinx#Syrinx_in_popular_culture - delete title as unlikely search. SilkTork *YES! 21:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syrinx in popular culture[edit]

Syrinx in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is just trivial listcruft at best. If there is any actual important notes: they belong in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be dangerous to make decisions on deletion or keeping based on personalities and feelings of editors: these things are so subjective and conflicting, and considering these things moves the deletion discussion away from the relevant points. Cazort (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Altay Kahraman[edit]

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He definitely played in two league matches during July 2006 (per the Guardian's Stats Centre source in the article). There is no question the article passes WP:ATHLETE. The only question is whether to apply it here since this person has played so little professional sport. Jogurney (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If only he had started in one of those matches, this'd be an easy choice and I would quite happily !vote to keep this. But because they were only sub appearances totalling slightly more than half-an-hour, it makes it much less straightforward. I think you're right about WP:ATHLETE, it certainly needs revising to clarify situations like this. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuichiro Yamamoto[edit]

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

Unreferenced list of productions masquerading as a BLP. The only link is to a primary source. Google search throws up nothing biographical. Perhaps it would be better as a category linked to those publications that have articles or in the form of a list of publications? HJMitchell You rang? 18:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note that the ja.wiki article lists at least double the credits we do, most of them blue-linked to articles (and thus considered notable). —Quasirandom (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 22:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Mesa[edit]

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

Non-notable producer, only 1 google hit (the person's website) Passportguy (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Alexf(talk) 18:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willem h. barnes[edit]

Willem h. barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

hoax, page title likely taken from William H. Barnes Passportguy (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No evidence of existence, let alone notability SilkTork *YES! 22:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmyism[edit]

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

Neologism, WP:MADEUP Passportguy (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. semi speedy or whatever per improvements. Pretty clear this isn't going to be deleted per the improbements made. Am assuming nom made in good faith, thanks to al working on the article StarM 04:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Skeptic (film)[edit]

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

Delete unsourced one-liner, no indication that this film meets WP:FILM. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you'd let an article on a notable subject be deleted just because nobody can be arsed to fix it up? Yeah, that makes sense. If that were the case, I can name over 9000 articles that would have to be deleted for that same reason. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a category, a notable actor with a reference, a reference heading , and wikified a couple of words before saying "keep". That makes it have an appropriate assertion of importance and it has at least one reference. I'm not at all interested in the subject or the film or any of the actors but I did do that because I thought it was the right thing to do. So I don't think your comment is appropriate. Drawn Some (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I see someone else added the director. So your comment is even less appropriate. Drawn Some (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For films and other works of art, whether or not they are "notable" is very closely linked to how popular or well received they are. Films that are popular tend to receive a lot of attention on Wikipedia; films that do not receive attention on Wikipedia tend to be non-notable ones. I think that if, after a week of an article being nominated for AFD, no one has gotten enthusiastic enough to update the article with details about the film, it is a strong indicator of how really significant the film is. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should take a look at it now. Somebody loves it. Drawn Some (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really...never seen it, never will, can't stand those kinds of movies. Just had time and and saw a request for help :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I see. But actually I am even less convinced of its notability now than I was before. It has been released to a grand total of one theater. One! If it had been released in ten cities it would still not be considered to be in wide release! I'm sorry, but a just-released film in a single theater with a slew of B-list stars does not scream "obvious notability" to me. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was just released and has already received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including national reviews (even if they aren't nationally known critics), clearly meeting WP:N even if it does not meet the letter of WP:NF. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added the Variety one. The other two were added earlier today. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the guidelines at WP:NF cannot be applied to new releases. In the case of this film, it is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. As for the rest of the guidelines you're citing, how can any new film be considered notable as evidenced by the publication of at least two non-trivial articles at least five years after the film's initial release; by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals in a poll conducted at least five years after the film's release; the film was given a commercial re-release or screened in a festival at least five years after initial release; the film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking when it just opened; the film was selected for preservation in a national archive when it just opened; or the film is taught as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program when it just opened. It's impossible for a new film to follow these "guidelines" to be considered notable! 209.247.22.166 (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct -- those guidelines can't apply to new films. The only one that even could "widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." It fails even on that front. If we do not think WP:NF is relevant here, let's say it's not relevant and move on. If we are going to keep the article for reasons other than notability, that's fine. I'm just asking that we not continue to pretend that it somehow satisfies WP:NF guidelines. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article quotes critics from The New York Times, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and The Village Voice, apparently it has been reviewed "by two or more nationally known critics," so how exactly did it fail? As for wide distribution, independent films frequently open in only a handful of markets and can't be considered non-notable just because they do. Since you want it spelled out, I do not think WP:NF is relevant here because most of the current guidelines cannot be applied to new releases and this film does meet the only one that is relevant. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Letting Off the Happiness. Redirect as standard for songs on albums already listed on Wikipedia. Both spellings. SilkTork *YES! 22:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Padriac_My_Prince[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Padriac_My_Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Since this mistyped name is being discussed as non-notable, its correctly spelled version should also be included in this discussion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Padraic My Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Padriac" should be spelt "Padraic";it was a typo and obviously created by error

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ladetorget[edit]

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

Delete one-liner unsourced article about a shopping center, without any indication why it's notable. WP:GNG Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 22:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skulduggery Pleasant: The Isthmus Curse[edit]

Skulduggery Pleasant: The Isthmus Curse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod placed by 2 editor removed by author. Unsourced article about a non-notable, unpublished book, zero Google hits. Passportguy (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Keep as DisAmb page. SilkTork *YES! 23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title track[edit]

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

Straight-up dictionary definition laced with WP:OR. I see no way that this can extend beyond a dicdef without automatically lapsing into a list of songs that should be title tracks but aren't, pseudo-title tracks that are extensions of the album's title, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Never Breathe What You Can't See. Per WP:NSONGS SilkTork *YES! 23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted Thoughtfist[edit]

Enchanted Thoughtfist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
That album doesnt have any refs so I have added the reference tag.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeathER 17:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 22:27, May 7, 2009

Greenstreet Publisher[edit]

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

Article has no reliable sources, nothing to show any notability. Article created by an account whose only edits have been to create this article and promote the Greenstreet company on other pages. Blatant spam. DreamGuy (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 23:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurabyx[edit]

Kurabyx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Pierre de la Peu´p (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(delete)

no assertion of wide use; an old neologism (oldolgism? Whatever.) Ironholds (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it a blatant hoax? No. Is patent nonsense applicable? No. Is WP:BOLLOCKS even a guideline or policy? No. Ironholds (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know it's bollocks? I certainly suspect it is, but I have no way of being sure that there wasn't some 17th-century guy with this name who coined this word. If the article said that Janis Joplin was the first astronaut to walk on the Moon, then I would know it was bollocks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was an obvious and blatant hoax when I read it. Drawn Some (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way I normally judge it is "if it reads as bullshit without going elsewhere, blatant hoax. If I need a google search to establish anything, not blatant". Ironholds (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you were the administrator declining the speedy. I agree with your reasoning and practice, that is an excellent rule of thumb. I always glaze over those pronunciation symbol abominations but when I got to "Pierre de la Peu'p" it became obvious to me. Drawn Some (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, heh. I think it was RnB who declined it. Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Momentum and post-earnings-announcement drift[edit]

Momentum and post-earnings-announcement drift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:OR Ironholds (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of second generation National Football League players[edit]

List of second generation National Football League players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list with arbitrary distinction for inclusion Tomdobb (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction itself is not arbitrary, but the reason for making it is. Why not make a list of siblings who played in the NFL? or players coached by their fathers? or second generation coaches? In the end, it's just a list of relatives distinguished only by the fact that they played in the NFL. Tomdobb (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – To be honest, they all sound like great ideas, and I would express a Keep opinion, based on my rational above, for each and every one :-). Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tragedy Machine[edit]

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

Contested prod - no indication of Notability and no Sources added that could establish it Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who spoofs[edit]

Doctor Who spoofs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This assortment of trivia and plot summary fails the general notability guideline with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just an indiscriminate collection of fancruft. McWomble (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Fiasco[edit]

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

Band does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Discography consists only of two singles. References seem to provide only trivial coverage. No clear indication that the distinction as one of "the ten hopes for the near future" is significant. Is Xfm a major radio network and are they in a national rotation? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:14, 23 April 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 00:40, 30 April 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 14:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Based on my interpretation of the consensus here, WP:BLP1E/WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply. As noted many times throughout the discussion, BLP1E applies to low-profile individuals; Mr. Johnston is far from low-profile. Overall, the arguments in favor of retaining the article are stronger than those in favor of deletion, which at times bordered on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This may be revisited in a few months, once the dust settles a bit. On a side note, I'm closing this a bit early, as it's clear that the result isn't going to change. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Johnston[edit]

Levi Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Note: Article has been moved to Impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since moved back

In brief: BLP . A7. 1E.

A redirect which existed in this namespace was deleted due to Rfd. Article was created in same space, then deleted by me as a BLP violation; subsequent discussion on the drv indicates editors would prefer a full afd. From BLP not a tabloid paper from the intro should cover it, but also read Presumption in favor of privacy, and WP:1E: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Given that this individual was deemed, by Rfd, to be only possibly barely notable enough for a redir if his name remained at Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 13, he's not notable. Johnston is not 1E, he's 1E once removed, as Bristol is the 1E (no article on her due to 1E as well.) Arbcom has instructed that "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance." then clearly deletion in a BLP context is an appropriate choice. Those who read the Special enforcement on biographies of living persons linked to will note that appeals to actions taken under that provision are to go through ANI or appeal to the committee; as there is clearly disagreement whether this was a BLP violation or not (as evidenced by the Drv) I waive any such process-wonkery and strongly urge those tempted to indulge in that kind of irrelevant minutia to also ignore that proviso and approach this as a plain vanilla Afd.

Further, as the article made zero claims of notability (I consider calling Johnston a "celebrity father" intensely bad writing, not a claim of notability) it also qualifies under A7. Finally, as a side note, the article is in the space of a redir which had been deleted due to the nn of the subject, it seems unlikely the subject is actually notable enough for an entire article - which contains the date of the child's birth, which has been removed elsewhere as violating privacy of a minor; this makes the article a coatrack for trying to get that irrelevant detail in past those watching the Palin family of articles. The article also highlighted Johnston's "I don't want kids" and "I'm a f - - -in' redneck... Ya f - - - with me I'll kick [your] ass" from his MySpace, which he took down the minute the news media found it, which is precisely the kind of thing BLP protects him from having to endure - his old bs comments on MySpace should not haunt him forever, and he clearly doesn't want them public or he wouldn't have taken them down. As an OTRS volunteer, I would certainly remove should someone open a ticket requesting such youthful folly be expunged, as it is not news, not relevant, and is embarrassing. Wikipedia is not a gossip column, with nothing better to do than embarrass people over trivial details of their past. Add it all up, and there is zero reason to have this article on WP and quite a few not to.

My preferred outcome: Delete article, replace with Redirect to Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy where Johnston's mention has remained stable. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Chihuahua wrote, "Multiple articles about one event is still one event." Ferrylodge referred to "[t]he sole, single, solitary event for which this person is allegedly notable". I interpreted these comments (by both editors) as referring to the same argument -- that there was only one event for which Johnston was notable. In the view of both editors, Johnston's appearance at the Republican National Convention, the publicity accorded to the end of his engagement with Bristol Palin, and his interviews on nationwide television must be discounted as separate events because they all flowed in some way from the initial "one event"/"solitary event", and therefore did not constitute additional events. My phrase "the KC/Ferrylodge view" was intended as a shorthand reference to this thesis. To the extent that anyone misinterpreted my statement as asserting that KC and Ferrylodge agreed on anything else, I apologize and disclaim that meaning. To the extent that my statement identifies an actual point of similarity in the two editors' views, however, I stand by it.
To KillerChihuahua: My reference to what you might thing about the Lynch article isn't a flight of fancy. It's an argument against the stated basis of your position concerning Johnston, by showing that your thesis, applied consistently, would call for deletion of the Lynch article as well. I can understand why you would prefer not to have to face that argument. If you choose to drop the invective and address the substance, you can explain why the Lynch article somehow survives your "one event" standard, or you can bite the bullet and say that it, too, should be deleted, thus acknowledging that your position would represent a substantial change in Wikipedia policy.
To Ferrylodge: I recognize that you made more than one argument -- you raised the one-event issue and you further characterized that "solitary event" as one fit only for the tabloids. You could instead drop the "solitary event" point and say that Johnston is notable for several things, all of which are tabloidish rather than encyclopedic. I would still disagree. For example, when we have a national politician (Sarah Palin) whose prominence is based partly on her strong following among social conservatives, and when someone with first-hand knowledge states that the politician knew of nonmarital teen sex going on under her roof, that gets beyond the tabloids and becomes a substantive political matter. JamesMLane t c 19:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Four events: 1) Bristol gets pregnant during the election 2) Levi breaks off the engagement and claims Sarah Palin knew they were having pre-marital sex 3) Sarah Palin calls Levi a liar. 4) Levi does a long list of interviews, which people speculate are for self-promotion, which the media helps him with because it's a slow news-week... A possible fifth event is their recent remarks about abstinence. The story has been going on for a few months now. Coverage doesn't continue without new ongoing developments. We might personally consider those ongoing developments to be stupid or trite, but that is a subjective, personal opinion which has no impact on Wikipedia policy. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, Zenwhat, notability is not measurable by any objective criteria, nor is it possible to be judged using the standards at WP:BIO. Rather, notability is gauged by the extent to which KC wants an article to exist or not. It is not relevant that the basic criteria for notability is that the person "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," as is the case here. Because Levi Johnston has not written a best-selling book, been decorated by three governments, won the Nobel prize or designed a better building than Frank Lloyd Wright, he obviously cannot be notable.
Now, I know what you're thinking, "Sarah Palin didn't do any of those things either... How come she gets an article?" Because KC said so. Again, if all you want to do is endorse articles about non-Nobel-prize-winning, non-best-selling-book-writing non-architects, take it to Loserpedia. This is Wikipedia, and we don't recognize the notability of high school dropouts, even if they are the subject of secondary source material that's reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In respone to KillerChihuahua: We never would have even heard of Monica Lewinsky except that she happened to have an affair with a notable person. We never would have even heard of Jessica Lynch except for her involvement in one event. It's just not enough to keep intoning "one event" while completely ignoring all the subsequent events, just because the subsequent events would not have occurred if not for the initial event. JamesMLane t c 21:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll disregard your personal attacks, Bdb484. Johnston didn't get the president pregnant, and there was no discussion of impeachment. You're comparing apples and oranges - there is no second event. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"we don't recognize the notability of high school dropouts, even if they are the subject of secondary source material that's reliable..." John Frusciante is a featured article and was just on the main page a few days ago. There are plenty of high school dropouts with articles here, i.e. we recognize their notability. Tparameter (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of that is about Palin not Johnston, and could be documented in one of the 1000 or so articles about her. Bonewah (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnston says Palin knew that he and Bristol were having sex. Palin says Johnston is lying. Is that exchange about Palin or Johnston? Well, I'd say it's about both. Trying to say it's about one but not the other is really splitting hairs. Was the Clinton-Lewinsky affair about Clinton, not Lewinsky? Not surprisingly, I don't see a raft of conservative editors saying that the Monica Lewinsky article should be deleted. In both instances, the bio subject had a "one event" type incident that affected a prominent politician, and there were consequences of the one event, and the bio subject received extensive coverage that wouldn't have happened but for the one event and its impact on the politician. JamesMLane t c 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
  • If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]
  • Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
Also in case no one noticed it's NOT WP:ONEEVENT, he's becoming increasing notable, not less, with deeper coverage including full-length interviews. Drawn Some (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the reluctance to give him an article when you say he's notable. (Sorry to pick on you, you're not the only one thinking like this.) It is very conceivable to me that one day Bristol Palin will be known only as the daughter of a failed VP candidate and the mother of the very notable Levi Johnston's love-child. I don't particularly care for this kind of celebrity but let's decide whether or not he should have an article based on facts and guidelines and policy and consider him as an individual and not on the basis of his relationship to other people. Drawn Some (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm basically a Mergist. I believe that the fact that some topic meets notability requirements doesn't necessarily justify it having its own article - many less-important topics are better covered in combined articles than separately. I think that's the case here. (By the way, as for the 'It is very conceivable to me that one day...' bit: that may be the case someday, but it's not the case yet. Let's not make judgements based on how things could happen in the future.) Robofish (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main Palin bio was edited by the removal of Johnston's name. In Talk:Sarah Palin there was fierce opposition to restoring the information. (See, e.g., this archived thread.) His notability has increased since then, but I'll go out on a limb and guess that many of the editors who resisted it then would still resist any merge like the one you suggest. Furthermore, while I personally think that a brief mention there would be appropriate, a merge would either port over way too much detail or would lose a lot of valid, encyclopedic, properly sourced information. JamesMLane t c 06:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to policy, I don't think there is any reason why it shouldn't be its own article. However, my personal opinion is that it would better serve the purposes of the encyclopedia to merge it with an apprpriate Sarah Palin related article, and redirect. Quantpole (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with Wikipdeia's notability guidelines. While I do find value in doing favors and not giving private individuals attention that they didn't ask for, this is in no manner a private individual and it was Levi Johnston who put himself on several national (and international) television talk shows, not Wikipedia.--Oakshade (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of WP:BLP1E is the protection of private individuals who find themselves in the news with no desire to be (it's all in the WP:BLP talk page history). Of course, someone who willingly goes on several national and international television talk shows and seeks a book deal and modeling career does not fall into that description. --Oakshade (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E is to avoid providing a platform for extensive revelations regarding people of limited public scope, which is only partially based on a concern for the subject's privacy; here I was also referencing a desire to respect the privacy of other private figures involved in the situation, whose lives would necessarily be examined in an extensive examination of Johnston's (consider, for example, Governor Palin's daughter). It is also tied in with WP:BIO1E, which is about limiting coverage of people who are relatively unimportant aside from one event. Goodness knows, it's a royal pain patrolling biographies of genuine public figures to prevent irrelevant remarks of low English quality, to say nothing of poor moral taste, from appearing. We don't need to extend our troubles further. RayTalk 03:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what he wants? Why should his desire to be famous effect our thinking in this regard? Bonewah (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's relevant to the policy being used to justify deletion, i.e. "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual..." Bali ultimate (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the policies, yes - the primary argument. The "deletes" position is that stretching your 15 minutes of twice-removed fame for a completely non-notable act (having sex with your girlfriend) into a somewhat lengthy media tour is still One Event. The "keeps" argue that yeah, its one event, but he is not keeping a "low profile". Some are also arguing that the multiple appearances/interviews are more than one event, but they are mistaken. The "deletes" counter with - it was not a notable event at all, so its not even really one event, its no events, which the media is covering anyway! - that's the (heavily simplified) nutshell version. there are other arguments as well, of course, but that's how his desire plays into this discussion. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 'low profile' in this context is synonymous with low importance, low notability, not ones desire to be famous, but I expect im going to be in the minority here. Still, I dont think it matters either way, we all agree he is famous, whether he wanted to be or not, and if we take that fame to be another 'event' then BLP1E has no meaning. We should also make note of WP:BIO1E, which is slightly different from WP:BLP1E. Bonewah (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not 
in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person 
is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially 
remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
I just don't see how we can claim he's a low-profile individual. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might anyone at all show me some cites where the word "Palin" is not prominently mentioned? Elsewise, I would suggest that the BLP1E is clearly evident. Collect (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The standard isn't that cites don't mention Palin at all, the standard is that the cites aren't primarily about Palin while only mentioning Johnston in passing. Would we demand that cites about Laura Bush not prominently mention George? --GRuban (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any cites which are about Levi which do not specifically state "father of Bristol's baby" or the like at all? Where a single fact is mentioned in all the articles, I submit that it is implicit that the article exists substantially because of the iterated fact. Note that I said "prominently mentioned" which is what I was talking about. Absent any such cites, I submit that the BLP1E us proven. Collect (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, that's like demanding cites about Laura Bush that don't prominently mention "wife of President George W. Bush" or the like at all. It's an unreasonable demand, and not among the BLP1E requirements. Notability is not inherited automatically, but you certainly can become notable through your relationship with a notable person, if that relationship itself is worthy of note, as this one is. "Unmarried teen father of the grandchild of a highly conservative vice presidential candidate" is pretty notable, and does not come along every day. --GRuban (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what WP:BLP1E does say. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Since the guy has appeared, alone, without any Palins, on multiple national television interview programs, he is not low profile, and of his own free will. The "presumption in favor of privacy" means that we assume he's attempting to be private unless we have evidence to the contrary, not despite any evidence to the contrary! --GRuban (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which would make sense except that all the interviews focus on the Palin connection. "Appearing without the Palins" does not make him separately notable if the focus of the interviews is on -- the Palins. Collect (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fawn Hall always "secretary of ollie north." Laura Bush all cites, "wife of president." Donna Rice "girlfriend of gary hart." Chesley Sullenberger "heroic pilot of US Air flight 1549." Sirhan Sirhan "murdered RFK." Jack Ruby "murdered Lee Harvey Oswald." Michael Carroll "won UK national lottery." "Lottery winners" cat[54] has about 10 of these. Jessica Lynch "captured by iraqi forces." Elizabeth Smart "kidnapping victim." "Kidnapped american children" cat[55] has about 30 of these. Etc... It's not my intention to make an otherstuff argument; but to point out that time and again, people who become known for one event or one key relationship frequently are deemed to pass our notability requirements.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really dont see how that isnt an otherstuff argument. And I want to reiterate, low profile is not relevant to notability, People notable only for one event provides guidance here and doesnt make any mention of low profile at all. Bonewah (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell my argument is: There are many, many people who are notable as a consquence of one event and its aftermath. I've provided some examples of this phenomenon. Notability stemming from one event is not, on its face, disqualifying. Did the event itself, the circumstances surrounding it, the people involved, and the implications (social, political, whatever) of the event achieve a wide degree of public interest and coverage extending beyond the brief temporal window of the "event?" If so, then in my opinion notablity is satisfied, as i believe in this instance.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different deletion arguments here, which is why Bonewah is confused due to not being able to find "low profile" in one of them. WP:BIO1E is a notability argument - that Johnston is only notable for one event. Well, he's notable for a relationship, which, if you read the examples, isn't the sort of thing WP:BIO1E considers a single event. The ongoing coverage of his actions in unrelated nation-wide and international sources goes to show that he is quite notable. WP:BLP1E is a privacy argument - it specifically mentions low profile, which he isn't. --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all confused, please reread my post. And by what reading of WP:BIO1E did you determine that a relationship is not a single event? What examples listed there do you think support that view? Bonewah (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand i probably won't convince you. But not only am i convinced he's established as notable even if we assume this was one event i don't see it as one event, but rather events. 1. Romeo and Juliet phase. 2. Announcement of pregnancy in the middle of a heated campaign in which the mother of the girl was a noted cultural conservative strongly opposed to pre-marital sex. 3. Embracing of Johnston at the GOP convention, signals that all was good, boy was going to do the right thing by girl, marriage in the works. 4. Various speculation (much of it of a mean and opportunistic variety, but some reasonable as part of the Culture Wars context of the campaign, perhaps reaching its sordid/politically relevant height with Tina Fey saying as Palin on saturday night live in response to a gay-marriage "question" that: "I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers." 5. Break-up, semi-public feuding between the Palin and Johnston camps. 6. Johnston going on the talk show circuit, shopping memoir, calling abstinence only sex education "unreasonable, Bristol Palin taking a job as a public advocate for pre-marital sexual abstinence. These things are all connected, of course. But i don't see them as one thing, but many things.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Bonewah's contention that opponents of deletion are making an "otherstuff" argument: I take that essay (it's not a policy or guideline) to reject an argument that says "I found one article somewhere that's similar and that, for whatever reason, has escaped deletion, so this one must be kept, also." By contrast, if there's a significant number of reasonably high-profile articles that share a common characteristic, the existence of those articles may be taken as showing the community's judgment that the characteristic, whatever it is, doesn't support deletion.
Here the common characteristic is: The article is the bio of a living person, who doesn't have major career achievements (no Nobel Prize yet), and whose frequent appearances in the mass media would not have occurred except for a single initial event. Bali ultimate and I have each noted several articles that meet that description and yet survive, either having survived AfD or having never been nominated despite extensive editing. JamesMLane t c 04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, how notable was the one event? Having sex with a teenager isn't very important. The teenager is someone notable's daughter, or we would never have heard of LJ. Also, see Arguments to avoid: Just because OtherStuffExists doesn't mean a thing. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, having sex with a teenager isn't very important. Right, if the teen hadn't been the daughter of SP, we would never have heard of it. I agree: whether the daughter of a candidate for Veep is pregnant is an entirely trivial matter. I agree, anything calling itself an encyclopedia shouldn't bother with "in-universe" accounts of trivia. However, there's no mere epidemic of articles on trivia; they are instead endemic or indeed pandemic. And no wonder, given that WP:NOTE has nothing to do with notability as the term is understood by you (I infer), me, and most of those who are in blissful ignorance of Wikipedia. Instead, it's little more than an alternative guideline about verifiability. This is repeated in the "basic criteria" of WP:BIO, which say nothing whatever about the intrinsic notability of the person, or the need for any achievement (intellectual, creative, destructive, etc). These "basic criteria" are followed by "additional criteria". There is a slight ambiguity here about the relationship between the basic and the additional criteria: does a biographee have to satisfy (a) the basic criteria and any relevant additional criterion or (b) the basic criteria or any relevant additional criterion? I have my own ideas on this, and given an eighth day in this week I'd lay them out for you -- however, for now all I need say is that: (i) the additional criteria are for certain kinds of people; (ii) Johnston doesn't seem covered by any of these; (iii) the kinds of people covered do not exhaust the kinds about whom biographies are written (rescuers, pranksters, freaks, criminals, and crime victims are among those who do not seem to be covered); ergo (iii) we needn't worry that there's none that covers Johnston. ¶ The fact is, US presidential politics has elements of tragicomedy, soap opera and/or circus, and thus even mere bit players -- Donna Rice, Billy Carter, Gennifer Flowers, John Hinckley, Jr. etc etc -- are avidly (and perhaps also regrettably) written up by the press. This makes them "notable" in the WP sense. Johnston has got at least a moderate amount of the same treatment; therefore he too is "WP-notable", even though you and I may happen to think that Larry King Live and the like cynically cater for a laughable booboisie. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet your position is keep? You betray your own better sense, then. Policy is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. If someone isn't notable, say so and why. If the policy on notability is just a rehashed version of V, then it isn't addressing this accurately. Remember that IAR, our oldest policy, trumps all other policies - if your common sense tells you something is best for the encyclopedia, do it, and ignore that the letter of the rules doesn't cover or even disagrees with it. You are aware that covering such talk-show-circuit non-entities will make Wikipedia more like a tabloid gossip column than a serious encyclopedia, yet you say "keep" anyway? This makes no sense to me. Even NOTE leaves room for interpretation. Some people are notable for one event. And some, regardless of how much they court the press, are not. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[out] Well, not quite. Rather, I recognize that a number of Wikipedia's guidelines are far divorced from my own sense, and I recognize that I can neither ignore these guidelines nor cheer on while others do so, but instead should (a) work to change the guidelines, (b) find policies that trump them, or (c) cite "IAR", which is something that people should only do after careful thought, and openly. I don't think IAR allows me to interpret WP:NOTE and the like to mean what I think they should mean; rather it allows me to openly acknowledge that they mean something else and to flout them all the same, IFF I have a very good reason. ¶ I'm not aware that covering such talk-show-circuit non-entities will make Wikipedia more like a tabloid gossip column than a serious encyclopedia. I certainly concede that it's fully compatible with making it so, but as long as the write-ups for tabloidy personalities and events are done scrupulously, as this one is, I'm untroubled. ¶ We agree that OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no defense of this article, but EXPRESSLYPERMITTEDCRAPMOUNTAINS might give pause for thought, and I therefore proffer for your consideration the WP:BIO criterion "Is a Playboy Playmate". We read that "As of April 2009, 666 women have been Playmates of the Month." (Christian conspiracy theorists take note of that number!) What this means, as I understand it, is that WP-"notability" is obtained by the mere display of your tits for the center pages of this venerable and fading publication for the male shopper. No other achievement whatever is needed. Just how obscure are these people? Consider the list "Notable Playmates": a typical entry reads briefcase model on Deal or No Deal; contestant on VH1's Rock of Love with Bret Michaels. The "Playmate" article tacitly admits that the great majority don't even reach this level of "notability"; ergo, well over five hundred of these people are complete nobodies. Now, does their inclusion harm WP? I don't suppose it does. The typical person arriving to read up on, say, Fibonacci number is I think unlikely to be troubled to learn that the same work of reference/trivia would tell them of Janet Lupo that Family reactions to her appearance in the November 1975 issue were mixed. Her father was very upset about it, but her mother liked it. Eventually, her father did come around, and he became very supportive of her decision. After touring the United States, Canada, and Japan to promote Playboy, Lupo started working as a bartender at a restaurant owned by a friend's husband. (All of which we can anyway flag with "((fact))" if we wish.) ¶ Back to Johnston. If, or so far as, you are interested in my own intuitions or beliefs (which I don't think should be a factor), my hunch is that he is actually important to Gov Palin, as Palin repeatedly (endearingly or tiresomely) packaged herself as a "mom" rather than as a stateswoman, driving her brood to hockey matches and otherwise concerning herself about their welfare. She, McCain, her own or McCain's handlers, or the Party, also chose to display the brood, together with Johnston. This may for all I know have been a reluctant concession to a sexist infotainment industry that has little interest in the offspring of male contenders; but whatever the reason, that's the way it was. And however improbable or depressing or silly it may seem, Johnston now has a "media presence". -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC) tweaked 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, KC, the question isn't how notable is the one event. The question is whether the one-event policy applies here at all -- does it require us to lump multiple events together just because, if it weren't for the first, none of the later ones would have occurred? Many of us believe that such a reading of the policy is totally unjustified and is countered by numerous bios of people who would be unknown except for one initial event. Your reference to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is rather surprising, given that I expressly addressed that essay, in the comment to which you were nominally responding. For the reasons I stated, which you choose to ignore, I disagree with your assertion that the existence of other articles "doesn't mean a thing." JamesMLane t c 23:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. Hope all is well in your world. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion Hoary. I have gone ahead and listed this article on those deletion sort pages, with the exception of business. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, Ism! Even though I've no great big Cadillac (gangsta whitewalls, TV antennas in the back), I'm not complaining. Peace to you too! -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Not notable per WP: BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. As pointed out, Bristol doesn't even have an article. Levi certainly has no lasting notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Changed to regular delete after some thought, since there is a half-way decent argument that 1E doesn't apply (I don't buy it though)--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right that B. Palin doesn't even have an article. The result is bizarre indeed. As of a few seconds ago, when you click on Bristol Palin you are taken to a text that starts Personal life [edit] In 1988, she eloped with her childhood sweetheart Todd Palin. You think (or anyway I thought) "Huh?" but the URL confirms that yes, you're reading about Bristol Palin. That oddity aside, and for better or worse, BP may soon get her own article; see this. -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think the fundamental question here is: Is being famous the same as being notable? I would say no. This is an encyclopedia - in theory, people should do something independently notable to get an entry. People who are only significant as part of a larger event, don't need their own entries. Levi fits in that category. I would, however, support a redirect. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did Mary Jo Kopechne or Jessica Lynch do anything independently notable to get an entry? Both have bios solely because of something that happened to them. You seem to be leaning toward the view that people should have to earn an entry, as if it were a reward to the bio subject (who must "do something" before he or she can "get" (i.e., deserve) an entry). I disagree, and see the standard as service to our readers. If enough readers would be curious about this person and would want to read about him or her, then that's notable enough, regardless of the person's merit. I agree with the point made by GRuban and others: The issue isn't whether readers (and talk-show hosts) should display this high level of interest. JamesMLane t c 18:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This Afd was added to the following delsorts. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC) - Removed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Listing in every category is ludicrous, and verges on misuse of that practice. Collect (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, this appears to be a bit disruptive. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and makes it harder and harder to read. Could we perhaps just put all of those in a box on the top with a nice little hide/show button? --SB_Johnny | talk 11:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they are inappropriate categories and need to be removed. I have taken this to ANI. This is a violation of WP:POINT. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IPOF, it appears to be seeking specific groups to weigh in with a specific goal -- making the value of the AfD quite problematic. "Sexuality and gender"??? "Conspiracy"? "Organisms"? Collect (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add this Afd to these sorts. Another editor did, I just noted it on this page. I agree, there are too many. If anyone wants to remove them from specific listings, you have my support. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the categories following Hoary's suggestion. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 12:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to take any blame for removing several categories. Organisms? Indeed. Collect (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (weak) and redirect per user:Eauhomme Hobartimus (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. However dubious the notability may be, notability clearly exists based on the sheer breadth and depth of sources covering the kid. All of the arguments for 1E either fail to see or (sometimes admittedly) intentionally ignore the fact that the letter of the policy and the intent of the policy don't support deletion for biographies like the one in question here. Deletion would, at the end of the day, be a subjective editorial decision on our part that ignores the vast amounts of objective reliable sourcing (for better or for worse) out there that clearly indicate notability.   user:j    (aka justen)   13:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet currently all we can say about his supposedly noteworthy status is that he got Bristol Palin pregnant, which is already covered in the Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy which is the suggested target for the redirect. There is simply not enough of interest to support a stand-alone article. He's not noteworthy enough; its the one event, and filler. I'm not arguing that we remove his name completely - read the nom, my I suggest a redirect to where LJ is already covered in the encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can say what the article says, it's not a stub, it's a fine stand-alone article. You seem to be saying that what he did somehow isn't "worthy" of notice. Well, that's not what Wikipedia:Notability means, it's not a measure of worth, it's merely a measure of what reliable sources write about. Plenty have written about him. There's not enough of interest? It's clear that Larry King at least thinks plenty of people are interested, and I'm afraid we need to trust his judgment on this over yours. We don't make that kind of judgment here ourselves, whether people should be interested, it's clear that enough are from the coverage it has gotten. We don't decide what the world finds notable, we merely reflect it. --GRuban (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have managed to mis-communicate my view, if you took from it that I am somehow rating "worth". I am saying he did one tiny thing to a child of a notable person, and everything else is just irrelevant details abotu him, or gossip about the one thing. Is that clearer? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not he should or should not be notable isn't for us to decide, it's for third-party reliable sources to decide, and they seem to (again, for better or for worse) have decided he is noteworthy enough for extensive and (ridiculously) ongoing coverage. Anything he says about fatherhood, childhood, teenage pregnancy, politics, the mother of his child, or the grandmother of his child becomes headline news, seemingly on at least two continents. While I may find the situation extremely bizarre, his notoriety doesn't suggest to me "supposed noteworthiness," it's suggests to me plain and simple notability. By the most objective test I think we can come up with, to boot.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we are speaking past each other and misunderstanding each other, I must say you are in error. It is entirely our decision as to whether he is notable, and whether he should have his own article or be part of a parent article. No one but Wikipedians makes these decisions. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, ma'am. Wikipedia:Notability has a formal definition: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Reliable sources make someone notable. Wikipedians don't. --GRuban (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That statement goes on to read "it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." which is later explained:
In other words, Wikipedians do ultimately determine what is and isn't notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on what areas you believe Levi Johnston should be excluded per wp:not?   user:j    (aka justen)   01:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOT is only an example of a reason something might not be notable. I was quoting the entire guideline & did not mean to imply that I meant NOT applied here. The most relevant part of the quote is Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. BLP1E would fall under this general principle, as would other "editor's discretion" type cases. I feel this is one of those cases where notability is not established by multiple RS mentions alone - with or without an appeal to BLP1E. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we're not talking about mere "mentions." We're talking about extensive coverage solely of him. And I think wp:blp1e has been a nonstarter as an argument because a key component of it is that the subject "essentially remains a low-profile individual," which clearly isn't the case here. That leaves what you're calling editorial discretion, which I believe sounds far too subjective and potentially non-neutral to be a workable criteria for deletion discussions.   user:j    (aka justen)   01:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "editor's discretion" is whatever consensus says it is. If this turns out to be keep, I am fine with that. That said, I do also think the 1E & NOTNEWS/TABLOID criteria do apply. As you noted below this gap is unlikely to be breached and I respect the keep opinions, as I am sure you also respect the delete opinions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Sometimes I want to bang my head against a wall, but that's not your fault. (Although I would bet you sometimes feel the same way.) In all seriousness, I do see where you coming from and respect your views in this area, even though we differ on the matter. Now hopefully on to some infobox tinkering I've been putting off for a few days...   user:j    (aka justen)   02:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see, from your !vote above, that you believe it falls under wp:notnews. Looking at the two possible areas in which I believe you could be referring:
  • Routine news coverage. At this point, we're simply not talking about the sort of "routine news coverage of announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" that is considered under wp:not. I certainly feel as though a lot of the coverage has a tabloid angle to it, but the coverage is not "routine" and has spread far beyond the arguably less reliable sourcing inherent with tabloid journalism.
  • Single event. I think the viewpoint that he achieved notoriety because of a single point is somewhat accurate. However, as per wp:not, the coverage of him has "go[ne] beyond the context of [that] single event." The coverage is no longer solely about him becoming a father. It's about his opinions of teenage pregnancy, his viewpoint on the role politics can play in personal lives, what activities he's engaging in his personal and professional life, and a whole host of other topics tangential to but beyond the sole context of the single event that led to his initial notoriety.
It doesn't seem like it's possible to bridge the gap between those advocating delete and those advocating keep, because we seem to have fundamental disagreements on the two areas above and others. I believe that there is clearly exclusionary language that precludes deletion under wp:oneevent, there is clearly support under wp:n, and there is nothing applicable requiring deletion under wp:not. But all of that's just my interpretation.  :)   user:j    (aka justen)   01:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The textbook case of WP:BLP1E. Just because someone has been In The News does not mean that we need an article on them. If I want to know what Levi Johnston is up to, I'll go read People or watch Tyra. This is an encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 18:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A textbook case of WP:BLP1E not applying when editors claim it does simply by stating so. WP:BLP1E states very clearly twice it is for "low profile" individuals. This person is not in any manner "low profile". --Oakshade (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cmt - Come on, guys. Don't you know we're using the "articles-in-anyway-related-to-Sarah-Palin" standard. If someone doesn't like it, delete it. If it pleases everyone, keep. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was this comment really necessary? Assuming good faith, what we actually have is legitimate argument about whether Levi is notable in the encyclopedia sense. Some think being widely noticed is enough, others don't think so.
It wouldn't make a lot of sense for anyone to say "delete" in bad faith anyway since any "damaging" info in the article is already in Sarah Palin related articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a close call. This is not a "textbook case" of WP:BLP1E, because Levi wants to be famous. He's trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame. But he still fails WP:NOTE, because he's not (yet) notable. However, if he were able to keep giving speeches to anti-Palin groups and doing TV appearances, he might become notable. But for now, all he warrants is a redirect, which is all Bristol Palin has -- and, frankly, at this time he's not more notable than Bristol -- or even Trig Palin. AyaK (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd rush to agree that Johnston hasn't (yet) achieved any real notability. The question is rather that of whether he has achieved Wikipedia-"notability". It seems to me that he easily satisfies WP:NOTE (which you choose to cite). I invite you to reread it. Now, if you were to claim that WP:NOTE was wrongheaded or mistitled, I'd probably agree, but that's another matter. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - see FerryLodge and AyaK. The tabloids media can't get enough of anything and everything Palin-family-related and Johnston is trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame. Besides having sex with Sarah Palin's daughter and then talking about it to the media, what exactly has he done? McJeff (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think part of the problem is that this article is like a safety valve. I haven't edited the Saray Palin article, but if it's anything like the Obama article, people will not allow you to add info just because it's covered in reliable sources (contradicting NPOV and UNDUE). We could find 1000 sources dealing with Bristol and Levi, but if you call them a part of Sarah's article, then they get 1 sentence or less in Sarah's article, and if they have their own articles they can get maybe 100 refs. This whole thing is similar to an Israel/Palestine aticle. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has been cited in a huge number of national news articles over a time period of many months. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the grand scheme of things, I feel like Levi, and the entire controversy could be adequately summarized in a section in Sarah Palin or another pre-existing article on the 2008 campaign. Bristol Palin's pregnancy wasn't really notable outside the context of her mother's candidacy. --Pstanton (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several months ago I would have agreed with BLP1E, but he has continued to do interviews and push his own notability. If he were just Tripp's father, and he didn't court publicity, then I'd agree with deleting this. Now though, I see him as having garnered notoriety for the pregnancy, the break-up, the custody complaints, his comments on the Palin household, etc. Yes, these are all related issues, but I don't see them as singular in the sense of 1E. That, coupled with his obvious courting of the media, convinces me that deleting the article to protect him for BLP hardship isn't warranted. Dragons flight (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DGG makes a very strong case. Also, the sheer bulk of coverage on this one individual and his own keeping himself in the media makes this an obvious case of a needed page. Content of a page has no affect over need for having a page. BLP issues can be cleaned up. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete mention on Bristol Palin's page is enough. - Schrandit (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mention on Bristol Palin's page? There is not Bristol Palin page. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 19:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:BLP1E carries the day here. Much hay is being made about a series of talk show appearances and interviews, but all of that still only stems from his notability for being the father of a candidate's daughter's child, nothing else. Levi Johnson has no notability independent of who he happened to have sex with. Additionally, we may need to rethink just what the threshhold for notability is these days. "Being mentioned in a lot of sources" is fast becoming a meaningless point in the era of super-saturated 24/7 media blitzes. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E states explicitly twice it is for "low profile" individuals. This person is not "low profile" by any means. Johnston is more than just "mentioned in a lot of sources", but is in fact the primary subject of multiple sources.--Oakshade (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The primary subject of multiple sources, all for one event. Thanks for making my point for me. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which "one event" are you referring to? The original private event with Bristol Palin? The photo opps with John McCain months later? (That event heavily covered) The breaking up with Bristol Palin months later? (again, that event heavily covered) The multiple events of going on a talk show circuit (yet again, those multiple events heavily covered by secondary sources) months later? The point is, terming "one event" for a person who has been covered heavily by secondary sources for several events spanning over eight months is opposite of reality.--Oakshade (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing but "the original private event with Bristol Palin", all else is just coverage because of that, not separate or in addition to. Tarc (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that the sexual intercourse was not a "single event" so stating that it was from who he had sex with is a little short of the whole. :) But the word "event" does not mean one action or idea, but one moment. Based on the above idea, famous runners that only run would not be allowed on Wiki because that running is one event. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BLP1E is normally used to remove articles where the subject is notable only for a single event, particularly a single event that portrays the subject negatively. This is a use I very much agree with. This particular case is different, however; while the source of his original noteworthiness in the media is a single event, he has voluntarily extended his public role well beyond what it would have been solely based on his relationship with the Palin family. We could, using the same argument extended in some comments above, delete the articles on basically all one-hit wonders and people with one single focal point of notability - like some winners of American Idol, or even some non-winners. Wouldn't even have to limit it to the entertainment industry, really; what about Mohammad Atta? Even Chelsea Clinton, whose personal notability also extends from her proximity to presidential politics? Harper Lee only wrote one book, after all. Anyway, my point is this: the notability of every famous person started somewhere. When a famous person extends their public role beyond that one event, we shouldn't get into deciding the precise threshold where "one event" is converted into wider notability. Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 23:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge content elsewhere When I judge article content, first I read the name of the article, and I expect content on the subject. The subject in this article, supposedly, is Levi Johnston. However, the entire article, every bit of coverage about his life, is because he had unsafe sex with the daughter of a notable politician. The only content on the subject in the article outside of that, is:
"Levi Johnston was born to Sherry Johnston and Keith Johnston in Wasilla, Alaska. He has one sister, Mercede Johnston. Johnston is an avid hunter. He attended Wasilla High School, where he played hockey."
None of the stuff mentioned in that blurb is remotely notable. To me, this proves his notability is limited to him impregnating Sarah Palin's daughter. The news coverage of the relationship between Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin and the Palin family is semi-notable, however, Levi Johnston as an individual is not notable for anything. If this had happened to in the family of someone who wasn't a politician, or had Sarah Palin not been in the running for the Vice Presidency at the time, this wouldn't have even been in the news. Besides that, even the article reflects this:
According to Courtney Hazlett of MSNBC, there has been speculation that Johnston gave interviews to King and Banks in hopes of landing an endorsement or modeling job.
The media doesn't care about this story anymore and Levi Johnston is just trying to make a name for himself by appearing on talk shows as the kid who had sex with Sarah Palin's daughter. Having said that, and how the article is about Sarah Palin's daughter getting pregnant, and not Levi Johnston, his notability is pretty non-existent. The article on Levi Johnston should either be deleted or redirected and merged into the Sarah Palin article, in the section that talks about her family. — Moe ε 23:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this article, there are too many reliable sources detailing mulitple events for it to be merged into the Sarah Palin article. That would be undue. Yet, there are mulitiple reliable sources concerning multiple notable events in Mr. Johnston's life. A merge to Sarah Palin would be undue. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General discussion regarding burden of consensus with respect to BLPs moved to talk page. –xeno talk 23:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scandia cup[edit]

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

Non-notable youth sporting event. PROD denied (by author without explanation.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable. GiantSnowman 13:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. John Sloan @ 14:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. – PeeJay 15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local youth tournaments are probably never notable. A Google search for this term gave me an intriguing mix of football, drinksware and recipes! Needless to say, there's not much scope for referencing this article and establishing any notability. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audofleda[edit]

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

Audofleda appears to be notable primarily as the wife of Theodoric the Great, and to have no notability in her own right. A search on Google Scholar brings up a handful of German articles that note she was the wife of Theodoric; searches on JSTOR and Cambridge CrossSearch reveal nothing at all. The fact that she married Theodoric is already mentioned in the article on him, and suggests this article might be a candidate for removal. Alexrexpvt (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Request speedy close. Alexrexpvt (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep information on this kind of historical era is mostly in books and not on line. She was notable because of the alliance that was formed with the Franks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable historic figure 1400 years dead. Per Graeme. Dlohcierekim 13:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like Nyttend says, she was a queen during a remarkable period of time. Historically indispensable. Dlohcierekim 13:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, I rather thought that might be the case. My concern about notability was that she did nothing in her own right except be born and get married, and appears in history mainly as a footnote because of her passive role in Theodoric's politicking; it seemed like all of this information could be (and, in fact, is) included in the Theodoric article. But if being a queen in interesting times is enough to merit an article, then I have no real objections to its staying. Alexrexpvt (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then the thing to do would be to propose a merger. The subject is clearly notable enough. The question then becomes one of independent article or mention at other article. Perhaps redirects for each daughter leading to a combined page for all. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surely being a queen is sufficient for notability? It's one thing to marry a transitory political figure, but a king (and such a prominent one at that) is altogether different. Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fifth century people are notable per se just by having their names remembered fourteen centuries later. Even if their actual record is scanty, and you can sum up all that's knowable about them in a single paragraph, print encyclopedias brim with stubs of exactly this type. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg[edit]

Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Original reason for PROD was "There are not enough third party sources to verify the historical significance of this match. This is also extremely likely to end up being loaded with POV." Reason given for removing PROD was "the "no historical significance" argument carries little weight, speaking from experience at AfD". The fact is that the only third party sources exist because the match happened yesterday, and there are no sources to indicate that, unlike the 1966 FIFA World Cup Final, this match will be historically significant in 50 years. – PeeJay 13:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 13:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I said in removing the prod, while we like to pretend Wikipedia is not a news service, the basic fact is that there are plenty of articles that have no "historical significance". If we restricted ourselves to articles about topics with "historical significance", you'd have around 300,000 articles at the most. Hell, one could argue that the 2002 Champions League final had "no historical significance". As it stands, this match is notable under the classic definition, if more for the controversy than the actual match, so it really should be kept. Additionally, the possible implications on Drogba's career could actually give this the elusive "historical significance". Sceptre (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference between this match and the 2002 final, though, is that people will always remember finals. There is nothing particularly significant about this semi-final. – PeeJay 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd daresay more people would remember the England v Argentina 1986 World Cup quarter-final than the 1986 World Cup final. There is no "finals=notable, anything else isn't" brightline, so don't pretend there is. Sceptre (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Granted the 'hand of God' was significant but where was the hand of God moment in this game? If this one is significant then at what point will wikipedia be having an article on every game played? Certainly there are plenty of fans out there that want to write about this stuff. May be that is what wikipedia is really about and how it will evolve in the future? David D. (Talk) 15:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Seeing as you're asking, everything after the fourth penalty was turned down. That's what made the match more notable than Man U vs. Arsenal, first leg. Sceptre (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's no actually evidence of that other than your personal view. I highly doubt that this has any historical significance and will likely be forgotten by the end of the season like all the other hundreds of similar incidents that happen every season. --neon white talk 20:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this match is no more notable than any other European Cup semi final through the ages, I don't see the reason why it should be singled out for a article. chandler ··· 13:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this match isn't significant; finals of the tournament are. GiantSnowman 13:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Historically significant" is not the baseline for inclusion. "Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is. Sceptre (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only secondary sources that currently exist are only there to report that the match happened, not that anything in the match was important. – PeeJay 13:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry? Not that a player roared an expletive down a television camera which was broadcasting around Europe after the match? I really must try to find a better newspaper and television channel if they're both telling me such sickening lies... obviously that isn't notable enough in itself but I think there is more than a suggestion that something went badly wrong in this match as I've never heard of such behaviour before. I don't believe this happens in every game but then again maybe I'm not paying attention to enough sports. Either way if Battle of Bramall Lane is considered notable for its lack of players I don't see much difference. --candle•wicke 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per chandler and GiantSnowman. -- Alexf(talk) 13:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it was a very important match with clear mistakes by the refree; after the match there was also many protests. I think we should keep it.--Andrea 93 (msg) 13:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we had an article for every match that had mistakes by the referee, we would have thousands being created every day. Not a valid reason for inclusion. – PeeJay 13:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has been many matches with, what some may call clear mistakes, with protests. For example the Liverpool Chelsea match in 2005, the South Korea - Italy and South Korea - Spain matches in the 2002 World Cup. There are MAAAANY matches with mistakes without articles. chandler ··· 13:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it is a bit far to say matches like this take place in their thousands every day or even every year! :-O Honestly. And citing examples of other articles which may very well not exist because someone hasn't gotten gotten round to creating them yet?! Baffling. --candle•wicke 01:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete frankly, you can get enough news sources nowadays for every single match in the CL, Premier League and Football League, a large proportion of which feature bad refereeing decisions. This is definitely where the following sentence of WP:N comes in: "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. – Toon(talk) 13:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But nobody said it was a guarantee. That is a matter of opinion. And POV is ill-advised. --candle•wicke 03:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This match is not significant enough to warrant its own entry. As Toon05 says, every single top flight game in Europe gets a great deal of news coverage so a line has to be drawn. The repercussions may, however, be suitable for inclusion on pages such as Didier Drogba, etc. Dancarney (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article creator has now tagged the article with ((db-g7)). This probably is just a case of him throwing his toys out of the pram, as this could have been a very helpful exercise in establishing some notability guidelines for football matches, but never mind. Bye bye, article. – PeeJay 14:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That comment leaves me with very bad image of you. "Bye bye article"?! It's almost like you're desperate to have it deleted for some personal reason! Is it any wonder I myself would become "awfully defensive" when met with that attitude? --candle•wicke 02:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we're really scrapping the bottom of the barrel if these types of games are deserving of their own article. What are the long term goals of wikipedia, especially with regard to the use of the word "encyclopedia" and "knowledge". I don't see how these types of articles are related to either word? David D. (Talk) 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I've declined the speedy on this, as someone else spoke for keeping. DGG (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The match is notable not due to the match, but the unsatisfied performance of Øvrebø, the referee. His performance made Drogba speak foul language to the camera, which is also notable. Raymond Giggs 16:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a personal point of view and not something we judge notability on. --neon white talk 20:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historically significance is not an inclusion standard. This a high profile game with plenty of sources. And, just so it's clear, the fact that information is available elsewhere is also not a deletion criteria. I came here looking for info on the game (because of coverage in mainstream press), and I found it. Why is there any interest in deleting reliably sourced information on a high profile event? RxS (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both you you and KyleRGiggs, there are so many matches with bad referees or players embarrassing themselfs, see Euro 2000 Semi final between France and Portugal, the World Cup 2002 round of 16 and quarter finals involving South Korea, World Cup 2006 round of 16 between Italy and Australia (the last three involving Hiddink for some coincidence). We have a old semi final in the European Cup 1965 between Inter and Liverpool were the ref was accused of fixing the match in favour of Inter. We have other controversial matches, Austrlia - West Germany in 82, none of these have articles to my knowledge... these are just a few matches that come into my head. I don't see the need to create articles for all semifinals of the European Cup, details can be added in the knockout stage description. chandler ··· 16:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that other articles don't exist isn't really relevant. Lot's of articles don't exist that would meet our standards. Wikipedia is still growing. I know deleting things is easier, but if you see an article that doesn't exist, write it. Don't try and get others like it deleted. RxS (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that's my point. Moveover, the naming of the article MUST be changed if the article is keep. Semi-final is not the point to remain, but the match itself. Raymond Giggs 17:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:OTHERSTUFF - need I say more? Well some people will still moan, we need to be judging this on the merits of this article alone, not on the merits of other articles. On its own, this article stands up well. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Raymond Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't care about the article any more. I was going to add a lot of information about the match and the aftermath, but I don't feel motivated to do it any more. Sceptre (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, as I said, the semi-final term is not the point, but the match. Only final match is notable by term of round name. This semi-final series is notable for the match itself. Your contribution is in good intention. Don't depressed. :) Raymond Giggs 17:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Semi-final" was in the name just as a disambiguator. Sceptre (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: although I may have been a bit snippy about this AfD, I would like some help in writing the article: I do better writing about the reaction to events than writing about the events themselves. Sceptre (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ridiculous Article. Not notable at all. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I wouldn't say it's "ridiculous"! That's extremely discouraging and not very assuming of good faith. Tut tut. Shame. --candle•wicke 01:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete wikipedia is not the news, it isnt the sports pages either. No evidence that this will have any lasting significance and will likely be forgotten fast. To quaote policy "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." Anything useful can go in UEFA Champions League 2008–09. --neon white talk 20:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. About other comments: bad performances from referees happen everyday, even in the top flight, and it's nothing new; speaking foul language to a camera is not that original, actually. Of course, feel free to mention the controversy into the UEFA Champions League 2008–09 article, but a stand-alone article makes no sense. --Angelo (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd just like to know why this is not appropriate for an article when Battle of Bramall Lane is 86.26.220.216 (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you actually read Battle of Bramall Lane? That article exists because it cites an example of a match being abandoned because a team did not have enough players left on the pitch. – PeeJay 21:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahem! What's that? "Cites an example"? Not even a record breaking example? Considering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008–09 Heineken Cup semi-final: Munster v Leinster cites an actual record-breaking example in a different sport, I am quite concerned about your application of a different rationale in one deletion discussion and your complete dismissal of it in another. Considering the experience Sceptre and myself have between us I should think you would know better than to be making such an error. --candle•wicke 02:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have read Battle of Bramall Lane and am extremely familiar with the events it describes. I honestly think that this match is just as notable for the incidents with players after the game etc. 86.26.220.216 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Hubschrauber729. Kosack (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:5P. This is the type of information one would expect to find in a sports almanac. -Atmoz (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. – PeeJay 22:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then someone should change the first pillar to reflect that. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Key words bolded. -Atmoz (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The more important word there is "elements". Also, I would not expect to find a full-length report of every single match in a sports almanac. Results and goalscorers, sure, but reports as in-depth as this should only be expected for tournament finals. – PeeJay 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wonder though what happens when a final is eventless and 0-0 and so on. How does one draw up an in-depth report on such a match? --candle•wicke 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the article is to be kept, then it should be renamed to something like Chelsea F.C. v FC Barcelona (2009); the existing naming implies that all CL semi-final second legs are inherently notable, which I don't think they are. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To be perfectly honest, 2008–09 Heineken Cup semi-final: Munster v Leinster is at least as notable (if not more so) as this but User:PeeJay2K3 has also nominated it for deletion. Why that match was even nominated for ITN on the Main Page until it got the deletion nod. I'm not sure if this would have made it to ITN though. But if records and events such as those described in the rugby union can be nom'd for deletion yet a football match like the Battle of Bramall Lane is noted for being abandoned... well I'm not sure what conclusion to come to on this particular match. I cannot possibly vote deletion as I cannot make sense of the relevance of the three articles, of why two obviously eventful matches (and one record-breaking match in the case of the rugby) can be nom'd for deletion and one record-breaking football match can be deemed notable... I find it all a bit baffling to be honest. --candle•wicke 01:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't think we need articles on single champions league games other then the final. EA210269 (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am puzzled though as to how a final in which nothing may well happen (and I'm sure there are countless examples) could be considered always notable but an eventful semi-final is not in all cases no matter what... --candle•wicke 02:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point being, that the winner of an eventful group- or knock-out stage game still gets nothing but a move on to the next stage while the winner of a boring final is still the champions league winner. Boring or exciting as guidelines for notability or non-notability are difficult to implement. EA210269 (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as, quite frankly at this stage, I'm finding the delete arguments silly to put it mildly. The day we start deleting articles because a user thinks they're "ridiculous" will be the day I won't bother creating any more. --candle•wicke 02:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would strongly urge you to read WP:POINT. – PeeJay 02:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you suggesting I'm stressed? And that stress is contributing to the fact that I've opted to give my opinion of a keep in an article which you seem to have a disturbing attitude towards? Bye bye article? Indeed. I'm not stressed actually. Would you rather I go back to my own discussion as I would probably find that one more stressful? I'm afraid I've lost track of your professional agenda. --candle•wicke 03:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge individual games into whatever larger unit fits the sport. It's not a matter of interest--I would much rather read about even European football than soap opera, and I think so would any rational person. It's not a matter of detailed coverage--I can see even a more detailed section than this. I think it's excessive fragmentation. We have to decide what we want to do, and I hope we do not want to do this. What matters its that we give the individual games of a season full coverage, proportional to their interest and importance. (If anyone asks, I'd be glad to do similar merges with soap opera also, if we could keep the full information. I know we will here, so I'm not worried about that.) DGG (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Covering a single football game is primarily the realm of sports journalism, not encyclopedias. (NOTNEWS) There were some issues with the referee missing things, which is big news in Norway since it was one of the Norwgian top referees, but referees missing penalties is a common if unfortunate occurence. Merging with the tournament may be possible, but a full report on a single game will probably not belong. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, I believe that if Chelsea had proceeded to win this game, Øvrebø would have been hammered up and down by the Catalonian press for the red card he gave. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This match may be making a few headlines at the moment, but is it really historically significant? So the referee made a couple of bad decisions - that happens week in week out at every level of the sport. If we started including every match that involved a bit of controversy, we'd probably end up with countless editing hours lost in pointless POV arguments. If there was something noteworthy or record-breaking about the match (such as the Battle of Bramall Lane and the Battle of Nuremberg) this would be worth keeping, but at the end of the day this is just a couple of questionable refereeing decisions followed by some players throwing their toys out of the pram. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hardly a ground-breaking match in football history, just having a lousy referee does not make a match notable. And the argument that there are multiple reliable sources is a bit specious as, as pointed out, every single match at a professional level in Western Europe gets multiple reliable news sources. I imagine if I attempted to create Rochdale F.C. vs Gillingham F.C., 2009 Football League Two play-offs semi-final, first leg, it would get laughed off Wikipedia, but it's had in-depth coverage in The Times, ESPN, Yahoo Eurosport, The Manchester Evening News, etc etc.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTNEWS & WP:RECENTISM. Badgernet  ₪  09:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bettia and Badgernet. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are plenty of forums available to debate the match. The article is being loaded with opinion, and Wikipedia is about reporting facts. Nobody is ever really going to agree about the content of the match, and if people want to argue, then there are other forums available to do so. None of the other games have their own page, I do not see why this game would merit one. If people want an in depth match report, I suggest uefa.com.
  • Delete What's significant? The fact that the ref was wrong 4-6 times? That's just bunch of opinions. And unless those who want to keep the article make it interesting and detailed, it has a very poor quality. 2002 final article is also debatable. --Arad (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind. I rather not vote. --Arad (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koos (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Delete Ok i have choose merge or delte for a few reasons. The article itself is not notable neough to be a article in it own right so should be deleted. However the points raised about the match itself ar notable so should be merged into something else, i am assumign there is a champions leage 2008-2009 article and that would be the best place for it, else i think the article should be deleted. Just to through in another reason for deletion, Rangers vs Celtic ie the Old firm matches, have ove rthe years have countless countvisoul decision made about them leading to far worse that a player swearing on camera ie leading to riots within glasgow, however these are notable enough to get there own articles so i can not see why a few penatliy claims for chelsa and few claims for barcelona justify a article for themself, or else i could find proballly 10000 article on old firm matches in the same sitiuion.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions which it would be interesting for people to answer if they can. How often does a referee get smuggled out of a country after a sports match? This hasn't happened since 2005 if FOX are to be believed. And why exactly are FOX reporting on something like that? And, more intriguingly, the match referred to there is being brought up now, giving it some historical significance independent of its occurrence? That match seems to have caused the premature retirement of a referee in the aftermath so it must have been pretty bad. Maybe that was a final, in which case the argument is futile, but, presuming it is a semi-final or other such match, would it be nominated for deletion in this manner? And, if it were nominated for deletion, where exactly is the line? We can have an ordinary match in the English league where too many players get sent off (but if the talk page is to be believed this is the rule and this has happened at a higher international level before?) and we can have a a match in an early round of a lower-level competition were there is a shock but the losers don't exactly crumble or go out of business but we can't have football matches where referees are threatened and it affects their career nor can we have a rugby union match played in unusual locations in unusual circumstances in front of a world-record crowd with a shock result? I can't grasp the logic here, please help. They all appear as worthwhile as the other to me, I can't see how one is any better or why two are worthy of keeping but two are being nominated for deletion. And I've been around for a while. As has the creator of this article as well it seems. Can anyone see what I'm saying and perhaps just explain, I know it sounds a bit pathetic but it might help clear this up. --candle•wicke 14:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you on that, but then where doe sthe line get drawn? A line has to be drawn and decided this is where we stop, however if the match had turned very bad and there where riots and peope killed ther ebe more arguement for it be notable. But a referee decision is not notable enough to have a single article about it, hence my suggestion merge it somewhere else.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is some inconsistancy here. Like Candlewicke, I also don't believe the Bayern-Norwich game is notable enough (and it seems it only just scraped through AfD), nor is the Munster-Leinster game - record attendances are set in every competition in every sport, but how many of those games warrant their own article? Same goes for refereeing controversies - Anders Frisk was forced to quit after a Chelsea-Barca game some years ago, but I don't think the game itself has an article here, simply because it wasn't notable. My tuppence worth - I think for a single game to get an article on Wikipedia, it should be the final (not semi-final) of a major tournament, or one in which something exceptional happened (like the Bramall Lane match). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This just came up in my discussion as a reason to delete my case. Yet another semi-final – agh! ;) and a football one at that when that discussion is about rugby union. It might be more suited to here. Italy 4–3 West Germany (1970). But seriously how is BBL notable?!:-O It has happened before at a higher level and, if I'm reading correctly, this wasn't even the Premier League? Would a second division match in another country be acceptable? And the "background" section suggests the match did not affect either club's season (presumably the game was replayed anyway though?). --candle•wicke 15:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, i would be consistent and suggest it (Bramall Lane match) be deleted too if it was up for AfD. But let's not get side tracked by other bad precedents. From what i have seen the significant events in this article should be in other articles, the one for the referee, for example. It could be mentioned in the article for the the tournament summary, I assume one exists? Fragmenting all these facts into smaller and smaller partitions does not help a reader see the context. Also the good use of external links and references means that readers can, if they wish to, do further research and follow up on the minute details surrounding the event. David D. (Talk) 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never considered a good arguement. --neon white talk 23:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have missed the point. This was an attempt to establish some clarity and consistency on the issue at hand and not an argument for delete or keep. --candle•wicke 00:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing truly major happened in this match. Drogba's f-bomb, Ballack's tantrum, and the "poor officiating" are notable, but not significant to create a whole article on the match. John cena123 (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I watched this match, it was very entertaining. It will certainly be remembered for a long time! However, it's still not notable enough for a wikipedia article. Otherwise i'd be creating Bolton Wanderers F.C. VS Leicester City F.C., 2001 Premier League match as we speak! John Sloan @ 20:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most people forget that this is no premier league match, it's the Champions League semi-final between a very storied rivalry, there was so much at stake in this match and so many controversies that it definately deserves a wiki page, there are thousands of wiki pages that are far less signifigant than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.45.31 (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really anything that is accepted as criteria for notability. --neon white talk 10:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Delete - Having a single article about non-final match would trigger plenty of users creating A LOT OF match article every time they think that a match has bad referee, bad decision, riots, injuries, etc. Okay this match could be significant if there are a lot of penalties for Chelsea players and the referee, but I think this information could be merged to a new section on the knockout stage page. Martin tamb (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: In the UEFA Champions League 2008–09 knockout_stage article the Quarter-finals section has about 1500 words, including about 500 words about the QF 1st leg and a further 900 words about the QF 2nd leg. Meanwhile the knockout stage article also has sections devoted to the Semi-finals and both the SF 1st leg and SF 2nd leg. Those three sections have about 140, 0 and 0 words respectively. Clearly this AfD is distracting users from further developing the most obvious home for the content in this splinter article (currently at about 280 words). This is further evidence in my mind that this article should be deleted and merged into knockout stage article. David D. (Talk) 19:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've partially reformulated the content in the article and included it into the semi-final article. Feel free to fix it, I am not a native English speaker so I can easily make mistakes. --Angelo (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The rightful place for coverage of this game is here, since Angelo has merged the content this article can be deleted without anything being "lost". King of the North East 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would it not have made more sense to place a merge tag on this at the beginning? --candle•wicke 01:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: I just viewed the merge and I have to say it looks well. Well done! :) --candle•wicke 01:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per WP:RECENTISM. Besides that, there is nothing particularly special about this game to justify a separate article. Usually the only notable UEFA Champions League game is the final. --Carioca (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do wish notability could be more defined though. For the sake of clarity. --candle•wicke 23:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not possible to do so as all cases are different. Cases involving recent events and whether they are likely to have lasting significance are usually decided on case by case basis based on experience and past precedent. It's impossible to define in a guideline the characteristics of what will and what will not become a significant event. These things are simple too unpredictable. --neon white talk 15:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the POV argument is a red-herring - cure it (sorry for the pun) by editing, not deletion. But the key point here is notability. There's nothing especially notable about this match. Both teams have played in many, many more important matches in their histories. The tournament has annually a match that is more important. And the main reason for notability, the performance of the referee, is insufficient for its own article, but should be mentioned elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, despite a few penalty appeals and dodgy refereeing decisions this game is just another Champions League game. Maybe worth noting the controversy on the Tom Henning Ovrebo's page, as long as it's referenced otherwise it'd be subjective. --Jimbo[online] 13:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - controversial decisions happen in high-profile football matches all the time, but that does not mean they warrant an article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

999 (anthology)[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Was listed by User:RadioFan with rationale: "tagged with notability concerns for over a month. Lacks 3rd party references" - The unreferenced and notability tags were removed by the article's creator along with the prod notice with an edit with no edit comment and marked m for minor, with only addition to the article being links to reviews on some extremely minor sites and a link to the publisher. We need nontrivial coverage from reliable third parties that demonstrate notability to have a Wikipedia article, not just any old site putting up a half-assed review hoping to make some money on ads/affiliate links to Amazon. DreamGuy (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I assure you that this was a much-ballyhooed anthology in the horror/fantasy milieu. Independant reviews shouldn't be hard to find...Rhinoracer (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny then that the person who added the bad links there didn't add good links if they are hypothetically easy to find. I personally don't care one way or the other if it gets deemed notable or not, but you'll have to do more than just assert that it is. DreamGuy (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. Note that there is no discussion page for this article (but I shall create one now). Discussion at the article is the proper sequel to some content dispute, not AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I agree with User:Colonel Warden that discussion at the talk page is very relevant before AfD Nomination, and I should know.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. SilkTork *YES! 23:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Narrow Ways[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No references can be found to verify the existence of this band; the reference provided refer only to the existence of the individual members, but do not mention this band specifically. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The presence of the page at User:Kamilett is not troubling, as this is simply the user's draft prior to posting to the main article space. I like to encourage that sort of thing. But this particular article doesn't quite make muster. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation)[edit]

A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unnecessary and virtually useless disambiguous page. Every Nightmare article has a template (Template:Nightmareseries) that links every single Nightmare related page. We also have A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise), which is linked in the first sentence of each of the film pages. Having a disambiguous page that does nothing but link film pages that are already linked like that twice is unnecessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Anything of this nature can be cleared up with the Template:otheruse.Afkatk (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A dab page is used for navigating articles with the same or similar titles, not for listing films within a single series. The articles concerned already have sufficient linkage to each other. PC78 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite saving this from speedy (as someone other than the page creator had contested it) I can't see the point of this page as the franchise page does the job just as well - that's not to mention the Template. Dpmuk (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant dab. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless dismabig for a single film franchise - hence its having a franchise article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SNOW, withdrwwn by nom. DGG (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jan C. A. Boeyens[edit]

Jan C. A. Boeyens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable researcher User A1 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found four books written or co-written by him (not counting being the editor of a conference proceedings). According to worldcat, each is held by 100-200 libraries, which to me means that they received the default amount of attention for an academic monograph rather than having any special notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The long list of (at least moderately important) awards here puts him over the line. By preference they need to be sourced from elsewhere because that is a borderline source, but I'm satisfied that they were awarded. 9Nak (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He looks pretty notable to me, based on his extensive CV which includes many high ranking positions. Gigs (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If his textbooks are in fact in use at schools he should be kept in accordance with the Books Notability item "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." Can someone confirm the textbooks he has written are in use?Johndowning (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If his Web of Science ratings are good then keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keepKeep. Based on the info. uncovered by David Eppstein and 9Nak, plus these citations (especially the first), he arguably meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, this is a better search in this case. I am changing my recommendation to a “keep”.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I guess this can be closed per WP:SNOW User A1 (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Palace of Justice siege. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso Plazas Vega Conspiracy[edit]

Alfonso Plazas Vega Conspiracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Unsourced and poorly written propaganda piece, apparently authored by solidarity campaign (see Yo Creo en Plazas). Any useful material could be added to Palace of Justice siege. RolandR (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge referenced material with Palace of Justice siege. This is only significant in that context. Drawn Some (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the article. The article is new, and was started on May 5th, 2009. After some work on the article, references and different parties have written in the article, plus given references. the article has different websites and videos as references. Also, the piece s not a propaganda piece, but instead states the topic at hand stated in the title. May i remind that the article is open to editing by the public, and other parties are welcome to edit it. Yocreoenplazas (talk • 15:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has now been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. RolandR (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editors above voting to merge this article into Palace of Justice siege have apparently not realised that almost all of the material here comes from that article in the first place, and there is nothing to merge. If an editor produces any relevant and reliably sourced material, it can be added to the siege article with no need for thids POV fork. RolandR (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. May be recreated when there are reliable sources. SilkTork *YES! 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice (U.S. season 10)[edit]

The Apprentice (U.S. season 10) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL. We have no information on it other than the fact that it is going to start casting soon. Delete, with (of course) no problem with a recreation should more information become available. The fact that casting hasn't even started yet suggests that information won't become available for quite some time. Ironholds (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nom says it all. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 15:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Um, I'm not even seeing evidence that it is casting... the cited reference page doesn't have a listing for The Apprentice on it, and all I'm finding as far as renewal is the next celebrity one. In any case, without an official announcement it's pure WP:CRYSTAL. BryanG (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum following the addition of this link: proves absolutely nothing, could easily have an explanation as simple as prewritten copy such as that in some of List of premature obituaries. It's just speculation, and we're jumping the gun by posting this now. No objections to recreation with an official announcement, of course. BryanG (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Magic 8 Ball says... you're fired. -Atmoz (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if properly sourced. The Apprentice is a noteworthy subject and if there is even 1 link to support this story it should be left alone. Anber (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese New Native Language[edit]

Vietnamese New Native Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no evidence of official use that I can find. Ironholds (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Afkatk (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Allegedly created in... 2009... by a redlink person with the epithet "The Great." No references whatsoever. No evidence that it is used by anyone other than the few users who vandalized the page since this nomination. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 11:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find anything showing this is official either. Frehley 11:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting, but no sources at all to show that this Viet version of Newspeak. "Viettonese" gets only one two hits, and this article is one of them. The link to www.gamevn.com in the article is a Vietnamese language game website forum. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly and without prejudice. The article might be about some proposal for Vietnamese spelling reform, and would appear to make claims of notability; and we are stymied from searching for sources for that because of the author's limited skills in English. (Which are, however, far more impressive than my own in Vietnamese.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the creator seems to be trying to wreak havoc here and there. He created the same article in the website www.gamevn.com, which made him an unwelcome face. So in my opinion, this is just another of his pranks (or havoc? to be more correct). Furthermore, it's a clear case of original research, and without any reference/citation to boost. I suggest that it should be hidden or otherwise pending/moderated until the creator provided at least *1* reference/citation. Oaioai (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources to back up article. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources - there is no way this language has 2000,000 speakers without many sources.YobMod 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the word for "snowball" in Viettonese? Mandsford (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lassen Creek[edit]

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

There is no record of this feature in any offical Antarctic names gazetteer Polargeo (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This stream is not listed by the USGS GNIS antarctic names gazeteer. It is not listed by the more extensive SCAR Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica. On googling the only non-wikipedia originating reference to this feature that I can find is the external link given on the article page itself Research on Streams and Lakes in East Antarctica. This external page gives a picture of the feature which has also been added to the article. I suspect that the feature has been confused with Lawson Creek. The list of steams flowing into Lake Bonney does not include this stream but does include Lawson Creek. Polargeo (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just double checked the article which the info on this stream comes from. It is a blog (okay granted a USGS blog). In the blog they also wrongly name Santa Fe Stream 'Santa Fe Creek'. So I think it unreliable to base the existance of this feature on it. Polargeo (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if this were a reliable source, surely they'd put it into the USGS database. With more sources, we could have this article, but keeping solely for that reason would be crystalballery. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of reliable sources indicating that this place exists, since the only reference to this creek appears to be a mistaken reference to Lawson Creek. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Execom[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The article is the typical company-speak, resembling an advertisement or. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Execom+Novi+Sad shows nothing but PR (prlog.com, openpr.com, linkedin.com), facebooks, company's own websites and similar. The creator, Apopara (talk · contribs) has the same username as company's contactperson. Sorry, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your company's promotion. No such user (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. One (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dodge[edit]

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

Designing your own degree program does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (namely those pertaining to 'significant coverage' and 'sources'). Temporary, insubstantial news coverage; second source is a school newspaper; second source is a dead link. Article has received similar criticisms over the past year (see page's discussion and history). Author denies and speedily deletes edits. Kallath (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep He didn't design the degree program, the University of Mississippi did. He is the first person in the United States to receive a space law certificate. In other words, he's the first space lawyer in the United States. That alone is enough for his notability. Additionally, the second link you said is "dead" isn't dead. The whole University of Mississippi olemiss.edu domain is down right now. I assure you the University hasn't just went out of business and closed up shop, including their whole web domain. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 09:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd also encourage everyone to listen to this MP3 audio production Discovery Now found at WRHO TV/WHRV Radio here. It's written and produced by the National Institute of Aerospace and distributed by WHRV 89.5 radio. Discovery Now is a daily 90 second program that features highlights in aeronautics and astronautics technology, science, history, innovations, research, and inventions from the aerospace industry, worldwide. This particular 90 second program is about Michael Dodge and his being the first space lawyer in the U.S. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 10:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed. He didn't design the program. He is the first person to graduate from it. There are other students in the program. An article in The Daily Mississippian online, here, talks about another student in the program as well as the second U.S. program started this year at the U. of Nebraska. As for notability, the sheer number of space-related and law-related websites which picked up either the school paper article or the space.com article meets the standard for notability. I'm not sure what started the rancor against this guy, but I think the article should stand as is. Age Happens (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My apologies for framing the issue incorrectly, but what has he done in the field of 'space law' beyond graduate with a certificate in it? The notability of Michael Dodge relies on the mere novelty of 'space law', not on the significance of the person himself or his accomplishments. You say he's a "space lawyer." Has he worked on space law cases? Does he work for some sort firm dealing with space law? Can you say anything significant at all beyond the fact that he has a space law certificate (assuming that's even significant--as opposed to merely interesting--in the first place)? Apparently not, because the rest of the space is just filled with impertinent biographical information (like what he did his undergraduate studies in, which might be interesting if he were important) and references to the institutions related to space law (which are far more noteworthy than the person himself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallath (talk • contribs) 09:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding his coverage on G4tv, etc., the mere mention does not warrant a wiki article. G4tv mentions a lot of people who do crazy, stupid, or geeky things, and that does not make them noteworthy. A biographical article should be qualified with information relating to the person's accomplishments, activities, etc. I believe you're both mistaking novelty for notability. Kallath (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, your nomination is counted as your "delete" !vote. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 10:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be your contention, then, that Neil Armstrong's page should be removed simply because his notability relies upon his being the first human to step foot on the moon and others did so after? Or maybe the nearly as small page for Gaston de Chasseloup-Laubat should be marked for deletion simply because his only notability was setting the first recognized automobile land speed record and people now drive all the time? I can find hundreds more, if you like. Wikipedia is full of pages dedicated to people who have been the "first" to do something. Many of them notable for only doing so. Michael Dodge is the first person to get a degree in space law. That's enough reason for multiple unbiased sources to make note of the event. You many not think it's notable. But you aren't the final arbiter. The fact that space.com one of the most respecte donline sites dedicated to space found him notable is enough to meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia by itself. Add to that the fact that law sites, other space-related sites, ev en G4tv.com (for a popular culture site reference) found his graduation of enough note to mention it. I'm sorry, but your standard of notability seems to be much more stringent than that of Wikipedia or for any number of outside, reliable and most importantly unbiased sites such as - G4TV.com, Space.com, IO9.com, universetoday.com, minnlawyer.com (he's not even from Minnesota!), marssociety.org, canesinternational (U. of Miami International Studies Journal) and more. That's enough for me. It goes way above and beyond the Wikipedia standard for notability, not your own standard perhaps; but that isn't at issue, is it? Age Happens (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that I'm not the final arbiter. That is why I created this discussion page in the first place. As for being the first, you seem to be supporting my argument. The point is that getting the first space law certificate isn't comparable in importance to the first person walking on the moon. The significance of being the first depends crucially on the significance of the accomplishment, not on the novelty of simply being the first. By your logic, anyone who is the first at anything deserves to have a wiki page. But no, we discriminate between important firsts and those which are not. You're providing evidence as to why this particular first is significant, which measures Michael Dodge against all others who are the first to have done something. We measure their accomlpishments. So far we know he has a certificate in space law. Mention something else beyond the sources which have pointed out this one accomplishment. The significance of a space law certificate depends on the significance of space law, which is covered in the space law page. In my opinion, this is also where any mention of Michael Dodge should be confined. Kallath (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If anything, it is the certificate itself that is notable, not the person, see WP:ONEEVENT. There are a few non-bloggy references (http://www.canesinternational.org/?p=591) but they are trivial in mentioning his name, I see nothing that meets WP:RS that discusses Mr. Dodge outside of earning the certificate. He's not the first "space lawyer", merely the first person to have a certificate in it from a school. Also, has this claim actually been verified? How do we know there are no similar certificates issued in China, for instance? That's why reliable resources that research and fact-check are so important. Something else to ponder: if all of his classmates had received the same certificate instead of a certificate in criminal law, would they be equally notable? Drawn Some (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you've missed the sources in the article and the ones provided above that do a whole lot more than "trivial mentioning". OH yeah, most of them also call him the "very first space lawyer", not "the very first certificate earner". - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 15:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to these guys: International Institute of Space Law, also read this: Space law. This guy got the first certificate, maybe. Drawn Some (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think the certificate itself deserves its own wiki page. The certificate is offered through the National Center for Remote Sensing, Air and Space Law. Allstarecho already made an entry in that article for Michael Dodge, and if he wishes to add a detailed section about the space law certificate, this would be the appropriate place. But as you can see, not even some of the faculty have their own wiki pages. What about the pioneers who made the space certificate program? How is Michael Dodge, who graduated just a year ago, at all more noteworthy than the individuals who have the expertise to teach space law? The very fact that there's a curriculum for space law indicates that there are already people working in it, and so saying Michael Dodge is the very first "space lawyer" just seems like a kitschy way of attracting readers (which would explain why most sites making this claim are blogs, etc.) There are already a number of international space treaties, national laws, institutes, and agencies dealing with space law. To say we've only just received our first bona fide space lawyer is completely arbitrary if people have already been working in the field since 1967. Michael Dodge has benefited from people working in this field. He is a product of pioneering individuals; he is not one himself. Kallath (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. I agree that he deserves a mention in that article as is. Drawn Some (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Yes, the certificate is offered through the National Center for Remote Sensing, Air and Space Law, which is part of the University of Mississippi School of Law, not some seperate entity. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 16:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply otherwise, but either way, I fail to see how that has any bearing on the discussion. Kallath (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I fail to see how being the first ever space lawyer in the world United States still means you're not notable. But I digress. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 16:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently McGill has been offering such a certificate for some time: [56]. This guy is just the first person in the U.S. to get one because this is the first certificate offered in the U.S. I'm not even sure he's mentionable in the article on the National Center for Remote Sensing, Air and Space Law. This is starting to look purely promotional. He's not the "first space lawyer in the world", he's not even the first person to be certified as such in North America, and no doubt some of the McGill certificate holders are practicing law in the U.S. and around the world. Drawn Some (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that all of those sources, including Space.com and the University of Mississippi, would be calling him the "first", if he wasn't.. but stranger things have happened I guess. And how do you know McGill has been offering it for "some time"? It doesn't say on there when it began. All it does is list courses.. and doesn't say anything really about a certificate in space law being what you get upon completion. They could be courses just simply offered as electives. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 16:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Space.com reference is specifically what made me look for the other North American program. If you can't be bothered to search the McGill page I linked to for the word certificate then see page 8 of this brochure: [57] which I link to because it shows how McGill-educated space lawyers are practicing in 120 countries around the world and how long they have been educating space lawyers. Drawn Some (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes perfect sense that the University of Mississippi would want to lay claim to the "very first space lawyer ever," as you put it. It's a promotional tool. But the Daily Mississippean linked in the page says of space law that "...one program exists in each of Holland, Germany, Canada and Lapland." Only Space.com's eye-catching headline says he's the first space lawyer, which it then clarifies as "[receiving] the first-ever space law certificate in the United States." The other "article" cited on the page is actually just a tiny blurb that's cached from the Deccan Herald, a paper in Banagalore, India. The fact that multiple sources say he's the "first ever" is not evidence that he is; it's evidence that it's a good headline. Kallath (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you listen to the radio program I linked above? I seriously doubt the National Institute of Aerospace would also call him the "first space lawyer in the United States" if it weren't true. At any rate, I'm done defending the article now. His notability is so painfully obvious but I'm just one voice among millions. Carry on. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 17:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see we've gone from "first ever space lawyer in the world" to "first ever space lawyer in the world United States." There are two issues brought up in this discussion: the first establishes that space law has existed for over 40 years, and that applying the term 'space lawyer' to someone who's only just received a certificate seems arbitrary. What about the educators, professionals, etc. that went into making space law programs (not to mention space laws)? The second issue is whether he's notable at all for being the first in the United States. Are you just as readily going to make pages for the first graduates of space law programs in every other country? The fact that you continued on the assumption that he was the very first space lawyer ever, and only just corrected yourself, underlies the problem. Michael Dodge isn't as notable as you thought he was. He's no more or less notable than any other 'first graduate' of space law programs, none of whom have Wikipedia pages. Even if he were the first to receive such a certificate in the world, that still leaves open the issue of whether he's truly the first space lawyer given 40 years of preexisting practice pertaining to space law (which contributed to his getting a certificate in the first place). Kallath (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the part where I said I'm done defending the article now? And the part where I said his notability is so painfully obvious? Seriously, I'm done defending it. I won't post here anymore. I've said all I can say about it and presented the sources verifying his notability. There's nothing else I have to add. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 17:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm continuing to argue against the claim that his "notability is so painfully obvious." Simply because you've chosen to leave the discussion doesn't mean other users won't or shouldn't continue to invalidate your claims, question your evidence, and so on. I and others are providing a rationale for this page's deletion. You're free to stop discussing whenever you want. Kallath (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm even going to label the space.com article as unreliable as it is obviously derived primarily from a press release. Drawn Some (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just graduating from law school, even with a novel degree concentration, doesn't make him notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, his degree concentration is not novel, McGill has had such a program for over fifty years. Drawn Some (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Apparently it's time to start marking all the other Wiki articles of even less notable persons for deletion. One wonders on which side of the issue some individuals will come down then? Since the criteria being used in this case seems to be considerably stricter than the actual rules for notability and far stricter than many of those pages can possibly support, many articles should disappear. Assuming, of course, the above contentions have honest reasons. Age Happens (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you find it appropriate to create articles for each and every "first graduate" of space law programs from every country that preceded the United States in offering them? We have established, beyond any doubt, that the United States is not the first country to have a space law program, and that Michael Dodge is most definitely not the first person in the world to graduate from one. He is, so far as we know, the first with a certificate in the United States. If you're extending things to their logical extremes re: the dubious notability of other articles and how we, by our logic, should flag them as well, then you should also extend the same logic to those subjects without articles which deserve them under Wiki guidelines. I recommend you create an article for all the first graduates of space law programs. Just because they haven't received the same fanfare as Michael Dodge doesn't mean they're not equally notable (or non-notable); in fact, at least one is even more notable, because he or she must have been the very first to receive a space law "degree" in the world. Right? The point is, the coverage on the internet (which consists mostly of tech/geek blogs in this case) is not proof positive of someone's notability, nor does it establish any absolute facts that would entitle someone to say "Doubting this article's notability is absurd!" The evidence provided in favor of this article is awful by journalistic standards (I'll refer you again to the tiny blurb that's cached--cached--from a newspaper in Bangalore, India). The evidence was also mined among the hundreds of others for the kitschy headline "First space lawyer ever!!!" Most articles did not even make this claim, but the author proceeded on the assumption that it was true before retracting that claim just yesterday. With all that being said, being the first to have a certificate in space law in the United States is most certainly not notable. The space law program is more notable; it's faculty and researchers are more notable; the other programs across the world are more notable; the various professionals who, over the last 40 years, have worked on space law for government and international bodies, agencies, and other institutions are more notable. And yet, remarkably, none have articles on Wikipedia. Michael Dodge merely graduated, just like every other graduate from space law programs who preceded him. He has not accomplished anything notable. The specious media coverage, the spotty source mining, and the inability of anyone to adequately respond to the most simple logical arguments against this article make it an obvious candidate for deletion. Kallath (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using the logic used above, lots of articles are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Apparently this idea of "known only for one event" is the overriding factor, trumping all of the other portions of the biography rules. "First person to", "youngest person to", "oldest person to" etc. are all then subject to that same logic if that is the only thing for which that person is known. It won't matter if the event is documented, because the Michael Dodge article was documented. You might recall that your original objection was lack of documentation. That changed as documentation was provided. The goal posts kept moving until we finally arrived at this ridiculous idea that if the person is known only for one event, regardless of the significance of that event as judged by reliable outside sources, then the standard for biographical pages has not been met. That's fine. If that is the prevailing opinion, then I'll accept it. But it had better apply to 'all' such articles or this entire discussion was nothing more than an exercise in hypocrisy. Age Happens (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"as judged by reliable outside sources" In fact, this is precisely the claim that others have been arguing against. Some of the sources are not reliable at all, and if you had read my post, you'd see a prime example of that. See also the discussion about headlining, promotion, etc. These issues have already been addressed--let's not beat a dead horse. As for notability (once again), the mere presence of coverage (whether reliable or not) does not make someone notable according to Wiki guidelines. Even on its face, being the first to receive a certificate in the US in space law seems to most in this discussion bizarre when labeled as any sort of notable accomplishment. The very point of this deletion discussion is to prove to you and the author that the notability of this individual is very much in question even when it seems wholly self-evident to you because you've read some eye-catching headlines from some prominent websites. Kallath (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Frankly I just don't consider this significant. Being the first graduate of a particular specialization in a law school is not really notable--his career afterwards may be, but teat remains to be seen. It's not even that he;s the first recipient of a innovative degree--he received the same JD as everyone else, and the certificate gives no unique privileges. Even as a program, we have consistently held such Non-degree certificates in a course as not significant. We wouldn't make an article for it, and we certainly shouldn't for him for receiving it. DGG (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only did he receive the same degree with a special space law certificate, he's not even the first person to have a specialization in space law. Kallath (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ridiculous article. If the space law program is interesting, maybe an article on that would work, but lots of people graduate with degrees all the time, and this person did absolutely nada of any importance for any encyclopedic coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll say it again. "But it had better apply to all such articles or this entire discussion was nothing more than an exercise in hypocrisy." Blatant hypocrisy. We have an article on Bertha Benz, whose only accomplishment was supposedly being the first person to drive an automobile a long distance. That's it. Drive a long distance? Is that any kind of official record? It's folksy and rather unimportant. It certainly meets the standard of an encyclopedia article less than the above article does. The article has one reference and 3 external links, one of which leads to a site about her husband. If anything that article deserves no more than a section under her husband's article at Karl Benz. And yet, one of the editors above thinks it is "a significant accomplishment" and adequately sourced. Just one reference is adequately sourced? Really? Blatant hypocrisy. Merge the Bertha Benz article or keep the one on Michael Dodge or admit to blatant hypocrisy or at best a very unevenly applied standard of notability. What about Grandma Gatewood? Her sole claim to fame is being the first person to walk the Appalachian Trail solo in one season. So? People walk all the time. People walk the Appalachian Trail all the time. Her only claim to fame is being first. Most of the references are to geneaological sites and one is to a tourism association! A tourism association is a reliable source? Again, blatant hypocrisy. Apply the standards in the above comments all the time or don't apply them at all. Otherwise, all you have left is personal opinion about what is or isn't significant. First space law certificate in the U.S. - fully documented as being the first, uncontested as such - versus silliness like the Bertha Benz article. Prove me wrong. Delete all articles which don't meet your standards above or delete none. Don't cherry pick. And ask yourselves whether Wikipedia should be in the business of getting smaller or larger. Inclusion or exclusion. Most of you seem to be adopting exclusion for Michael Dodge and then not apply the very same standards to similar articles. Bad practice. Age Happens (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hypocrisy implies that I believe those other articles shouldn't be flagged. As a matter of fact, I think they're apt candidates for deletion. There's no hypocrisy involved here. The fact that we (or I) can't practically go about flagging all these articles is not a justification for not weeding any of them out. That's like saying that because we can't practically go about incarcerating every criminal, we should stop altogether. This is hardly a matter of blatant hypocrisy. This is a matter of consistency. If, by my argument, I should go about flagging all those articles (constrained only by my practical inability to do so), then you should go about creating articles for all first graduates of space certificate programs (because, to you, they're all notable!). But that's nonsense. Just because I've flagged one article, or because someone has created one article, doesn't generate any mandate to flag or create all articles. That is not what logical consistency demands--it doesn't demand anything at all. The reasons for this article's deletion are firmly established. If I had the time, I would (upon review) flag any other articles I found appropriate for deletion. From what you've said, those other articles certainly don't meet Wiki guidelines. The fact that many slip through the cracks is not a justification for keeping the cracks open. What a bizarre argument... Kallath (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just learned that it is true that McGill has been offering a program for something like the past 50 years; however, that program is a graduate level program, whereas Dodge's certificate was earned at the JD level. The certificate is in fact quite unique and him being the first to ever earn it makes him notable as does being the first "space lawyer" in the United States. Additionally, he was recently accepted to do an LLM (essentially, a legal masters degree) at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. The LLM will start this fall and he will study aerospace law. He also has two articles coming out in a major, international legal journal (The Journal of Space Law); these will both be published this summer/fall, and are entitled "Sovereignty and the Delimitation of Airspace: A Philosophical and Historical Survey Supported by the Resources of the Andrew G. Haley Archive" and "The Andrew G. Haley Archive at the University of Mississippi School of Law, National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law: An Introduction. But I guess he won't even be notable then in some eyes. Only when he's able to grab the moon and move it to the other side of the universe, get sued over it, and wins, will he be notable. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 22:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the programs in all the other countries mentioned? You've addressed this issue with exactly nothing. I'm not going to bother arguing AGAIN that he is most certainly not the first space lawyer in the United States or elsewhere. This subject has been addressed. As for your new information, there is absolutely nothing indexed on Google about any of it. It seems (based on Dodge's discussion page) you're deriving this information from private correspondance (is he your friend or something?). Give the sources. And no, just because he has published something does not make him notable. There are thousands of professors across the country who've published interesting works in well-known journals... how many of them have Wiki pages? How many of the people who taught Michael Dodge have Wiki articles? Kallath (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living Mayors of San Francisco[edit]

Living Mayors of San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

At the deletion debate for Earliest living Mayor of San Francisco it was mentioned that this should be deleted too. I agree. This is trivia, and in the unlikely event that this info is needed one could refer to List of mayors of San Francisco. Delete. TheCoffee (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a content-fork of list of mayors of San Francisco in the sense that all the information can be derived from the content of that article. More importantly, I see no evidence that this particular presentation of the information is in any way notable. If there were a significant number of sources talking about the number of living SF mayors as a function of time then that would make it a topic worthy of its own treatment: as far as I can tell, there are not. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the difference between "trivial" and "trivia". It works like this-- on the day that a mayor was sworn in to office, there were former mayors who had not yet passed away. The analog to the U.S. presidency would be that when Barack Obama was inaugurated, there were two Bushes, Clinton and Carter alive. That type of factoid is barely tolerable with Presidents and Prime Ministers, and is of no conceivable use even for an afficionado of San Francisco history. This one was probably more fun to write than it was to read, answering a question that nobody is asking. Mandsford (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Olaf and Mandsford make highly convincing arguments. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–Colombia relations[edit]

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

another random combination, non resident embassies. the only connection is a place called Armenia, Colombia. and the only real media coverage of Armenia and Colombia is that the town had an earthquake. otherwise no actual coverage [58] LibStar (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:N for lack of significant independent coverage. - Biruitorul Talk 15:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being nothing. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This time there is really not much of anything to keep this article alive. The information on the city of Armenia in Colombia could and should go into a more appropiate section.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is nothing scholastic. Renaissancee (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No there, there. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
    Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to close this AFD. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unsourced stub about a relationship that the two care so little about they've dispensed with embassies in each others' capitals.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There simply are no relations. The article serves no purpose whatsoever and the subject is entirely non notable. I searched Google news and Google. When "relations" is included they throw up sweet FA, without, they throw up nothing useful- just coincidence of words. HJMitchell You rang? 19:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. -- User:Docu 17:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Armenia–Finland relations[edit]

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

another random combination, neither country can be bothered accrediting an ambassador preferring to have relations from their own capital cities and not even via Moscow which seems logical. No state visits [59] Most relations happen in Armenia-EU or football context.[60] LibStar (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that if they haven't accredited ambassadors that's a sign that they don't think their relationship is notable, unless they had ambassadors and withdrew them over a spat or something along those lines. Drawn Some (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no third-party sources (or even first-party!) to indicate even a modicum of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 15:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a very pretty way of saying nothing of notabiliy. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66] [67] LibStar (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you have not addressed at all how the article meets WP:N. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
townships are inherently notable but not bilateral relations. why is that at least 60 of these bilateral relations articles have been deleted in recent weeks? your LibStar (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And hundreds of townships were deleted also ... and just as many bilateral relations were kept. About a half-dozen deleted articles are restored every day. What does it mean to you? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
townships should follow the following proposed policy Wikipedia:Notability (populated places). none of the bilateral relations have been restored as far as I know. you still never demonstrate how each X-Y relations meet WP:N. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Townships meet WP:N. These do not. Calling wikipedia something else in an attempt to sway opinion won't change that. --BlueSquadronRaven 00:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." A Wikipedia pillar trumps over a style guide. The "gazetteer" portion is an entry for each township or country or state, and certainly this is an almanac entry. Factual information on geographic entities. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful argument! I agree. The only way anyone will ever find these things, is to look for them, so there is no harm to leave them here at all. Dream Focus 00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM LibStar (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Foreign relations of Armenia, which mentions the relationship, and for which this is a useful search term. Rklear (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing for an article to be about. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
    Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to close this AFD. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is this a vote for keep? I will let the AfD proceed as normal, there is no valid reason for premature closing. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is notable. Just needs expansionDr. Blofeld (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unsourced stub about a bilateral relationship of so little interest to the two countries at hand that they don't bother with embassies in each others' capitals. I find no reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any depth.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Content available in article establishes notability in combination with additional material available for expansion. Alansohn (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For reasons mentioned above in response to Richard. He makes his argument quite nicely. Dream Focus 00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no relations, at least not to speak of. Google and Google News throw up nothing- not even a primary source. A few coincidences of words but nothing that even mentions a relationship.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Marasmusine (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elder scrolls V[edit]

Elder scrolls V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a new installment to The Elder Scrolls franchise. Author removed prod-delete tag. Violates WP:CRYSTAL: the only article that provides evidence of an upcoming sequel doesn't even offer anything other than "it's happening". Unless more significant and substantial info about the upcoming game gets posted pretty soon, this article should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think there needs to be anything else done here, now that the article has been userfied per Drawn Some. TheLetterM (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Obviously the article has to be deleted. However, a very young person has spent a lot of time writing the original version. I would suggest moving it to his or her user space and encouraging him or her to work on it to have it ready for when the game is released in 2010. That way everybody's happy and the editor doesn't get discouraged. Drawn Some (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Drawn Some. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Title obviously is real, however not much is known on the game or plot as of this point from what I can find so the article should be removed and created a later date when more details are known. Afkatk (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. People shouldn't take an open wiki for just its word. Articles to show evidence from more trustworthy sources or they won't be worth much. That isn't possible yet. This article should be usefied: moved to be one of the author's personal pages, present and editable but not marked as an article (not showing up on default searches, for example) until it's ready for prime time. --Kizor 14:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete (or redirect if such an action violates the GFDL). While, clearly, a lot of effort has been put into this and we should not violate WP:BITE, it clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS and therefore fails to establish notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pure crystalballery. I'm indifferent on userfication for something like this, as it's only two sentences. MuZemike 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now it has only a couple of sentences, but if you look back in the history it had a significant quantity of content. Drawn Some (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. MuZemike 18:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but to clarify, I meant OK as in I won't oppose userfication, but make sure the title is capitalized properly. MuZemike 15:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went ahead and userfied the article and left a message on the editor's talk page so as far as I'm concerned the article can be deleted and this discussion closed. Drawn Some (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he's cool with it, then sure, there's very little need for discretion or debate for a decision. --Kizor 19:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me. TheLetterM (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Weismore[edit]

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

Non-notable artist who apparently only currently has notability in the Syracuse, New York area. Most G-hits are to his own site and craigslist with only minor coverage in some local papers. No evidence of notability outside Syracuse. Violates WP:N. Oh, and the entire article is also a clear cut violation of WP:COI as it appears to be by Mr. Weismore himself. Redfarmer (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not meet WP:CREATIVE:
    • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
    • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
    • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
    • The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
Specifically, the references available do not indicate anything other than participation in local gallery shows and trivial mentions in the local media. Drawn Some (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drawn Some. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Trivial mentions in media, the "book" about him is from a vanity press outfit, Blurb, Inc., and as far as I can tell doesn't even have an ISBN number. DreamGuy (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, good arguments for both keeping and redirecting. IMO the arguments for keeping are slightly stronger (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Ammerman[edit]

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

The subject, Ammerman, is apparently notable for appearing on America's Next Top Model, Cycle 12 and the BIO is an extended recap of her appearance on the show. Lack of notability could be classified as WP:ONEEVENT. The article is well sourced, but the sources seem to be mostly supporting trivia about Ammerman. This article was originally a redirect and was recently expanded into a full article. I personally recommend reverting back to a redirect and merging any useful material into America's Next Top Model, Cycle 12. Plastikspork (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It would be a bit difficult to merge info that isn't already in the episode recaps simply because ANTM cycle articles don't usually have a section on contestants' backgrounds. And it would be difficult to merge info into the master contestant list because it's sprawling as it is. Should we consider creating contestant lists for each cycle for this kind of stuff, or would that be too much? (On the plus side of that argument, at least there would be some info on contestants deemed non-notable for Wikipedia inclusion on each cycle. On the other hand, it's a lot of work to do well.) SKS (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this page should be deleted. Far too much information about her Next Top Model experience which is not important and already recapped on the cycle 12 page, plus she has done nothing else of note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.102.195 (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are sufficient secondary sources to justify article. Also contains information about her beyond the show itself (although I would not be adverse to the idea of shortening the ANTM part of the article). Further, article is still in early stages, more post-show fashion career info will be added as it becomes available. Articles about such contestants such as this are not uncommon and, although that alone of course doesn't justify keeping the article, I think it should not be deleted just to be on the safe side. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 05:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may be without Internet access for a few days, so I wanted to just toss these two cents out before I go. I know I may be fighting a losing battle here and this page will probably get deleted, but I did want to say that first of all, I feel WP:ONEEVENT should pertain more to examples like some schmoe from Anytown, USA having one newspaper article written about him, not a contestant in a national television show. That being said, Ammerman admittedly isn't all that notable compared to Tyra Banks or someone like that, but really, what's the harm in having a page about her? If someone decides they want to randomly look up Celia Ammerman, or Amis Jenkins, or Jael Strauss, or whoever, is Wikipedia really worse off for having an article about those people? I would argue the encyclopedia is better for it, so I'd say screw it and let the article stay. But again, just my opinion... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 14:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the decision is 'redirect', which I personally feel is a reasonable choice, then the old version would be saved in the edit history and as soon as Ammerman has gained some notability as a model (outside of ANTM), then the article could be revived with this new information. I could give examples of such ANTM contestants, but I'm sure you have seen them. If the decision is a strong delete, which I seriously doubt it will be, then it should be userfied so it can be revived when new information surfaces. I certainly don't think your hard work should be completely deleted and thank you for your efforts. Plastikspork (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect All top model contestants have at least a redirect to their respective cycles, So their is no reason for there to be an AfD for this Article. It should be immediately edited to a redirect, and discussed on it's talk page. ... MistyWillows talk 17:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article appears adequately referenced. Ford MF (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I originally created it as redirect when User:Ryan Postlethwaite re-created non-notable contestants as a redirect and I tagged it at RFD as the list of redirects to delete. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 08:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is adequately referenced, including discussion of the subject beyond personal trivia. I also agree with Hunter Kahn's point about the entry. Wikipedia is better for having it in the event that the individual becomes a subject of interest. Given that she was perceived to be a top contender by the cited sources on a largely watched national televised competition, I'd say the chances of that happening are high.Luminum (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong redirect. Yes there are plenty of references, but for what? These references appear to be mostly justification about how people thought she would do well on a reality television show which she did not win. She may very well become a notable model in the future, in which case I would support this article being recreated. As PS said, a redirect would preserve this page history. Symplectic Map (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've already said my piece (peace?) on this above, but I did want to note that Ammerman has already been featured in a style photo-shoot for New York Post, so it seems that she does have a modeling career right now, rather than being simply an "ex-contestant". I don't know if this makes a difference to you guys, but I wanted to toss it out there for your consideration. Additionally, there have also been a number of new interviews and articles about her recently (here and here, for example) that I plan to incorporate into the article either tonight or tomorrow... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Im all for keeping this article. Ammerman might not be the most important person in the history of the world, but the page is well written, well sourced and someone has clearly put in a lot of effort when making it. Celia Ammerman also performed strongly on America's Next Top Model, and whilst im not at all suggesting every contestant on the show gets their own page, I think narrowly missing out on the final is a pretty big achievement when you consider how many people apply. Contestants who place 12th on American Idol get their own page, and to be honest I would say that the quality of this article is far superior to the likes of Jasmine Murray. I think it'd be a bit unfair to remove this well written page, when other reality show contestants who didnt have such a strong run in their respective programme get to keep theirs. Alternatly, I would propose a new page with information about all the contestants from this series of Top Model, and put this information under a subcategory for Ammerman. The article is a good one - it'd be a shame for it to have been done in vain. (Kyleofark (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong keep – I don't see a problem with the article as-is, provided there is no BLP violations, which I don't see any. Otherwise, it's reliably sourced. MuZemike 00:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestations: Pacific unit list[edit]

Battlestations: Pacific unit list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Game guide is a violation to video game guidelines. SkyWalker (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. -- User:Docu 17:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan–Romania relations[edit]

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

as per Romanian speaking User:Biruitorul: Under Communism, Romania was far closer to India (which followed a socialist economic model until 1991), and that hasn't really changed in the last 20 years. According to this (rough translation here), the "relationship" is what you'd expect - a few visits (which I'm sure some will seize upon to "prove" they're best friends), a few agreements (including the obligatory double taxation avoidance one), two-way trade of $55 million, Pakistan's economy being $504 billion in size and Romania's, $264 billion. Other than that and a few news briefs like these, there really isn't much there. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not sure my snarky jab on visits should be here, but as per above. Fails WP:N (the one source quoted is from the Romanian government, and thus not independent). Very minor relations, and the one salient fact - embassies - already noted at Diplomatic missions of Pakistan & Romania. Whatever statements Romania has made about violence in Pakistan are not unusual and in line with EU policy. Not much more to see here. - Biruitorul Talk 05:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I commend the nominator on doing a google search in advance of the nomination; the fact of $55 million in trade was not mentioned in this Groubani article, and LibStar noted it in the sources referred to in the nomination. I agree that the trade is not very much, but one of the factors I look at is whether the two nations appear to be working toward building a relationship, and I see ample evidence of that from the "pakistan+and+romania"&cf=all| Google news search to say that there's enough to build an article. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, a relationship does exist, but (as such) it's not been the subject of significant coverage, and even the coverage you've found is simply the usual news we'd never pick up on outside this series of nonsense articles - the declarations about "cordial" and "good" relations, the plans to set up joint ventures worth $4 million (4 milllllllllion dollars), the "joint economic missions"... None of this amounts to very much, or is anything out of the ordinary. - Biruitorul Talk 15:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, no references, little evidence of anything even in Romanian. Fails WP:N. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent almanacical entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including [68] , [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75] LibStar (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid keep rationale, even if embossed with the term "almanacical". Furthermore, the "source" you've added breaches WP:GNG - it's not independent of the subject, being from the Romanian government. - Biruitorul Talk 20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are confusing what is required for an almanac entry and what is required for, say, a biography in Wikipedia. An almanac entry, like a township, just has to exist. All towns started as piped data from the census. I am not sure how you twisted a Wikipedia pillar into WP:ILIKEIT. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
towns are inherently notable but bilateral relations are not, why is that at least 70 of these bilateral relations articles have been deleted in recent weeks? your comments do not address how the article meets WP:N. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is because you have been deleting about 5 a day under the radar. I have no doubt many more townships were deleted before a consensus was developed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
check my edit history, I have not been nominating for deleting at 5 a day. secondly, only admins can delete articles. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mandsford has demonstrated that there are plenty of sources available to help out with this article.--Marcusmax(speak) 23:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; these are two major players in the region. Parliamentary cooperation is being developed here, a book here, expansion of trade here, co-operation in anti narcotics here, grain exports here and so on. Smile a While (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article as it exists provides a claim of notability, and the material already in the article should be expanded with the additional content identified here by several editors. Alansohn (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
    Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to close this AFD. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you intend to repeat that same comment over and over? Whatever relevance it might have had, when it was first encountered, was lost after we read it the third time. Mandsford (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, with respect, I believe this is hinting at a desperate attempt to stop these AfDs. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I respect Ikip and his efforts in this area. However, these AfDs, at least for the minute, aren't going anywhere and we would all do better to make constructive arguments in the AfDs. HJMitchell You rang? 17:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is evidence that the relations are notable as per the sources given above. HJMitchell You rang? 17:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all articles to the tune of Xth United States Congress - summary and Xth United States Congress - state delegation, as the consensus appears to apply to all articles of such a theme and not just the 46th Congress. This is license to delete these pages as CSD G6 "Housekeeping", assuming I do not get there first. —harej 11:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Xth United States Congress - political parties. —harej 11:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

46th United States Congress - summary[edit]

46th United States Congress - summary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm AfDing all articles in the format "Xth United States Congress - summary" and "Xth United States Congress - state delegations". They are essentially direct copies of "Xth United States Congress" articles, and completely unneeded.

As an example, lets look at 46th United States Congress - state delegations, 46th United States Congress - summary and 46th United States Congress. The two spinoffs are almost identical information with different formatting; the summary is indeed not a summary at all, being around the same size as the central article. The summary contains almost identical information to the main article, almost word for word, while the state delegations article is simply the list of representatives/senators in the main article organised "list of delegates from state X (rep and senator)" rather than "list of senators from state X" "list of representatives from state X". This is meaningless and useless cruft. There is not even any evidence that the creator considers them viable; he as good as admitted that these articles were created as a place he could play with away from an editor he was in a dispute with.

Note to closing admin, if this closes as delete - I've avoided adding them all here because there are about 200 of the damn things. The format is summarised above, and all the articles are found in here, so it shouldn't be too hard to bag them all. Ironholds (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amendment - Xth United States Congress - Political parties added in. Ironholds (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't fault the nom. I also think that the actions in creating all these articles, seemingly out of annoyance, need looking at. There was some very good advice on the talkpage of the creator, saying that if all of these are necessary, then start with one, get that into a decent state, then move onto others. Quantpole (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, which is why I left it for a while - I wanted to whether the articles would turn into something useful. Rather than actually following my advice the creator instead created a new set of borderline useless pages. Ironholds (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even the formatting is barely changed. I'm having a tough time finding substantive differences between the two. The whole point of the lead is to provide the summary, and I can't help and see how this needless forking improves the readability of the articles. It just creates more pages to patrol, synchronize, and look up when finding information. This is exactly the kind of clutter that hurts the usefulness of the project. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't see any point to them; as Ironholds points out, they're practically the same as the articles they were copied from. If the creator wants to continue with this, then suggest completing one to a fuller degree. Skinny87 (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, and I would also add "Xth United States Congress - political parties" to that mix, as that is yet another regurgitation of material already found in the "Xth United States Congress" articles.SPNic (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As noted, this is a copy of 46th United States Congress with some minor alterations. A mass nomination of similarly created articles would be appropriate in this instance. Mandsford (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats what I've done - there are about 200 of the damn things, so I decided against listing them all here. Ironholds (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in favor of a mass nomination, but there is some red tape that you have to go through. I don't think we can vote to delete something that isn't on the list; nor do I think that you can list an article unless it's been tagged. This is the only one of those 200 that has a deletion tag. You might want to consult with an administrator for suggestions on shortcuts. I'm going to propose a shortcut below, don't care if I'm booed or hissed for this. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I consulted several; consensus was "how the heck are you going to list all of those" "They're all the same format, we'll work it like that and just list one" "okay". Ironholds (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all "--th US Congress- summary" articles as G3, vandalism. Duplicating 200 or more articles that are 50+ KB is a massive waste of space. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't fall under G3 - vandalism is doing something with the intention to harm the wiki. The user in question wasn't trying to do that. Ironholds (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a matter of opinion. The user intended to to take up 10 megs for reasons all his own. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole lot. The summary of each article should be the first section, not a separate article. Article spin-offs should be more detailed, not less detailed. Also, WP:WHATAMESSTHISMAKES. Drawn Some (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete: I have talked with the major contributor, and the only reason he has made these pages is because of a small amount of information. He had added a little bit of factual information to the original article, only for it to be removed numerous times. He just got fed up and made a new page with the information in the original article plus his new information. If we could find this information, add it to the article; then delete it would be great.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could that user be a bit more specific as to what he's added? I assume it was removed from the other pages for a reason; it may not be appropriate to include it (which seems fairly likely). Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let alone whether it is appropriate or not to include the material, this process should not be a way to circumvent consensus. If the user thinks it should be included then there are various ways for it to be discussed. Creating a load of additional articles which then get merged is not the way to do it. Quantpole (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I tottaly agree. This is not the way to go about getting information up, but the edtitor says he is not interested in "Wiki wars" he just wants to write about what he has learned as a historian. I have tried to get him to pinpoint which information was removed, but he has not been on since I last talked to him.--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if he can't locate where this information is then we're not going to keep 200 unneeded articles around until he works it out. He isn't interested in "wiki wars" good, but the correct response when faced with opposition is not to create your own set of pages where you can have eminent domain. I'm going to inform the user who thinks he had this dispute with Stiltim about this page - he might be able to remember what this "extra content" that he didn't include in the main article was. Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per above and similar deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/56th United States Congress - summary.DCmacnut<> 20:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already stated. If the editor in question ever remembers the information he added and that he says was reverted at a regular article, he can discuss it there or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress. -Rrius (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Having looked through Stilltim's contribution history, the edit history of the first of these articles he created, and of the article it was based on, I just don't find the protestations of having had a substantive distinction credible. The first article created was 50th United States Congress - summary. It had its genesis in a very short dispute at 50th United States Congress. As best I can tell, the only major changes were to revert the inclusion of an infobox and to re-link dates. I am not going to check all the articles, but I am having a lot of trouble believing the assertion that the summary articles were created over a dispute as to content rather than style. Most of his contributions to the main Congress articles have consisted of changing dablinks and other minor changes. The suggestion made, through Gordonrox24, that Stilltim was reverted multiple times before getting frustrated is also hard to swallow.

He was reverted once on each of the articles where he deleted infoboxes and linked dates, but he did not follow up on any of those on any talk page. Moreover, his deletion and link edits were all marked as minor and contained the deceptive edit summary "cleanup". In the end, this behaviour is hard to justify and even harder to understand. It is inconceivable that an editor of such long standing made no attempt whatever to discuss the matter on the talk page of any of the articles involved or the editor who reverted him. The attempt to sneak in his preferred format one last time, in my eyes, detracts from his credibility.

Stilltim's only attempt at an explanation was to User:Ironholds, who seemingly had nothing to do with the dispute. That explanation, here, has a whiff of wp:own about it. In the explanation, Stilltim speaks of another editor "disrupting" his attempts to create consistent format over a period of years. The infoboxes, though, were only added fairly recently and had only been reverted in this recent round of edits. What that shows is that Stilltim is not discussing a pattern of his adding material only to have it deleted. Rather, it shows that Stilltim will revert anything that does not comport with the way he wants the articles to appear. The articles now up for deletion cannot be kept just because not everyone agrees with his vision of how the ordinal Congress articles should look. -Rrius (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rrius. While I have worked with Stilltim on a number of issues (At-large members, general ticket, party identification, etc.) and find him to be a well researched editor focused on accuracy, I do think he has taken a special liking to the ordinal congress articles to the point of wanting only his version displayed. Based on my recent discussion with him, he has a "vision" in mind of how these articles should look. I asked if there could be a compromise, but in his mind the only solution is to let him bee and once he's finished "picture may be clearer." This is the same response I've gotten from him on other issues, where he feels his version is the right version, and if only other editors would understand that his way is better, all will be right with the world. His goal isn't to distrupt WP, and his intentions are noble, but no one owns articles.
With respect to the articles at hand, his response to me is tha that "individual accounts with a particular organization seems easier to find & use, rather than combine three or four presentations into one immense article." So, he wants one main article summarizing the Congress, one that displays the same info, but in terms of political party, a third formated based on state, and a forth formated with Membership changes. Basically, he does not want any discussion of party strength or membership changes on the main article, and would rather those be forks, because it is easier to present information to people unfamiliar with the subject. My view is that sending people to 4 different articles with the same info isn't simpler, but up till now I haven't made a stink out of it. But now he is objecting to what concensus determine should be with all of the ordinal congresses, and has gone of to recreate his own duplicate page in his own image. I feel we are left with no choice but to delete these articles. If there is a way to do a mass nomination for all "XXth Congress - subject" forks, we should pursue it. Stilltim has made it clear he intends to continue creating his summary articles until he is finished, so while I still assume good faith, it appears to me he is not interested in reaching concensus, only recreating what he feels was wrongfully changed.DCmacnut<> 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is a mass nomination - I just thought that sticking 200 articles in this was a bit OTT. Still, they all use the same format, so it shouldn't be a problem. Ironholds (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Layout of the ordinal Congress articles that should have occurred before the summary articles were created. -Rrius (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rrius. If Stilltim does not respond to my question on his talk page, I have no problem with a mass nomination/deletion of these articles.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 56th United States Congress - summary was deleted.--gordonrox24 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent, the rest should be next. Stiltim reacted to this AfD by er.. creating more pages in this format. I'm not optimistic. Ironholds (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Stiltim is a smart historian, but if we can't get it to Wikipedia correctly, I see no reason to keep these pages.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having tangled with Stilltim over these articles before, I believe that the problem is that the user is overly attached to his contributions. See Wikipedia:No vested contributors.—Markles 16:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion here.--gordonrox24 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Move to Anouk. SilkTork *YES! 23:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anouk (name)[edit]

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

Delete unsourced one liner about a name, without any indication why (if) it's notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, being in school plays is not an assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton A. Payne[edit]

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

Non-notable; nearly an A7, which I declined because some assertion is there. (Lack of reliable sources is not sufficient for A7.)  Frank  |  talk  03:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete his claim of importance is being in ROTC and some school plays? Fails WP:BIO and is unreferenced as well. Drawn Some (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being in some school plays isn't enough for notability. Quantpole (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of banks in Finland[edit]

List of banks in Finland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

as per WP:NOTDIR LibStar (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but Trim to blue-linked banks only. The 300+ red links are just beckoning for someone to create stubs and then stubs on each branch and then each ATM location. Drawn Some (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider which of the red-linked ones would merit articles. As a first pass, the ones with articles in the Finnish WP would seem suitable: [76] DGG (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea but I looked at six of the banks on the Finnish Wikipedia at random and only one of them cited a reference so that complicates matters. Drawn Some (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTS. Delink the non-notable banks (but keep them in the list). --Russavia Dialogue 05:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:LIST as it has a clear informational (gives an overview of an important part of the finance sector) and developmental (several redlinks) purpose. As more of the banks get articles, its value as a navigational tool will also improve. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But I think it needs to be tidied up a bit and explained in a little more detail, possibly along the lines of here. Afkatk (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fine topic, but this really needs such things as sourcing and context to explain the difference between a Säästöpankki and an Osuuspankki (and for all I know, a little bit of Hankkipankki). The nominator is correct that this is, at present, little more than a directory. I won't say delete because it has the potential to be more than that. The red. links need to be turned to black links by removing the brackets; no need to imply that these should be transformed into blue links. Mandsford (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren_Stanley[edit]

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

The page was created by the BLP himself. I don't think it meets the criteria outlined in WP:PROF or WP:ACADEMIC even though the BLP is an editor of two journals, no article links to the page Johndowning (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep one of the criteria (#8) at WP:PROFESSOR is editor-in-chief of a well-established journal. He seems to meet that, I checked the reference, unless the journal itself is questionable. Drawn Some (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Here is a link to the journal in question: Univ of Windsor Publication. I don't feel this meets the criteria in WP:Academic "8. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area." The key word to me seems to be "major" journal. If someone can clarify that the reference journal from the University of Windsor is in fact a "major" journal in the subject area I can accept that he meets the criteria in "8." and can agree with the Keep. Johndowning (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Journal established 6 years, but not in Scopus or , apparently, other indexes, not even ERIC. . He himself seems to have no publications listed in Scopus either. The items in Google Scholar [77] do not seem significant. DGG (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Delete since it has now been established that the journal is not only questionable but minor. Drawn Some (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not yet sufficiently notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Does it mean he is notable to some extent?? --Saynara (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Refer to Google scholar listings - Are they from Stanley? He is a professor, has published books and papers and editor. Is Scopus similar to Digital Bibliography & Library Project? DBLP is run by someone who enters all conference publications in bulk, you do not see there all the entries from reputed journals. What is ERIC? How do we access it? --Saynara (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His articles have not been sufficiently cited for him to be considered to have made a "significant impact" in his field. Also he hasn't written any books, apparently notable academics in his field generally publish one or two at a minimum. If you review WP:PROF including the footnotes you can see what the guidelines are. Drawn Some (talk)
Thanks for the input and the research. I generally favor "Keeping" when possible, but not in this case. It's just that the way I read the Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) criteria, to be notable requires more than just publishing academic articles. I think the rational is that if that is the criteria, every single first year College Professor in the world is probably notable. Again, I'm not against inclusion, and maybe they and all future profs should be listed, but that just isn't how the Academic Notability criteria seems to be written. Johndowning (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails "Web of Science" test – using the loosest criterion "Author=(stanley d*)", there don't seem to be any contributions from the subject of the article associated with either University of Alberta or University of Windsor. (Note 1: There are several papers from someone sur-named Stanley from U of A, but further checking indicated that this person is a mathematician, one Don Stanley. Note 2: For those of you who may object to applying WoS in this case, this database covers roughly 10,000 journals in science, social science, and humanities, so notable academic works are highly likely to be represented here. An earlier debate has additional relevant info.) This observation suggests that the publications listed in the article are not particularly notable or significant and concurs with DGG's conclusion on the journal editorship point. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
FWIW, WoS coverage of Education & the other soft social sciences is weak, and their coverage of humanities really disgraceful. I would never rely on them much in that area. Scopus is a little better in the social sciences but even worse in humanities. There's no one-stop shopping in these areas. That's why I checked with ERIC, the most comprehensive index for US education articles--and free, also. DGG (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although we differ on the coverage aspect of WoS, I think we certainly agree: the more source-checks, the better. :) Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa–Uruguay relations[edit]

South Africa–Uruguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

only Uruguay has a resident embassy in S Africa. no notable coverage of relations except on the rugby and football field [78] LibStar (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Due to the notorius fishing incident when a South African armed ship boardes and took custody of a Uruguayan ship (see:Australia–Uruguay relations). I know its not a very strong argument but in my mind it is strong enough. Although good job LibStar, thank you for checking for references first because the only thing I could also find were football games. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I must be fatigued why would I want to keep an article on the basis of someting that goes against WP:NOTNEWS.-Marcusmax(speak) 02:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I too could only find sports stuff; no in-depth coverage of this relationship in reliable sources, so fails WP:N. - Biruitorul Talk 03:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite this, I do not see evidence of notable bilateral relationships. Drawn Some (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and let's all grab one of them friendship pins found by Drawn Some. Decent of you, LibStar, and gracious of you, Marcus. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that football games should not count.The incident refered to by Marcusmaxis another matter, and does count, for all the countries involved. Not news does not apply to something as major as diplomatic incident of this sort. DGG (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If all they have as a relationship is a Football. Afkatk (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have yet to hear of any sort of major international diplomatic ties being forged at the World Cup. Article says nothing beautifully. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - But I disagree with DGG about football games not counting. Major diplomatic news, too. I'm not sure if this can be rescued, though, as the consensus appears to be against me on the issues. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
major football games and rivalry can be covered in the own national team article like Peru_national_football_team#Rivalries. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing doing. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see any evidence that sporting relations play any great part in South Africa–Uruguay relations, but they shouldn't be discounted as irrelevant to the subject of bilateral relations in general. These articles are about relations, not just diplomatic relations, and, anyway, in the case of South Africa, sporting relations have historically been intertwined with diplomatic relations. The knowledge of Anglo-German relations of many of my generation of English people can be summed up by this song. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There appear to have been some notable diplomatic contacts between these countries in the mid-1970s.[79][80] Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
    Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to close this AFD. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unsourced stub. According to this unsourced stub, SA closed its embassy in Uruguay a decade ago to save money, which is to say that the relationship was of so little import to them that they deemed it unworthy of devoting resources to it.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delboy (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable performer whose "the world-touring hit" comes up with 19 Google hits. Repeated requests for sources and for proof, and a speedy deletion tag, have been removed with no sources provided. Note also that the article appears to be an autobiography, but the autobiography and coi tags are repeatedly removed without justification. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here are some reviews of Burn the Floor bud. Read Up. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=burn+the+floor+review&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to explain the connection with this person that makes these links worth perusing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you do a proper Google search including "delboy", you get two hits, both false positives. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


He's their sound designer. I met him at a show in Boston.

http://www.talkinbroadway.com/regional/dallas/dallas81.html http://www.maryellenhunt.com/artsblog/2009/02/burn-floor-ballroom-for-new-generation.html http://www.yelp.com/biz/burn-the-floor-post-street-theatre-san-francisco —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 02:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Melchiord has yet to convince me, and there's no real assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reliable references about a person need to mention them. Otherwise they are of no use in verifying information for an encyclopedia article. Everything in the article must be verifiable even if the subject is notable. It's certainly not clear that this person is notable. If he is, let the author of the article demonstrate that. See WP:BIO. I am inclined to say delete but will wait. Drawn Some (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I met the guy, saw his work. The show is coming to Broadway. It was a hit in San Fran last month. Sheesh, man, cut some slack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 02:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What must be verifiable? That the show got rave reviews in San Fran? I posted those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 03:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might make the show notable but he isn't even mentioned, okay? Please stop busting our chops. You know he doesn't meet the guidelines. Drawn Some (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many sound engineers get mentioned in reviews of shows? It's the nature of audio engineers and other fields of work that are in the "background" of a show.

In any case, there's a already a link to Hugh Wilson's website that mentions his music and partial discography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 03:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He's widely known in Aussie theatre circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Clegg (talk (UTC) This template must be substituted.
  • Keep He's got enough verification available online, we just need to get in there and help the article comply more, rather than kill it as a 'baby'. Paul Moss (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Paul Moss, what verification? He's not mentioned! Drmies (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the www.hughwilson.com verification is verification enough! --Melchiord (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable - despite Melchiord voting multiple times. JCutter (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look again Cutter, I voted once, but have made numerous comments. Anyway we all know that Wikipedia is a joke. You guys come in with your numbers and vote something off no matter what the truth of the situation is. Delboy has released 4 CDs with a major label, worked with an Australian Star Search winner, toured the world as a world class sound guy, and released some seminal independent records in the Sydney scene. Just because Australians aren't as notable as Americans isn't any reason to delete a page about a guy. Where is the dedication to truth and information? Bunch of hypocrites all. I have seen Delboy perform, I read his poetry online, and have heard his audio mixing. If he's not "notable" then no-one is.--Melchiord (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find "in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources published by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy" to verify the claims that you have just made? quoted from Uncle G (talk · contribs) here Cunard (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you look like a sock, smell like a sock, and speak in such a way that a sockpuppet generally does, so, until we can get a checkuser, most of us will assume that you are a sockpuppet.--Unionhawk Talk 18:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this autobiography. This articles asserts no notability and the references provided are either non-neutral sources or sources that don't even mention this person. A Google News Archive search for sources returns unrelated results. The closest result is this article about about a musician called "Derek Wilson" (which is the real name of Delboy (musician)). However, this news article is about a musician from Virginia Tech, not Australia. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the speedy tag because even though the article fails A7, Paul Moss (talk · contribs), who is a semi-established user, has voted keep on this article. The A7 tag is only for non-controversial speedy deletions, which no longer applies here. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm surprised that this article wasn't speedied as an A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the people who say Keep are pretty much all SPAs and Socks.--Unionhawk Talk 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Melchiord is presently blocked for 24 hours due to 3RR elewhere. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • So if it's not about majority votes, and all about consensus, mind telling me why this page was deleted when at least 7 people voted "keep" and in fact why people use the word "vote".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art

You can say it's about consensus, but when a majority outyell a minority and pages and lines and information gets perpetually and needlessly deleted, the sham that is Wikipedia is exposed.--Melchiord (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really is about consensus. Over 9,000 people could give their opinion as delete and the very last person could have a valid reason to keep and it would be kept. Drawn Some (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Melchiord is a suspected sock puppet...--Unionhawk Talk 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And just who decides whether the last argument is valid?

The majority. Wikipedia is a farce. It's a numbers website plain and simple. Mob rules. Absolutely no credibility whatsoever, and every needless delete proves the point. "Notable" is subjective. Many "notable" people had articles written in the press before the internet that may have since faded from the public. This is no reason to remove the information from Wikipedia. It's just powerplay from people with nothing better to do. And yes, this belongs up top as it's a discussion of the template, NOT of Delboy.--Melchiord (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. See WP:DEMO. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is judged by the closing user or admin based on the strength of the arguments, not which side gets the most !votes.--Unionhawk Talk 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More top-posting copy-pasted from above. QUIT TOP POSTING. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't create this page to cause controversy, or create something frivolous or unworthy.

"I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet," he says. "I mean, why not, right?" — Jimmy Wales in The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008.

As a varied, noteworthy and currently active member of Australian and International arts communities, it seemed that an actual page, as opposed to a user bio was appropriate. In my experience and observation, Australian artists are regularly ignored by the media both in Australia and overseas for a multitude of reasons. I didn't think that a supposed encyclopaedia would harbour regional bias.

I am disappointed in User:Who then was a gentleman? for poor and misleading research tactics. It is plainly clear that as an audio engineer I use my real name - "As it's audio engineer, Wilson has"... So using a search for - delboy +"burn the floor" to justify Burn The Floor's apparent lack of credibility is alarming. A search for "burn the floor" is far more revealing in that respect. A search for "burn the floor" +"derek wilson" does not come up with much because as previously stated - "How many sound engineers get mentioned in reviews of shows? It's the nature of audio engineers and other fields of work that are in the "background" of a show."

A search for "Drowning Jester" also show a different set of results.

I am not claiming to be as famous or notable as Michael Jackson for example, or even famous at all. But whether Wikipedia 'ratifies' it or not, my contributions to the industry at large are undeniable. Delboy-db (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. fully agree with all that written by the subject. There is far too much of this vicious behaviour and assumption of bad and wrong in wikipedia. Sometimes real people doing real stuff are worthy of articles, and it takes some time to put together the verification. The bottom line is clearly that if the energy that went into this 'discussion' went into building a better encyclopedia by building better articles the entire planet would benefit. Who benefits from the allegations and suspicion repeated endlessly here? If I applied that approach, then i would suggest all the trolls that have abused me elsewhere would come here and fight me, but seriously, why would they bother? Would that build a better encyclopedia? lastly, How do we bring newspaper article verification here when the newspaper articles are copyright? Paul Moss (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You name the newspaper, date and page number. Don't fabricate things, as newspapers will be on microfilm in libraries. You don't have to copy the newspaper verbatum, but sumarise instead. The article should be about the person, not just mentioned. I have declined the speedy delete, because there are claims of notability, that may be proven as a result of work triggered by this debate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain just what vicious behavior and assumption of bad and wrong I have committed? All that needs to be done is to provide proof of notability, which I have been unable to find. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP releasing 4 CDs (not all albums) through a major is notable enough for an Australian Artist to be entered in Wikipedia.
As is being a sound engineer for an internationally touring show.
There was indeed plenty of press at the time of the said releases: 1992/93
"Daily Telegraph" of Sydney comes to mind.
"Hey Hey it's Saturday" too.
As has been stated none of that is online, nor copyable--Huboi (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • They weren't Delboy CDs, they were Blue Phoenix CDs. That would make the band notable, not him. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reliable sources? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Bands consist of individuals, so if a band is interesting, then the individuals are interesting. Err in favor of keeping, not deleting.--DunkinDonutBoy
I'd like to know what happened to this - Remember to assume good faith on the part of others --DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above "interesting vote" has been cast by an account that was created only an hour ago. Cunard (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasw stop saying these things Cunard.--DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails all 12 points of WP:MUSICBIO as well as WP:BIO and the general notability guideline. Being a member of a notable band doesn't make someone inherently notable or "interesting." OlYellerTalktome 04:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland–Uruguay relations[edit]

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

whilst these 2 countries have resident embassies, their relationship is not widely covered and mainly limited in a multilateral sense with other countries [81] Swiss govt doesn't say much either [82] LibStar (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to actually read what Google gives you, not just do the search and stare at the first page and give up. Look at what a few hours of work did to the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why do you indent so much? standard practice is to indent with one colon : per reply. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While these countries actually have embassies, that in and of itself shows nothing of note. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and probably several others as do the bulk of these articles. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's an old relationship, but only because both countries are old. Relevant content covered at Nueva Helvecia and the lists of diplomatic missions. No independent sources to establish notability. - Biruitorul Talk 19:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No rule requires info appear in only one place in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You acknowlege the relationship. sigh. Ikip (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including [83] , [84] , [85], [86], [87] [88]

LibStar (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin If my answer is valid for all the pertaining articles why should I not be using it in all the pertaining article deletions, and why should another editor be trying to invalidate my response? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When a Swiss/Uruguay trade war breaks out, we can always start an article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added info about Switzerland and Uruguay and the war. -- User:Docu
  • NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
    Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to close this AFD. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does List of diplomatic missions of Argentina have to do with the bilateral articles, its just a list of embassies? You do realize your article has been deleted and replaced as a redirect. It has no prose at all, it doesn't mention treaties, sports or economic cooperation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been updated, sorry for the confusion. Ikip (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unsourced stub. I find no reliable sources that discuss this relationship on my own.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just because one doesn't want to expand it, it shouldn't be deleted. It now includes basic information on the topic. -- User:Docu
sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You like it? -- User:Docu
  • Comment. I don't have time to do anything to it or search for more now but [89] certainly implies notability. I'd like to request a relist in order to allow more time for editors such as myself to do more thorough research. HJMitchell You rang? 21:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does it violate WP:GNG? It doesn't appear to at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is the Swiss government's relations with Uruguay; the Swiss government is the source. - Biruitorul Talk 05:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is enough hear to establish notability, but the article would benefit from expansion with additional available material. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep; this one and the others. This entry in particular seems well sourced. It also sounds like many of these articles may be refactored into a longer article; worth keeping until then. As for notability: just because nothing has happened in the last few years for Google News to pick up doesn't make the relations between countries 'non-notable' -- the lack of any relations is also a circumstance worth noting between two countries, and I guarantee the topic of relations between these two countries is notable for residents of each country who happens to be living in the other. We're not short on space: if someone is willing to create these articles and willing to reference them they should be at liberty to create every combination of interest, with perhaps a bias towards summary articles ("foreign relations of..."). Each of the dozens of different countries in these various articles that LibStar is nominating for deletion have their own history and circumstance; I would not presume to judge their foreign relations "non-notable" based on a stub article! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I always do a Google news search on all dates. A common misconception is that google news can only search recent news. I actually don't nominate most bilateral articles I come across, but some of them are just plain notable. of course if people can find reliable sources they are welcome to. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to actually read what Google gives you, not just do the search and look at the first page and give up. Look at what a few hours of work did to the article. Based on your behavior you appear to just run the search to give the appearance of due diligence. It appears you nominate the articles that don't have a reference section, without attempting to improve before deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why do you indent so much? standard practice is to indent with one colon : per reply. No, I actually don't nominate most bilateral articles I come across even if it has no references. I also check foreign ministry websites if it contains any usefulness and the existence of embassies (the existence of embassies is not the sole indicator). but similarly for you writing "keep almanac entry" at least 10 times is hardly proof you've found reliable sources. I'm happy to see if you find can reliable sources for others I've nominated. but if no one can find sources to establish notability then clearly the article should not exist. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the question is: why didn't you find the well sourced information when you claimed you performed due diligence and searched? I don't have any secret search engine that gives me access to information not available to you. Yet now there is a full article. You are supposed to be fixing the articles before nominating for deletion. And the Almanac Pillar of Wikipedia is still valid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why do you indent so much? standard practice is to indent with one colon : per reply. Well my google news searches were obviously not good enough this time. but I should add that most bilateral articles I've nominated have been deleted. maybe not this time. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes me wonder how many of them were improperly searched before they were deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this one is a good illustration. -- User:Docu
comment Google News only searches what it has access to; this may not include backfiles of papers that are not online or that are behind a paywall; doesn't include many foreign newspapers; and is of course language-dependent, like all databases. It's acceptable for getting a rough idea but generally spotty for archive searching. Cheers, your friendly neighborhood librarian -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the same thing could be asked of any article on any topic in the history of Wikipedia that has been deleted not just bilateral relations, you are welcome to request a deletion review, if you disagree. mind you, you would think other (not all) editors would show proof of searching themselves if they supported delete.LibStar (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

same token some people spend a lot of time copy and pasting in AfDs without attempting to address the notability of the article subject. Richard and I were merely discussing the merits of my nomination and he is entitled to do that in addressing the notability of the article subject. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I concur with Ikip. When I first commented, it was borderline but other editors have mananged to do the research for which i didn't have time. As such, in light of recent improvements (including 16 footnotes]], it easily fulfils WP:GNG. Good work. HJMitchell You rang? 10:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that 10 of those 16 footnotes violate WP:PSTS, but who cares, right? And of course, Nueva Helvecia has its own article; "Switzerland of the Americas" has also been applied to Costa Rica, and anyway has nothing whatever to do with the topic; and the rest of the article is trivial nonsense, an experiment in "see me dump in whatever I happened to find on Google in a desperate attempt to validate clutter". Just one example: what contextual significance does it have that "Uruguay called for a Swiss style parliamentary system"?? Of course, that too has nothing to do with the topic, but outside its proper context - if there is one - the statement means less than nothing. If we must, we mention it at General Assembly of Uruguay, in a well-rounded, well-sourced article on that topic, writing about the various constitutional debates in Uruguay's history; we do not pluck out one trivial fact from that history and stick it in here because it happens to mention "Switzerland and Uruguay" in the same breath. Anything else abuses the very notion of what Wikipedia is for. And also, what possible relevance do a few hundred resident Uruguayans - not citizens of Switzerland, I hasten to add - have to anything? Is there any contextual significance to those numbers? No, of course not - just numbers you expect us to find evidence of something, without quite specifying what that might be. - Biruitorul Talk 14:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of pointing people to WP:PSTS please take a few moments to actually read it:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

No one is involved in original research which is the caution that comes with using primary sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, including primary sources without their importance being validated by secondary sources is itself a form of misleading our readers, as well as breaching WP:NOTDIR (after all, why not include whatever government documents we can find in any article); second, even regardless of WP:PSTS, there's still WP:GNG - sources need to be independent of the subject. And they need to have contextual significance, something that is glaringly lacking here. - Biruitorul Talk 16:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder there are more articles up for deletion that can use more Google searching and more references added and they are here --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have an article on Battle of Waterloo, which overlaps with Hundred_Days#Waterloo, which overlaps with Napoleon_I_of_France#Hundred_Days and so on. Encyclopedias typically have articles that contain elements, which essentially overlap with other articles, but whereas the one on Nueva Helvecia (say comparable to Battle of Waterloo) is focused on that particular settlement, this article addresses the larger topic as say comparable to Hundred Days. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no "larger topic" to address here. No independent sources have given significant coverage to "Switzerland–Uruguay relations", and citing nicknames and other bits of trivia cannot conceal that fact. - Biruitorul Talk 18:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The facts are that enough sources have been presented and added to the article to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Tea Party protests. Contributors are unconvinced that this is a sufficiently distinct topic from Tea Party protests or that the organization even exists and is notable; if the best source for this is a Weekly World News article, we have some WP:V problems.  Sandstein  05:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New American Tea Party[edit]

New American Tea Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a clear content fork of the larger Tea Party protests article and covers the exact same subject. There is no actual political party called "New American Tea Party", rather this is a euphemistic way of describing the organizers of the protests (as is covered in the other article). As a content fork, this article is veering down a more POV path than consensus would allow on the larger article. This article should be deleted and redirected (or possibly merged and redirected if any useful and unique information about the subject are contained here). Loonymonkey (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. I red this article as intended to be a POV fork for views that cannot gain consensus on the main Tea Party page. Furthermore, this article serves no added purpose beyond re-presenting material that is already covered in the main Tea Party article. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 02:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most of what is there is covered in the article, I suggest a merge and salvage as much as we can to see what can be added if anything. Soxwon (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not support this claim. There are very clear references to the "New American Tea Party," which is detailed in the article. Including sources to the organizations who support the New American Tea Party, and have donated $50 million to the organization. Due to the the New American Tea Party having been organized as a result of the tea parties, the article briefly describes why the organization was created and the cause it is supporting in the tea parties. The two editors (above) noticed the article today and quickly started deleting facts and other relevant information from the article (including making off-the-wall claims that foxnews.com is a unreliable source). Based on the complaints by the two editors, I want to ask if they have read the sourced articles that are the New American Tea Party? For reference, here is the About page to the New American Tea Party. After reading through the article, it clearly describes what the New American Tea Party represents, and it clearly describes who is involved in that particular organization. The organization is taking advantage of the tea parties by helping organize and promote future events; however, the article about the New American Tea Party is written in a WP:NPOV so as to keep within the policies of Wikipedia, and it is not the same exact thing as the Tax Day Tea Party or Tea Party protests. Since these qualities are met, and since the article is not the Tax Day Tea Party, I see no reason why New American Tea Party is nominated for deletion. It doesn't make any sense. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NB for those stumbling on this page. We have claimed that an organizer of the tea party protests who appeared on Fox News is not a reliable source, a very reasonable approach - and in no way shape or form claiming that foxnews.com is unreliable. The sourced material that was deleted can be seen here [90], and was deleted because it consisted of original research and unreliable user-driven sites. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pare down and redirect to Tea Party protests, where it belongs. This term is not well-known enough to be the title of an article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentCould someone quite briefly, in one or two sentences, explain the POV fork? Or is this an organization as opposed to a series of events? Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, there is a large article about the Tea Party protests. As is mentioned in that article, some pundits, supporters and others have referred to this rather grandiosely as a "New American Tea Party" although it isn't actually a political party or even an actual organization. It's just a catch-all term for people and organizations involved in the protests. J. Peter Freire of The American Spectator started a blog by the same name as a kind of clearing house of information about the protests, but the article in discussion here is not about that blog, it is about the protests. As such, it is a fork (not a daughter) of a larger article that has had much more work put into it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I looked at them, but what is the difference in point of view? Is the NATP article asserting that there is an organization/nonpartisan party vs. the TPP article that doesn't assert that an organization exists? To be honest I didn't read each line of each article. Drawn Some (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I have time I can find answers and sources to the information you ask for. Regarding your first question, "but what is the differences in point of view?" I found a reference that mentioned New American Tea Party. The article states, "the best organizational resources are Tax Day Tea Party (nationwide April 15 events), Twitter #teaparty, PJTV’s list of upcoming protests, Re-TeaParty (send teabags to Washington and find July 4 events), and TCOT Report. And one more good one: New American Tea Party." There could be more too. These organizations are all unique to each other, in that they are covering different regions and/or receive local funding only and/or are supported by different groups and/or etc.. Thus, the Tax Day Tea Party is different than PJTV or New American Tea Party. If we merge New American Tea Party with Tea Party protests, then should we also merge PJTV and others with it, too? Tycoon24 (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to figure out is if it is a POV fork on the same subject or whether it is two different subjects that need separate articles. I'm not deliberately trying to be dense but it is a little complicated which is why I guess it ended up here. Drawn Some (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an article about a separate subject, it is an article about the same subject by another name. A quick read through the talk page indicates that the primary reason some editors are interested in preserving it is to discuss the subject from a different point of view than the main article. See here for example. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the main article.,I do not see any unique content. It;s a name some of the protestors used. A redirect will deal with it adequately. DGG (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per discussion. If there are any articles that should be spawned from the primary one let them first develop within their own section in the primary article until it is clear that a separate article is necessary. Drawn Some (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here's what I've found and why I believe the article is different: The article needs more clarification and more relevant information added into it. It needs more information about the actual organization called New American Tea Party. It's a new article. It's in the process of being created and turned into a more clear encyclopedic article discussing the organization that is New American Tea Party. I will make more changes to the page today, adding another section that better defines who this organization is. If after doing more research and adding more relevant information into the article we find it is still the same thing as the Tea Party protests - then I can see the argument for merging the articles a true resolution. But if it turns out the New American Tea Party is in fact a separate organization similar to PJTV or the others I mentioned, then it would be a grand mistake to merge an article about a organization into another article discussing the Tea Party protest events. I understand why the article (right now) looks very similar to the Tea Party protests. In my editing and in the first draft and for the first stages of the article development, I can see how what I originally thought was creating a good starting point can be construed as developing the same article that is Tea Party protests but within another article. From my point of view, I was simply creating a starting point to help with the understanding and thinking as to what this organization was created for - which is to assist in the promotion of tea parties and become another leader in future movements. This is different than the Tea Party protests because it is not a tea party protest, it is the hand that guides the citizens who are the tea party protesters. While not exactly the same as PJTV, it is the same in that it's a separate organization to the tea parties. However, I'll repeat what I mentioned above, I can see how the first stages of the article can confuse other editors into thinking it is the same as the Tea Party protests, and I will do my absolute best to cleanup the article and provide more specific information to the organization itself. All I ask for is a little time. If you can give me time, I will help to create a better article. Can I please have the necessary time to do this without continued threats of deleting the article? I'm not against merging if the article ultimately turns out to be the same, but I am against a premature consensus that considers the article something that it is not. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication of there being any actual party, and a clear content fork. Should a true party ever get developed and get media attention and etc. then we can have a separate article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have been doing research and writing the necessary but not-yet-updated changes; I'm going to overhaul the article with these changes in the next couple of hours. I'll post a response here when finished so we can get another look at the differences between the two articles in question. If after these changes it seems most editors feel the article is still the same as the Tea Party protests in general, then we can go from there. Thank you for all of your patience while I update the page to be a more accurate representation of the New American Tea Party organization. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second Update I just edited into the article its first overhaul. It took awhile! I had a lot of the changes developed a day ago, but my computer froze after hours of research - I lost everything and had to start over. Doh! So, after doing my best to make another effort at it, I've finally finished! Finished a still rough-draft that is. But the article is much clearer now than what it used to be. Tycoon24 (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After going through the article again, and allowing TharsHammar to make some modifications, I find it hard to believe the New American Tea Party is the same as the events that followed it: The Tax Day Tea Party. If anything, the article titled "Tea Party protests" should probably be reverted back to its original title, "Tax Day Tea Party." And the article "Timeline of Tea Party protests" could either 1) stay the same, or 2) get changed to "Tea Party protests" to stray from confusion of discussing the events as a whole, from start to its current situation, and confusing the overall events with the New American Tea Party protests or the rallies that followed -- the Tad Day Tea Party. Tycoon24 (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There doesn't appear to be an entity with the name "New American Tea Party"; seems like an euphemism that can be covered in the TPP article. Nuβiατεch Talk 09:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you read it wrong and the New American Tea party are the tea parties that occurred on February 27, 2009? You can't mesh two separate events that occurred on separately organized dates by different organizations into a generic article called "tea parties." The generic titled article, "Tea Party protests" doesn't even cover the February 27 New American Tea Party protests, because those were events that occurred before the Tax Day Tea Party. More than half the Tax Day Tea party article is a side-story developed by MSNBC and CNN -- and nothing about the "Tax Day Tea Parties." The "New American Tea Parties" did not happen on "Tax Day," these protests were not the Tax Day Tea Party protests. They happened on February 27. What else is missing in the article to explain this? I tried to cover it all in the most neutral way possible. Tycoon24 (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Tea Party Protests article is not just about the protests that occurred on 4/15, they cover several earlier ones as well. It is about all the related protests on this subject. If you feel there is a notable protest that needs more coverage there, you should open a discussion on the talk page of that article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE The article under discussion has been moved to American Tea Party. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 20:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a content fork from Tea Party protests, consisting almost exclusively of original research and an "opinion paper" related to http://newamericanteaparty.com , a one-day event of inadequate note to merit a WP article. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I moved the article to "American Tea Party" because New American Tea Party had little reliable reference-support to justify the name of the article. The article is not a content fork because the Tax Day Tea Party article does not discuss the events prior to Tax Day that led up to the April 15 tea parties. It is an article discussing one event that occurred on a single day. The American Tea Party is a reference to the February 27 rallies. It's not that difficult to distinguish the differences between the two articles. However, unless you've done the research, I can see how some confusion may still exist. But I urge those who feel the article should be deleted to understand the differences of the two articles before suggesting they are the same. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not true. The Tea Party Protests article does cover the events prior to April 15 and earlier protests. The subject seems to be adequately covered there, but open a discussion if you feel something notable is being left out. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The New American Tea Party is a coalition of organizations. It's not the same thing as the protests. The NATP is responsible for many of them, however. This is not a fork. I created this page without knowledge that the page on the protests even existed. I'm familiar with deletion policies, and I knew that this deserved an article. It's a notable umbrella organization. No one ever claimed that it was a political party. There are also many reliable sources. The article was in much better shape when it was created (in my opinion), but it got to this unorganized state just recently. Now, it has too much information that is in the other article. It wasn't like that at first if you browse the history. There is an organization & there are protests. Yes, they are related, but the organization doesn't just have to do with the protests & the protests don't just have to do with the organization. This notable subject deserves a WP article. hmwithτ 21:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a reliable source that indicates this is an actual umbrella organization providing coordination for the groups involved in the protest rather than simply a website lauding these groups and the protests? --208.10.62.253 (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I did. I think that [91] covered it. I didn't know really anything about it. I had heard of it everywhere, so I searched reliable sources and created an article (since it oddly didn't have one yet). I know that in one of the sources, it said that it was (quote) an "umbrella organization". I actually had to look up the term, as I had never heard it before. hmwithτ 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: It has become quite a POV fork. However, that can be combated. It was not originally that way. Much useful information was also deleted from the article recently, and a lot of other information (that doesn't belong) was added. It needs work (and lots of reverting), but there is no reason for deletion under policy. hmwithτ 21:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also restored the article to its last NPOV/non-forkish state. Please reevaluate as needed. hmwithτ 21:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey - your edits really destroyed the article. As is, after your wipe-out to the article content, it's likely doomed to get deleted. Prior to your massive deletes, the article was not falling under a POV fork. I tried making the article as neutral, clear, and representational to the February 27 tea party protests as possible. Why? Because there were not enough reliable sources to create an article called "New American Tea Party." Unless you can find reliable sources that cover the political umbrella organization called New American Tea Party, it's likely to get deleted. The events on February 27 are in accordance with sub-article guidelines, and allow the article to be represented and remain as such (not yet approved). But it'll be a difficult steeper up-hill battle for you to argue for keeping The New American Tea Party. I've done all I can. The rest is in your hands, so it's up to you if you decide to keep your last three edits! ...then again, I am new to this, so what do I know? There's always a chance I am wrong and the article you just reverted back to is allowable. However, you did just revert it back to where the article was when it first got considered for deletion. So I'm not very optimistic your recent changes helped. But I could be wrong... Tycoon24 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I made the name American Tea Party again. I meant to restore the text, not undue the move. I forgot that would happen. It looked sloppy, but I'm sure I deleted some good material too. As is, it's totally neutral. Short, but neutral. It also does meet our notability and RS guidelines. I don't know anyone's biases (I don't really agree or disagree with the organization), but feel free to re-add any good, NPOV information. Actually, please do. hmwithτ 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - More on the argument claiming the American Tea Party is a content fork: From Tea Party protests discussion "It seems like the current Tax Day Tea Party article is violating Wikipedia policy by attempting to hide the events that occurred on February 27. The American Tea Party, or "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party," happened on February 27, and those events led to the Tax Day Tea Party. Why are people trying to hide this from the public? Nowhere in [the Tea Party protests] article is it mentioned that the American Tea Party (or "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party") occurred on February 27. The Tea Party protests article is deceiving because its name is "Tea Party protests," but in reality the article is [covering] the Tax Day Tea Party protests. The Tea Party protests article covers one event, which occurred on a single day (Tax Day). More on that, the American Tea Party article falls under Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles and/or Related articles. Because "summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to WP:NPOV," which it does."
Thus, since the American Tea Party article is not a content fork, and because it is a sub-article covering in greater detail an event that occurred prior to the Tax Day Tea Party, it seems this article should be allowed to stay without deletion. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be making the case against your own position, here. You're essentially arguing that this article should be kept because it's a place to put content that you haven't been able to put into the larger article (information about the 2/27 protest). That's the very definition of content forking. If you have a problem with that article, you should discuss it there and if consensus goes against you then so be it. But there's no sense in trying to write another article on the same subject that is more to your liking. As for this being a sub article, no, it's not in any way. It was not budded off from that article (which isn't nearly large enough to require daughter articles anyway). It exists parallel to that article. Also, you seem to be changing your argument from your earlier posts (to now arguing that it is a daughter article as opposed to the earlier claims that there was an actual organization by this name. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name Change - I just changed the name back to New American Tea Party due to the recent changes by hmwith. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Nothing in the article indicates that this is an actual organization (rather than just a term used for protesters and protests). Where is the organization based? Who is in charge? How many members? None of that information is provided in any of the refs (most of which are simply about the protests). A quick google search indicates that none of these answers are available because the organization does not exist. It is a nickname and it is the name of a website, nothing more. This is clearly a content fork. --208.10.62.253 (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This conveys no information that wouldn't fit in the Tea Party protests article. The fork here makes no sense to me. AyaK (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge these guy were a big deal and have more planned for the future. At the very least merge it with the tea party protests page. - Schrandit (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fits the definition of a content fork. 69.251.135.219 (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:POVFORK claims that "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject." On which article does it have the same information? Tea party protests is about protests. American Tea Party is about an organization. The information in this article would be totally irrelevant in the protests article. They're not interchangable topics. hmwithτ 21:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond an unreliable summary article [93], and a weekly world news article [94] is there any actual proof that this is an organization? I'm sorry but I think you have been duped by the weekly world news. Yes, there is a website called new american tea party, but no actual organization exists. To quote the website "We’re a coalition of citizens and organizations concerned about the recent trend of fiscal recklessness in government. This website is dedicated to the Washington, D.C. effort of February 27th, 2009 specifically sponsored by the ...(list of actual organizations)" [95]. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 21:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree here with TharsHammar. After making my best attempt at researching the organization called New American Tea Party, looking for any solid information on its existence, it was extremely difficult to say the least. I ended up finding more information on events prior to Tax Day than relevant info on such an organization - if it truly does exist. At this point, my intuition tells me the article shouldn't be deleted quite yet, simply because there's possibly still a lot of not-yet-found references that could provide more info on the organization called New American Tea Party. But by the mere fact that "weekly world news" could have fooled myself and/or others into, at first, thinking this could actually be a real organization, it's looking more and more like a Web site called New American Tea Party rather than an actual organization. The website does indeed discuss some of the organizations that hopped on the bandwagon to support the movement; however, simply having a collection of different supporting organizations to the both the February 27 and April 15 events doesn't necessarily prove the organization exists as a single entity or group. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Fox News is a legit source, but I tagged it for a speedy. hmwithτ 04:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I watched the Fox News clips, and they only mention that it is a website, they don't talk about any formal organization, and they use the "weasel quotes" when New American Tea Party is on the screen. The umbrella organization wording comes straight from the weekly world news article. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 14:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1980s in Japan[edit]

1980s in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

User:Bearian suggested WP:AfD. The creator's talk page shows a lot of related activity. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 01:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC) - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 01:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment On what basis should it be deleted? The editor shows a lot of strange activity with many articles created and dozens of photos uploaded. Someone might discuss what Wikipedia is and what it is not with the editor. But I don't understand why you believe this particular article should be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is no evidence the article doesn't meet WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On the wrestling part of the article I would strongly suggest more be written on it as it seems to be describing more of Professional wrestling in North America than it does in Japan. Afkatk (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anglophone bias appears to be at work here. The U.K. gets an article for each individual year of the 20th century; and the U.S. gets the same. But when an editor proposes that Japan gets merely one article per decade and starts writing, you think that it should be deleted. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe you've got the wrong end of the stick; I don't think Bearian has an anglophone bias (not in the sense you're describing), and I know I don't. I deliberately tried to keep my tone in the nomination neutral to see what direction people wanted to go with this, because there are a couple of general questions to work out here, and I didn't want to bias the result. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 13:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Actually, I have been a member of WP Japan for over 2 years, and have created or edited several articles for that project. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wrote nothing about Bearian wanting it deleted. I clearly wrote that you think that it should be deleted. Uncle G (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. There should be opportunity for a long good article here. DGG (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because the topic is good does not mean that we should have something unencyclopedic in the space reserved, and this would need a serious rewrite to live up to the topic. While I agree that there should be an article that would be a reference for the history of Japan during the years from 1980 to 1989, it should be encyclopedic, and this article is not. If an article about "United States in the 1980s" was little more than a discussion of big hair, Flashdance, Pac Man, Rambo, and leg warmers, then I wouldn't support keeping that either. Mandsford (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This sounds like something that should be remanded to WikiProject Japan for them to discuss how they want to handle dividing up history write-ups -- for all I know, they may want to slice it by imperial eras or duodecimal zodiac cycles instead of gregorian decades. Once they come to a consensus, they probably can handle the requisite moves/renames/merges/splits administratively. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried riding one of those Japanese duodecimal zodiac cycles and I had trouble shifting gears. Mandsford (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese cycles are reportedly easier to ride -- which makes sense as they invented the thing. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to nominator for agreeing to this. Keep - especially if WP Japan could create a series of articles summarizing Japanese culture and history by decade. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd be even happier if the other decadal articles promised in the associated infobox were created, but the sources provided here justify retention. Alansohn (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now that the outcome is clear, I can give my rationale for bringing this to AfD without biasing the outcome. Have a look at creator's talk page. There are 250 sections, and except for the welcome, all but 4 of them concern a rejected contribution of some kind (and some concern multiple problems), and since most people don't leave a talk page comment when they're undoing an edit, there's no telling how many rejected contributions that actually represents. Some admins suggested that there should be some kind of discussion, and the reaction here is part of that discussion; what I'm seeing here, clearly, is that you don't want to deal with cases like this by rejecting individual articles if there's a chance of saving them, regardless of the history of the contributor, and that's helpful information. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If 1980s in Japan is kept, it should be completely rewritten. I agree that a structure like the one in the 1980s in Hong Kong article is a useful framework, but the introduction to that article is similar to the opinion I removed from 1980s in Japan, and has the same journalistic (not encyclopedic) style of writing, as well as oddball emphasis on some supposed international perception of politics. If the author of the article sticks to facts, selects them carefully and provides sources, there won't be serious discussion about deleting them. But presently, 1980s in Japan has an opening sentence that purports to discuss the economy, but after dismissing automobiles continues with what were then minor blips (in comparison to automobiles, finance, and audio-video equipment) like Famicom and anime. Then there's a whole paragraph (one of three in the main text) on gaming equipment, one on the economy (I think, although it also mentions the death of the Emperor), and one on pro wrestling. We learn that salarymen were purchasing golf equipment in the hopes of achieving material wealth, and that the Japanese forced the U.S. car manufacturers out of business in the 1980s. (That's not how I remember it.) I don't mind if the article is kept, as long as its contents are substantially deleted. A new article with the structure of the Hong Kong article could be a fine model for a series on decades. Fg2 (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and delete if no such attempt is being made. The article assembles facts and supports them with sources that can be considered reliable. However, it is basically a collection of trivia that do not provide the reader with a balanced perspective of the social, political and economic development of Japan in the 1980s. The article should primarily use sources that treat Japan's post-war history as a whole, more facts from other sources can be added after a general framework for the article has been established.  Cs32en  13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if you want to improve it, just go ahead. There's no need to wait for others to make the attempt. DGG (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is no such need. Personally, I would rewrite the article from scratch. Maybe other editors see a way to improve the article substantially by expanding the current structure. I think it would not be civil to erase most or all of the article just because there is no formal rule that prohibits this. I think it would be the best way if this discussion signals to all current and possible future editors that the article needs to be reworked substantially, and give some time to do this, maybe three months. Regards.  Cs32en  13:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to completely rewrite the article. There is some discussion on the WT:JAPAN page about this, too, with some ideas for improvement to the article (in structure and content). Improvement is always welcome, even if it's tossing what's there and starting from scratch. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Wrath[edit]

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

Non-notable band with no sources apart from member created or submitted content, let alone reliable. XenocideTalk|Contributions 01:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I started this article for Jasper Wrath because it was one of the first bands for James Christian and Jeff Cannata. Christian later went on to be the frontman for the notable '80s band House of Lords. Cannata later went on to start the '80s band Arc Angel. I think it is important to showcase the history of musicians and their earlier bands. Jasper Wrath, in their own right, was a very popular band in Connecticut and the rest of New England throughout the '70s. They even released an album through MGM Records, a major record label. 2112guyTalk|Contributions 21:55, 6 May 2009 (EST)

  • Comment. Setting aside the issue of notability or importance, do reliable third-party references exist to write an article on this topic? Otherwise you run into problems with WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. I will withhold my opinion until this question is answered. Drawn Some (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are reliable third-party references. The article has been updated and references have been added. 2112guyTalk|Contributions 22:32, 6 May 2009 (EST)

Sorry, I am only seeing personal websites from people in the band. Drawn Some (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say it's barely a weak keeper. One album was released on MGM, but anything else is on labels that don't seem to have articles. I'm leaving it on the article's creator and assuming good faith that more can be found. I'd say revisit later if we can't get anything else. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 09:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Band with album on important label and who had two members go on to be major parts of two other notable bands. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We The People Party[edit]

We The People Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A local political party with no indications of notability. I found a few mentions in the local paper, e.g. here. This organization has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Fails WP:ORG. Atmoz (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Redding[edit]

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

Article's subject is not notable as a actress and only being notable for getting murdered fails WP:BLP1E. BJTalk 01:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivering Negative Messages Sensitively[edit]

Delivering Negative Messages Sensitively (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a well-intended how-to article. However, it runs afoul of WP:NOTHOWTO. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, definitely a how-to, un-encyclopedic and never will be anything but. Drawn Some (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Definitely unencyclopedic with no hope of improvement. Shadowjams (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We appreciate your interest, and wish you the best in your future endeavors, but ... delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough sources treating the specific topic in depth as a topic of its own, so it's not demonstrated that it's an encyclopedic topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, also seems to be taken entirely from one business textbook. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete G3. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Hanson, Jr.[edit]

James L. Hanson, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax article. I did a google search and I got no hits. Statements like "Jimmy is going to be a Nurse because he really likes to clean butthole." and "saved many American lifes in Iraq while killing thousands of Muslims (AKA Terrorists) and being the best Medic to ever step foot on earth." also point it to being a hoax. Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 00:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Denmark[edit]

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

fails WP:N 2 google news searches couldn't find significant coverage [96] [97] LibStar (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's the added content, not the references, that is important and makes the subject notable. Drawn Some (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If an article has references which address its topic, but little content, it is a WP:STUB; it can always be expanded on the basis of the references by anyone who can read. But if there don't exist any non-trivial references about the topic of an article, then by definition all of its content is WP:OR, WP:HOAX, WP:TRIVIA, etc. This is precisely what notability means. cab (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:ILIKEIT LibStar (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Then let's search for a reasoning it will be better for you: the article is cited; presents the history of the Greek community in Denmark in an interesting way; it has a certain historical background; it has sources. Well, it is stub; and what with that? Do we expel stubs for Wikipedia? I thus believe it is cited, well-referenced and it should stay.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing reasons for your vote. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two very good references. Gsearch for the exact phrase "greek community & denmrk is inadequate to get the material as they are many other ways of wording it.DGG (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems good enough to keep. Afkatk (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I've been to Denmark and even though I tried, I only found one Greek establishment, so I'm not sure how notable Greeks in Denmark could possibly be. However, the article is fairly well sourced and I found it pretty interesting. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article provides reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability for a cohesive community. Alansohn (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is notable, like most articles just needs expansion.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. One (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Beta[edit]

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

This is a repeatedly deleted article that was finally brought to a point where I felt it was borderline - I unsalted it per an RFPP request and thought that this venue was the best way to decide whether or not it passes muster. While there are now some possibly reliable sources, I am still not sure that this meets notability requirements - there are no RS articles that actually feature Gamma Beta; the articles merely mention that GB participated in this or that event. Tan | 39 16:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment would someone examine the pic in the article and see if those guys are making the hand sign for putting fingers in the vagina and rectum? I don't know what it's called but there was a scandal over a high school yearbook a few years ago. Gynecological cancer is an unusual charity for a college fraternity to support. If I am mistaken and this is not a hoax, I still don't see independent third-party references to create a verifiable article but I will withhold a final opinion until others weigh in. Also I find it hard to believe that not even college newspapers have documented a new fraternity on campus. Drawn Some (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's called the "shocker", see here. Tan | 39 17:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several Fraternities and Sororities, especially those with a specific cultural background, have a "hand sign" associated with their organization. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The hand is not making a obscene gesture it is just a hand sign that alot of ethnic fraternity and sororities have. The reason why they support Gynecological Cancer, is because yes it is a asian-interest fraternity and Cervical cancer affects asian women more than it does anyone else due to the lack of awareness. The fraternity is fairly young, i understand that there isn't much notability, but seeing how young the fraternity is and also how extremely big greek life is at their current campuses, it difficult for the university to recognize all events that the fraternity hosts. I'd like to have the chance to publish the article, instead of deleting, constructive criticism would help. This is all new to me and still a learning experience. (Hawee (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete The sources do not go in depth enough to establish notability - barely a passing mention, consult Talk:Gamma Beta. Additionally, the sources do not support what is being presented in the Wikipedia article. I would recommend the userspace for new articles that don't pass muster in terms of notability. Germinscout (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Okay, I got the hand signal thing and the cervical cancer thing. Apparently in some Asian cultures gynecological exams avoided more so than in other cultures, very poor Pap smear rate. But if there were a new fraternity chartered on campus, wouldn't the college or university newspaper have covered it, at least? Some of those colleges are not huge, it would be noteworthy. I am concerned about verifiability. I don't have an issue with notability at the national level for a new fraternity as long is it is the national level and not individual chapters.I will go with "keep" though. Drawn Some (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fraternities of tis limited reach ar not notable, and the lack of references shows it. DGG (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability isn't something easily achieved. You can't expect just because you charter an asian-interest fraternity to campus that you will be given notability for doing so. Especially since its a asian interest fraternity, people are less prone to think it's important that you charted a chapter. Look at all the other asian-interest fraternities and sororities, do they have articles/notability of them chartering? No they don't. It is not until the fraternity does something of significant importance does the news recognize it and seeing how young this fraternity is, you have to give it the opportunity to grow and develop. You cannot compare a 5 chapters fraternity that is 9 yrs old to 100 chapters fraternity that is 200 yrs old. These arguments for notability have no logical explanation, I can find other fraternity/sorority articles that have barely any notability if not none. [[[Special:Contributions/71.42.217.73|71.42.217.73]] (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete No in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources - at least I don't see it after reading the articles. Seems to be the main concern here. Turbo900 (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why these other articles aren't scrutinized as this one. (Hawee (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adva-cms[edit]

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

Notability not established with reliable third-party sources. KurtRaschke (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 19:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of significance or importance. Drawn Some (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. One (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-Haunting We Will Go (play)[edit]

A-Haunting We Will Go (play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Creator does not have an article, and the play has no reliable sources to establish notability. GlassCobra 12:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Apologies, I was unaware of Tim Kelly's article. However, I will yield to community consensus on whether this play has enough coverage for a separate article or not. GlassCobra 14:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Glass Cobra: This play deserves a Wikipedia article because, when I signed up to participate in this play two years ago, I wanted to learn more about it, but I couldn't because there was at that time no information about it online, except for perhaps the publisher's website. So, I created this article. If anyone cared to read through the script (to which I added a link in the article itself), they would find that my summary is accurate. Future participants in this play deserve to be able to go to Wikipedia and learn what they're getting into. The same goes for audience members. As for "Creator does not have an article"? What does that mean? Of course I do. I will address the issue of notability in due time. I can't get to it now because I am in the middle of finals week. In the meantime, please don't take any drastic action. I should add that I took pains to improve this article once again. Please tell me if they resolve the issues you have with this article. Ravenclaw7 (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is some third-party coverage in reliable sources,[98] but it seems this play is mainly popular for school plays, so production and reception info will likely be insignificant. Tim Kelly (playwright) already mentions that he wrote this play. The rest of the current article is merely a plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT - currently under discussion). This play is already covered at www.playdatabase.com at similar length, but wikipedia doesn't allow articles on films either just because they have an entry on IMDb. – sgeureka t•c 07:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable play by notable playwright. All sources seem to mention performances or mention it merely as a work of the playwright and are not focused on the play itself, i.e., no analysis or criticism of the play. Therefore sources do not exist to establish notability or to create an encyclopedia article about the play. Drawn Some (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added links with reviews. The play is performed and Wikipedia entry may be useful for the readers and theatre fans. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable playwright, meets notability. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to American_Doll_Posse#Track_listing. Redirect "without prejudice". Consider this a "no consensus" close combined with an editorial decision to redirect (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Rosey[edit]

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

Article makes no attempt to establish the notability of its subject. --Pisceandreams (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:05, 30 April 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 00:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewater rafting in Malaysia[edit]

Whitewater rafting in Malaysia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Basically an original essay. No reason why whitewater rafting in Malaysia is more notable than anywhere else. No indication of why the places listed are better than any of the other places in Malaysia. Shall we create an infinite number of (Hobby) in (country) articles? Deprodded by author without explanation after the author removed the speedy delete template (though speedy didn't really apply here). eaolson (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is an original post from me to introduce white water rafting in malaysia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveling2u (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Melnyk[edit]

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

Not notable. The subject is a former Episcopal priest, the author of one novel, and was the subject of a brief bit of news a few years ago when he resigned his orders. The subject himself seems to think he is not notable ([99]). Tb (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:ONEEVENT. There is no evidence that Melnyk is known for anything other than a brief flurry of news activity years ago, in connection with one single event. "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry....If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Tb (talk) 06:53, 30 April 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) 00:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view remains as it was. Tb (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources to overcome the strictures of WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Deor (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ONEEVENT and a barely notable event at that, the Episcopal Church is breaking into pieces expelling a priest for heresy or being a Druid or whatever is just a communion wafer crumb. Drawn Some (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete since there aren't enough sources for his other activities for my taste to carry this across ONEEVENT. Interesting story though. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well. It's not looking good for the article. But the coverage is substantial and it doesn't seem to fall under one event because there's also substantial coverage a year later in 2005 when he renounced druidism [101]. So it's TWOEVENT. As there is no WP:TWOEVENT page, I expect y'all will make one so you won't have to double up on ONEEVENT improperly in a way that does a disservice to the science that is basic mathematics and counting. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is whether there is any likelihood of this continuing to be of note. It sounds rather as if the purpose of the Wikipedia article is to try and keep the topic alive. That disturbs me. Tb (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm CoM...an event and a half? Tb, that kind of conspiracy talk doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article in question, I would point out that Melnyk did receive additional press mention recently--not by his own intention, but because of several later Episcopal cases analogous to his. I suppose he is keeping a low profile, and have no desire to disturb this. He perceives an effort by conservative Episcopalians to embarrass liberal leaders by drawing attention to stories like this. This strikes me as plausible, but still, I found out about him without looking for him. Dawud (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect - If the book were notable, then there should be an article about the book and William Melnyk could be redirected there with a section on the controversy. Symplectic Map (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Listed for 20 days with nobody but the nominator arguing for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As We Fight[edit]

As We Fight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability I can find (unless an EM entry counts?), fails WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 08:53, 23 April 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) 00:19, 30 April 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 00:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Album reviews here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Interviews with the band here, here. I agree with the Nom, EM isn't usually a good source since the bio material is supplied by the band and 99.9% of the album reviews are user voted. There are occasionally staff written ones, but they are few and far between.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Exponent Newsletter[edit]

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

Non-notable subject User234 (talk) 01:38, 23 April 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) 00:16, 30 April 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, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an annual newsletter that has gone to print precisely twice since inception. Further, it is produced by a sub-school of the college, and student-written. I don't see any claim to notability here. In researching it, I've discovered that a big chunk of the article on Holy Cross of Davao College itself is a copyvio of the college's website, too—off to deal with that. Maralia (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notability, not even close. DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Listed for 20 days with nobody besides the nominator arguing for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Justa Klan[edit]

Santa Justa Klan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although article tries to indicate notability, the only web references to this band or its albums are self-promotion sites such as YouTube and MySpace, or through file sharing sites. MightyWarrior (talk) 21:00, 23 April 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, 30 April 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, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Dream Police. Wizardman 23:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna Raise Hell[edit]

Gonna Raise Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:13, 23 April 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, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Been listed for 20 days, it's time to close this (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naoko Funayama[edit]

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

Delete unrefed 1 liner BLP about a local sportscaster; fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 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, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has grown well beyond the unsourced one-liner that was nominated for deletion. It now has multiple complete paragraphs and multiple complete sources. Fg2 (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Tiptoety talk 23:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Northumberland by occupation[edit]

List of people from Northumberland by occupation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list. Scope is too wide. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the list. The main list is Category:People from Northumberland (i.e. born or raised there) which is just a long list of names. I wanted to break that list down - which is why I started this. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Some of the persons have no recognition of their stay in Northumberland, and it has no verifiability by an sources. Renaissancee (talk) 12:52, 30 April 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, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no doubt if you apply the rigorous rule of verifying each entry you will find that the list becomes much shorter and manageable. Material in the encylopedia must be verifiable. I also notice that most of the occupations have one or just a few entries and are quite obscure, it's not really helpful. You might try to think in terms of categories. Doesn't seem that big anyway. Drawn Some (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also delete list of people from Texas which has an even wider scope. Qwarp (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be me misunderstanding what a list is meant to be. I had/have no intention of providing sources for any of the entries. What I wanted to do was make Category:People from Northumberland more helpful i.e. by grouping them by occupation. Note that the list includes all those in the sub categories of People from NBL. Or is there a better way of doing it? p.s. categories won't work - I started with 'Northumberland footballers' and that was immediately Afd'd Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think this can be written in order to make it just as informative as list of people from Texas, but the progress on it was halted. When you nominate something 12 minutes after its put up (8:30 and 8:42 on 30 April 2009), you're assuming that there is no prospect of an improvement. "Indiscriminate" is one of the more fixable problems in Wikipedia, and although this isn't quite indiscriminate, it still has room for more explanation of the significance of each of the persons. A nomination that quick should occur only if the topic itself appears to be inappropriate, not because of deficiencies in content. As a general rule, I usually construct an article in userspace before I post it, in order to avoid that problem. However, there is nothing wrong with posting an article and then improving it within a reasonable time. If there are no improvements made, nominate it again in a couple of months. Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changed to keep. The problem is the subdivisions on the page are too specific and it renders the list useless. Texas has a population about 75 times that of Northumberland and it has far fewer subdivisions, my suggestion is to look at the Texas list and other similar lists and use similar subdivisions so that each section has more than 1 or a few members. Drawn Some (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly reasonable list, and obviously neither indiscriminate nor too wide in scope, although I'm not sure it needs quite that many sections. Grouping by business, sport, education, etc. would make it a lot more readable.--Michig (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it has now been redone based on list of people from Texas. It would benefit from the the dates and perhaps a brief description like that list but I don't have time right now. Keresaspa (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that breaking people down by occupation is a perfectly meaningful way to organize a list, and I have done exactly that for several different places. I think that including "by occupation" raises a red flag to some, but this is certainly not "indiscriminate". Alansohn (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Atack[edit]

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

This was proposed for deletion on April 2nd with the following reason: "If she is 'best well known' for a bit part, that suggests she is not particularly notable. . .", contested by IP without reason given on the next day. I re-PRODed it by mistake. AfD nomination on the following grounds: No independent reliable sources to show this person passes WP:ENTERTAINER. MLauba (talk) 11:24, 30 April 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, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article states that she starred in two somethings that turn out to be disambiguation pages but they were just television episodes according to IMDB for a total of 7 television episodes. I'm sure she's very nice but she just doesn't meet notability requirements at this stage in her career. Best of luck to her. Drawn Some (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TAN Books & Publishers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
TAN Books & Publishers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

company with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This one meets the "I heard of them before seeing the Wikipedia article" test. While a niche publisher, they serve a constituency that has both historical and controversial interests. I expanded the article, adding a couple of references about particular books they have maintained in print. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 30 April 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, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toyetic[edit]

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

This article is quite the mishmash. First of all, the title is an adjective, which is strong evidence that the article is about a word rather than about a concept (which are almost always expressed as nouns). Second of all, much of the prose portion of this article is about the word itself, rather than the concept underlying it. Third, the discussion of the actual phenomenon of merchandising of licensed characters is covered by Merchandising#Licensing. Finally, the bottom portion of this article is nothing but an unsourced list of properties which one or more unknown editors considered to be "toyetic". In short, this is not a suitable encyclopedic article. Powers T 18:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN 9780275966416 takes three pages, pages 94 to 96, to describe toyetic production and toyetic products. ISBN 9780618463510 discusses toyetic television characters on pages 119–122. Sources exist, and at least some of the article content as it currently stands actually agrees with them. Fixing the article involves using these and other sources, the rename button (and some appropriate noun title), the edit button, and the merciless sword of verifiability.

    By the way: Here's a quote from the first source (written by Ernest Sternberg, professor at the University of Buffalo), that makes the argument against redirection: "The output of toyetic production need not be merchandise." Uncle G (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nice research, Uncle G, but I'm still not convinced an encyclopedic article could be written. I'm also curious what other "output[s] of toyetic production" there might be, if not merchandise... Powers T 15:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's actually explained in the rest of the paragraph following that sentence, which you'll find on page 95. Pull up the sources and have a read. Uncle G (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, seems an expansion of the concept of "toyeticness", or whatever, then. The author is treating is as more of a general "how can money be made off of this property" than just "how can we make toys of this". Powers T 12:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that what we need to do is find the "X" in "toyetic X" to rename this article to, as per the point about naming conventions that you made in the nomination. You've now read those sources (I infer.). What do you think that "X" should be? Uncle G (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge I'm not sure that we need a separate article for this but I am quite certain that this material is not suitable for deletion as this is a useful search term. The focus upon toys rather than general merchandise like T-shirts and mugs seems significant and merits further attention. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found one claim it was first used in a cartoon more than a decade ago. Looking around the 4,050 Google entries for the word, I see it commonly used. Its good to have an article about such an important concept in the entertainment industry. Listing cartoon series created to promote toys, is good content to have. Dream Focus 17:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only if it can be done by referring to reliable sources, though. Which the current list does not. Powers T 12:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was coined in 1989:[109]. There seem to be enough news stories and business books talking about the phenomenon and using the term to retain this article. Fences and windows (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to ... and recreate the content on wiktionary. Appropriate targets include perhaps merchandising and persona. This "article" is actually a definition page with a list of examples (adjective problem like LtPowers (talk · contribs) suggests). Even when looking for references the results are always about "the word". ZabMilenko 07:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How else would you find someone talking about the concept, other than searching for the name of that concept? And most of the article is examples of Toyetic. You could just as easily rename the article "Cartoons created to sell toys". Dream Focus 12:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw something about "toyetic production" in google or maybe is something can be found on the criteria for determining if a persona is toyetic. Take a look at WP:ADJECTIVE to deal with the problem of talking about a concept, but that leads back to WP:DICTIONARY in re this article. ZabMilenko 12:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g11 advertising, g12 copyvio, directly cut and pasted from Green Party website. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gildersleeve[edit]

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

Currently unelected politician, candidate in forthcoming election. Seems prominent in the local community, but no indication they meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. CultureDrone (talk) 13:15, 30 April 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, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 23:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loyer's paradox[edit]

Loyer's paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is simply a mathematical error, as I explained in detail on the article's talk page. It attributes the idea to Milton Loyer (hence the name). Milton Loyer has recanted after reading my explanation on the article's talk page. I waited a long time before listing this for deletion because the creator of the article, Gknauth, after acknowledging the error, said he would replace the content. At first he said he would do this within 24 hours, then in a later exchange of email suggested it would be done soon (less specific). Some time has gone by with no progress on this. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The "paradox" seems to be based on confusing a/b + c/d with (a+c)/(b+d). And it has no reliable source. r.e.b. (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom —3mta3 (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I initially proposed deleting this just over a month ago on the grounds that it was a non-notable neologism with 0 google hits. The latter is no longer literally true thanks mainly to wikipedia scraper sites, but the only non-wikipedia derived hit is a brief report of a talk given by Milton Loyer and clearly not enough to establish notability. (My thanks to Michael Hardy for explaining the mathematical error in detail, corresponding with the author and bringing this to AfD). Qwfp (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete following the conversation on the talk page it now seems that papers author now acknowledges there was a mathematical error so there is not really a paradox and hence no need to article. I came very close to closing it early per WP:SNOW but though it best to give Gknauth a chance to respond.--Salix (talk): 09:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, I'm not sure that "SNOW" is ever a reasonable thing. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On its own, I don't think "being wrong" would always be enough to delete (compare the article about flat-earth theory). But looking at it holistically I don't think we should have an article on this particular topic; delete it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable; and it's wrong, so changes chances are good it will never be notable. Ozob (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. You must have meant "chances" where you wrote "changes". I wondered what you were saying the first time I read it. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think it would be a good fallacy if it was written up properly somewhere else and then it might make it as notable enough for wiki. However currently it is just a mistake and wiki is not for original research. Dmcq (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even a paradox. Just a non-notable fallacy. Btyner (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've just notified Gknauth by email that if he's actually got some content that should replace what's currently in the article, he should move fast since this discussion will get closed in due course. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reviewing all the comments, and since Loyer himself admits that Michael Hardy is right, and I don't have anything to refute that, I go along with deletion. Part of me thinks that Hardy's refutation of Loyer's apparent paradox should still be recorded somewhere, so that people don't stumble over this again. Gknauth (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, it could be set as an exercise in a textbook. If there's an appropriate place in Wikibooks, there could be a link to it from some article(s) within Wikipedia. Broadly, the exercise would have two parts: (a) use the law of total probability to show that the conclusion must be wrong (that's the first thing I did after reading the article carefully enough to convince myself that it was really saying what it appeared to be saying); (b) locate the particular error in the reasoning that led to the wrong conclusion (that's the next thing I did after that). Possibly the two parts could be broken into smaller pieces. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest content of article and talk page is userfied to Gknauth's user namespace before/when the article is deleted, as it now can be since its creator agrees and the only other contributor is the nominator. Qwfp (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless there is a good chance this could someday become an article (and that chance looks very slim from the discussion here), the article should be deleted, not moved to user space. The creator is free to put the content on any other website, of course. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More